A 2:1 formulation of follitropin alfa and lutropin alfa in routine clinical practice: a large, multicentre, observational study

Figures & data

Table I.  Baseline patient characteristics.

Variable	Number of patients analysed	Mean (SD)
Age, years	838	34.8 (4.5)
BMI, kg/m^2	848	23.1 (3.7)
Serum LH level, IU/l	743	5.5 (8.5)
Serum FSH level, IU/l	421	11.3 (13.0)
Serum oestradiol level, pg/ml	721	37.4 (36.0)
AFC (number of follicles <11 mm)	279	6.7 (3.7)

AFC, antral follicle count; BMI, body mass index; FSH, follicle-stimulating hormone; LH, luteinizing hormone; SD, standard deviation.

Table II.  Assisted reproductive technology cycle history.

Number of previous ART cycles	Patients n (%)
0	354 (41.3)
1	200 (23.3)
2	143 (16.7)
≥3	160 (18.7)

Total number of patients analysed = 857.

Figure 1.  Most common reasons cited by clinicians for prescribing the 2:1 formulation of follitropin alfa and lutropin alfa. (a) The number of patients who were prescribed the 2:1 formulation of follitropin alfa and lutropin alfa for one (or more) of the pre-specified reasons. (b) The number of patients who were prescribed the 2:1 formulation of follitropin alfa and lutropin alfa for ‘other’ reasons (the seven reasons most frequently cited by clinicians are shown). ART, assisted reproductive technology; LH, luteinizing hormone; PCOS, polycystic ovarian syndrome.

Table III.  Concomitant treatments received during assisted reproductive technology cycles.

Treatment	Number of cycles analysed	Cycles n (%)
Contraceptive pill (cycle programming)	885	283 (32.0)
GnRH antagonist	919	288 (31.3)
GnRH agonist	919	618 (67.2)
Long protocol	618	590 (95.5)
Intranasal administration	618	431 (69.7)

GnRH, gonadotrophin-releasing hormone.

Table IV.  Number of fresh embryos transferred following ovarian stimulation using the 2:1 formulation of follitropin alfa and lutropin alfa.

Outcome	Number of cycles analysed	Cycles n (%)
Number of embryos transferred:
1	741	129 (17.4)
2	741	466 (62.9)
3	741	146 (19.7)