21 research outputs found

    Dosing Characteristics of Recombinant Human Luteinizing Hormone or Human Menopausal Gonadotrophin-Derived LH Activity in Patients Undergoing Ovarian Stimulation: A German Fertility Database Study

    Get PDF
    Objectives: The aim of the study was to evaluate dosing of recombinant human luteinizing hormone (r-hLH) or human menopausal gonadotrophin (hMG)-derived medications with LH activity in ovarian stimulation (OS) cycles for in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Design: A non-interventional study was performed to analyse data from the German RecDate database (January 2007-December 2011). Participants/Materials, Setting, Methods: Starting/total r-hLH/hMG dose, OS duration/cycle number, r-hLH/hMG initiation day (first day of administration), and population/cycle characteristics were assessed in women (& GE;18 years) undergoing OS for IVF/ICSI using r-hLH or hMG-derived medications (excluding corifollitropin alfa, clomiphene citrate, letrozole, mini/micro-dose human chorionic gonadotrophin, and urofollitropin alone). Data were summarized descriptively. Results: 67,858 identified cycles utilized medications containing r-hLH (10,749), hMG (56,432), or both (677). Mean (standard deviation) OS duration with r-hLH and hMG was 10.1 (4.43) and 9.8 (6.16) days, respectively. Median (25th-75th percentile) r-hLH starting dose (75.0 [75.0-150.0] IU) was consistent across patients regardless of age, infertility diagnosis, or gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) protocol. Median (25th-75th percentile) hMG-derived LH activity starting dose was 225.0 (150.0-300.0) IU, regardless of GnRH protocol, but was lower in women aged <35 years and those with ovulation disorders/polycystic ovary syndrome. Median (25th-75th percentile) total dose for r-hLH (750.0 [337.5-1,125.0] IU) and hMG-derived LH activity (1,575.0 [750.0-2,625.0] IU) varied according to patients' age, infertility diagnosis, cycle number, and r-hLH/hMG initiation day. GnRH antagonist use resulted in a numerically higher median total hMG-derived LH activity dose than GnRH agonist use. Limitations: The data used in this study were taken from electronic medical records relating to a specific timeframe (2007-2011) and therefore may not accurately reflect current clinical practice; however, it is likely that the differences between the two compounds would be maintained. Additionally, secondary data sources may suffer from uniformity and quality issues. Conclusions: The standard of care for OS cycles is described with respect to IVF/ICSI treatment including an LH component in Germany during the specified timeframe

    EPIDEMIOLOGIE DE LA MALADIE D'ALZHEIMER (ETUDE DU PROMOTEUR DU GENE DE L'APOLIPOPROTEINE E (APOE) ET INTERET DU GENOTYPAGE APOE DES PATIENTS DANS LA PRATIQUE DU CLINICIEN)

    No full text
    LE KREMLIN-B.- PARIS 11-BU MĂ©d (940432101) / SudocPARIS-BIUM (751062103) / SudocSudocFranceF

    Comparative effectiveness of recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone alfa (r-hFSH-alfa) versus highly purified urinary human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG HP) in assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatments: a non-interventional study in Germany

    No full text
    Abstract Background This study compared the effectiveness of recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone alfa (r-hFSH-alfa; GONAL-f®) with urinary highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG HP; Menogon HP®), during assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatments in Germany. Methods Data were collected from 71 German fertility centres between 01 January 2007 and 31 December 2012, for women undergoing a first stimulation cycle of ART treatment with r-hFSH-alfa or hMG HP. Primary outcomes were live birth, ongoing pregnancy and clinical pregnancy, based on cumulative data (fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfers), analysed per patient (pP), per complete cycle (pCC) and per first complete cycle (pFC). Secondary outcomes were pregnancy loss (analysed per clinical pregnancy), cancelled cycles (analysed pCC), total drug usage per oocyte retrieved and time-to-live birth (TTLB; per calendar week and per cycle). Results Twenty-eight thousand six hundred forty-one women initiated a first treatment cycle (r-hFSH-alfa: 17,725 [61.9%]; hMG HP: 10,916 [38.1%]). After adjustment for confounding variables, treatment with r-hFSH-alfa versus hMG HP was associated with a significantly higher probability of live birth (hazard ratio [HR]-pP [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 1.10 [1.04, 1.16]; HR-pCC [95% CI]: 1.13 [1.08, 1.19]; relative risk [RR]-pFC [95% CI]: 1.09 [1.05, 1.15], ongoing pregnancy (HR-pP [95% CI]: 1.10 [1.04, 1.16]; HR-pCC [95% CI]: 1.13 [1.08, 1.19]; RR-pFC [95% CI]: 1.10 [1.05, 1.15]) and clinical pregnancy (HR-pP [95% CI]: 1.10 [1.05, 1.14]; HR-pCC [95% CI]: 1.14 [1.10, 1.19]; RR-pFC [95% CI]: 1.10 [1.06, 1.14]). Women treated with r-hFSH-alfa versus hMG HP had no statistically significant difference in pregnancy loss (HR [95% CI]: 1.07 [0.98, 1.17], were less likely to have a cycle cancellation (HR [95% CI]: 0.91 [0.84, 0.99]) and had no statistically significant difference in TTLB when measured in weeks (HR [95% CI]: 1.02 [0.97, 1.07]; p = 0.548); however, r-hFSH-alfa was associated with a significantly shorter TTLB when measured in cycles versus hMG HP (HR [95% CI]: 1.07 [1.02, 1.13]; p = 0.003). There was an average of 47% less drug used per oocyte retrieved with r-hFSH-alfa versus hMG HP. Conclusions This large (> 28,000 women), real-world study demonstrated significantly higher rates of cumulative live birth, cumulative ongoing pregnancy and cumulative clinical pregnancy with r-hFSH-alfa versus hMG HP

    Results and validation of an index to measure health state of patients with depression in automated healthcare databases

    No full text
    International audienceBackground and objective: A Depressive Health State Index (DHSI) based on 29 parameters routinely collected in an automated healthcare database (AHDB) was developed to evaluate the health state of depressive patients, and its evolution. The study objective was to describe and validate this DHSI. Methods: A historical cohort of patients with at least one episode of depression was identified in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). The DHSI was calculated for each episode of depression. Validation was performed by comparing the DHSI between subgroups and using validated definitions of remission (proxy and PHQ-9). Robustness was studied by assessing the impact of modifying parameters of the DHSI. Results: 309,279 episodes of depression were identified in the CPRD between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2012. Remission was observed in 8% of the patients showing the lower DHSI scores and in 88% of the patients showing the higher DHSI scores. The DHSI was robust to a modification of the most frequent variables and to the removal of rare parameters. Conclusion: The DHSI is specific to depression severity (with remission rates in accordance with the expected variations of the DHSI) and robust. It represents a promising tool for the analysis of AHDBs

    Creating an index to measure health state of depressed patients in automated healthcare databases: the methodology

    No full text
    Background and objective: Automated healthcare databases (AHDB) are an important data source for real life drug and healthcare use. In the filed of depression, lack of detailed clinical data requires the use of binary proxies with important limitations. The study objective was to create a Depressive Health State Index (DHSI) as a continuous health state measure for depressed patients using available data in an AHDB. Methods: The study was based on historical cohort design using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Depressive episodes (depression diagnosis with an antidepressant prescription) were used to create the DHSI through 6 successive steps: (1) Defining study design; (2) Identifying constituent parameters; (3) Assigning relative weights to the parameters; (4) Ranking based on the presence of parameters; (5) Standardizing the rank of the DHSI; (6) Developing a regression model to derive the DHSI in any other sample. Results: The DHSI ranged from 0 (worst) to 100 (best health state) comprising 29 parameters. The proportion of depressive episodes with a remission proxy increased with DHSI quartiles. Conclusion: A continuous outcome for depressed patients treated by antidepressants was created in an AHDB using several different variables and allowed more granularity than currently used proxies

    Memantine in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia: negative results.

    No full text
    International audienceWe tested the efficacy and tolerability of one-year treatment with memantine (10 mg bid) in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD). BvFTD patients aged 45 to 75 years, with a Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) score ≥19, were enrolled in a national, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled (DBPC), Phase II trial. The primary endpoint was the CIBIC-Plus (Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change Plus Caregiver Input). The secondary endpoints included: Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), Frontal Behavioral Inventory (FBI), Mattis Dementia Rating Scale (MDRS), MMSE, Disability Assessment for Dementia (DAD), and the Zarit Burden Inventory (ZBI). Forty-nine patients were analyzed. At baseline, mean age was 65.6 years and mean MMSE was 25.0 (range: 19-30). On the CIBIC-Plus, 52 weeks after baseline, there were no significant differences between the memantine group (n = 23) and the placebo group (n = 26); p = 0.4458; however, 10 patients had worsened in the memantine group versus 17 in the placebo group. For the secondary endpoints there were no differences in the evolution of score between the memantine group and the placebo group (MMSE, p = 0.63); (MDRS, p = 0.95); (NPI, p = 0.25); (ZBI, p = 0.43); (DAD, p = 0.10) except for the FBI score, which was lower in the memantine group (p = 0.0417). Memantine was well-tolerated. This is the first DBPC trial in a large group of bvFTD patients involving neuroprotective treatment. A multinational study with a larger number of patients is now needed in order to verify the results of our study. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov; number NCT 00200538
    corecore