Follitropin alfa biosimilar(Cinnagen)

Closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) has been adopted into practices of diverse surgical specialties to help reduce postsurgical complication risks. There are two primary commercially available systems that deliver ciNPT through different mechanisms. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the potential effects of two different ciNPT systems on clinical outcomes following hip and knee arthroplasty. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify hip and knee arthroplasty studies comparing the incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs) and surgical site complications (SSCs) versus standard of care (SOC) following the use of two different ciNPT systems. Four meta-analyses were performed by calculating risk ratios (RR) to assess the effect of (1) ciNPT with foam dressing (ciNPT-F) versus SOC and (2) ciNPT with multilayer absorbent dressing (ciNPT-MLA) versus SOC. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 3.0 (Biostat Inc., Englewood, NJ) software was used to perform the analyses. Twelve studies comparing ciNPT-F to SOC and six studies comparing ciNPT-MLAto SOC were analyzed. SSI rates were reported in seven of 12 studies involving ciNPT-F. In those, ciNPT-F significantly reduced the incidence of SSI (RR = .401, 95% confidence interval (CI) = .190, .844; p = .016). Across four of six studies that reported SSI rates, there was no significant difference in SSI rates between ciNPT-MLAvs SOC (RR = .580, 95% CI = .222, 1.513; p = .265). SSC rates were evaluated in eight of 12 ciNPT-F studies that reported SSC rates. This meta-analysis of the eight ciNPT-F studies showed significantly reduced SSC rates with ciNPT-F vs SOC (RR = .332, 95% CI = .236, .467; p < 0.001). For ciNPT-MLA, five of six studies reported SSC rates. In those, there was no significant difference in SSC rates between ciNPT-MLA vs SOC (RR = .798, 95% CI = .458, 1.398; p = .425). These meta-analyses results showed a significant reduction in SSI and SSC rates in the ciNPT-F group vs SOC and no difference in SSI and SSC rates in the ciNPT-MLA group vs SOC. The reasons for these observed differences were not evaluated as part of this study. Future controlled clinical studies comparing outcomes between different ciNPT systems over closed orthopedic incisions would help to validate these study results.

An impact of different gonadotrophins selection for ovarian stimulation (OS) on oocyte competence has yet to be defined. In this study, we asked whether an association exists between OS protocol and euploid blastocyst rate (EBR) per metaphase-II (MII) oocytes.

Cycles of first preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies conducted by women ≥ 35 years old with their own metaphase-II oocytes inseminated in the absence of severe male factor (years 2014-2018) were clustered based on whether recombinant FSH (rec-FSH) or human menopausal gonadotrophin (HMG) was used for OS, then matched for the number of fresh inseminated eggs. Four groups were outlined: rec-FSH (N = 57), rec-FSH plus rec-LH (N = 55), rec-FSH plus HMG (N = 112), and HMG-only (N = 127). Intracytoplasmic sperm injection, continuous blastocyst culture, comprehensive chromosome testing to assess full-chromosome non-mosaic aneuploidies and vitrified-warmed euploid single embryo transfers (SETs) were performed. The primary outcome was the EBR per cohort of MII oocytes. The secondary outcome was the live birth rate (LBR) per first SETs.

Rec-FSH protocol was shorter and characterized by lower total gonadotrophin (Gn) dose. The linear regression model adjusted for maternal age showed no association between the Gn adopted for OS and EBR per cohort of MII oocytes. Similarly, no association was reported with the LBR per first SETs, even when adjusting for blastocyst quality and day of full blastulation.

In view of enhanced personalization in OS, clinicians shall focus on different endpoints or quantitative effects related to Gn action towards follicle recruitment, development, and atresia. Here, LH and/or hCG was administered exclusively to women with expected sub/poor response; therefore, we cannot exclude that specific Gn formulations may impact patient prognosis in other populations.