The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A double-blind, non-inferiority RCT comparing corifollitropin alfa and recombinant FSH during the first seven days of ovarian stimulation using a GnRH antagonist protocol
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Corifollitropin alfa, a fusion protein lacking LH activity, has a longer elimination half-life and extended time to peak levels than recombinant FSH (rFSH). A single injection of corifollitropin alfa may replace seven daily gonadotrophin injections during the first week of ovarian stimulation. METHODS: In this large, double-blind, randomized, non-inferiority trial the ongoing pregnancy rates were assessed after one injection of 150 microg corifollitropin alfa during the first week of stimulation and compared with daily injections of 200 IU rFSH using a standard GnRH antagonist protocol. RESULTS: The study population comprised 1506 treated patients with mean age of 31.5 years and body weight of 68.6 kg. Ongoing pregnancy rates of 38.9% for the corifollitropin alfa group and 38.1% for rFSH were achieved, with an estimated non-significant difference of 0.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): -3.9; 5.7] in favor of corifollitropin alfa. Stratified analyses of pregnancy rates confirmed robustness of this primary outcome by showing similar results regardless of IVF or ICSI, or number of embryos transferred. A slightly higher follicular response with corifollitropin alfa resulted in a higher number of cumulus-oocyte-complexes compared with rFSH [estimated difference 1.2 (95% CI: 0.5; 1.9)], whereas median duration of stimulation was equal (9 days) and incidence of (moderate/severe) ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome was the same (4.1 and 2.7%, respectively P = 0.15). CONCLUSION: Corifollitropin alfa is a novel and effective treatment option for potential normal responder patients undergoing ovarian stimulation with GnRH antagonist co-treatment for IVF resulting in a high ongoing pregnancy rate, equal to that achieved with daily rFSH. The trial was registered under ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NTC00696800.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sub-optimal responders following controlled ovarian stimulation: an overlooked group?
Polyzos, N. P., & Sunkara, S. K. (2015) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/dev149 · Cited by 106
Nieschlag, E., Bouloux, P.-M. G., Stegmann, B. J., Shankar, R. R., Guan, Y., Tzontcheva, A., McCrary Sisk, C., & Behre, H. M. (2017) · Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology · doi:10.1186/s12958-017-0232-y · Cited by 45
Metadata
- Authors
- Devroey, P., Boostanfar, R., Koper, N. P., Mannaerts, B. M. J. L., IJzerman-Boon, P. C., Fauser, B. C. J. M., & on behalf of the ENGAGE Investigators
- Venue
- Human Reproduction
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-08-14
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 3063-3072
- ISSN
- 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2350
- OpenAlex
- W2130793514
- Cited by
- 217
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A double-blind, non-inferiority RCT comparing corifollitropin alfa and recombinant FSH during the first seven days of ovarian stimulation using a GnRH antagonist protocol. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/humrep/dep291
- The paper
- Devroey, P., Boostanfar, R., Koper, N. P., Mannaerts, B. M. J. L., IJzerman-Boon, P. C., Fauser, B. C. J. M., & on behalf of the ENGAGE Investigators. (2009). A double-blind, non-inferiority RCT comparing corifollitropin alfa and recombinant FSH during the first seven days of ovarian stimulation using a GnRH antagonist protocol. Human Reproduction. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dep291
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.