PopPK and exposure-response models were developed for osimertinib and AZ5104. There was no relationship between exposure and efficacy but a linear relationship between exposure and safety endpoints (rash, diarrhoea and QTcF) was observed.

No abstract

The best predictive model of ovarian response was in the non-OC group and included both AMH and basal FSH determined at the early follicular phase of the stimulation cycle. In the proceeding cycle, AMH alone had sufficient predictive value since it was not affected by inter-cycle variability or OC pretreatment.

No abstract

STUDY QUESTIONCan predictors of low and high ovarian responses be identified in patients undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in a GnRH antagonist protocol?SUMMARY ANSWERCommon prognostic factors for high and low ovarian responses were female age, antral follicle count (AFC) and basal serum FSH and LH.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADYPredictors of ovarian response have been identified in GnRH agonist protocols. With the introduction of GnRH antagonists to prevent premature LH rises during COS, and the gradual shift in use of long GnRH agonist to short GnRH antagonist protocols, there is a need for data on the predictability of ovarian response in GnRH antagonist cycles.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATIONA retrospective analysis of data from the Engage trial and validation with the Xpect trial. Prognostic models were constructed for high (>18 oocytes retrieved) and low (<6 oocytes retrieved) ovarian response. Model building was based on the recombinant FSH (rFSH) arm (n = 747) of the Engage trial. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed in a stepwise fashion (P < 0.15 for entry). Validation based on calibration was performed in patients with equivalent treatment (n = 199) in the Xpect trial.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODSInfertile women with an indication for COS prior to IVF. The Engage and Xpect trials included patients of similar ethnic origins from North America and Europe who had regular menstrual cycles. The main causes of infertility were male factor, tubal factor and endometriosis.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCEIn the Engage trial, 18.3% of patients had a high and 12.7% had a low ovarian response. Age, AFC, serum FSH and serum LH at stimulation Day 1 were prognostic for both high and low ovarian responses. Higher AFC and LH were associated with an increased chance of high ovarian response. Older age and higher FSH correlated with an increased chance of low ovarian response. Region (North America/Europe) and BMI were prognostic for high ovarian response, and serum estradiol at stimulation Day 1 was associated with low ovarian response. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for the model for a high ovarian response was 0.82. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.82 and 0.73; positive and negative predictive values were 0.40 and 0.95, respectively. The AUC for the model for a low ovarian response was 0.80. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.77 and 0.73, respectively; positive and negative predictive values were 0.29 and 0.96, respectively. In Xpect, 19.1% of patients were high ovarian responders and 16.1% were low ovarian responders. The slope of the calibration line was 0.81 and 1.35 for high and low ovarian responses, respectively, both not statistically different from 1.0. In summary, common prognostic factors for high and low ovarian responses were female age, AFC and basal serum FSH and LH. Simple multivariable models are presented that are able to predict both a too low or too high ovarian response in patients treated with a GnRH antagonist protocol a...