HMG versus rFSH for ovulation induction in developing countries: A cost-effectiveness analysis based on the results of a recent meta-analysis

Reproductive BioMedicine Online

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 163-169

  Al Inany, Hesham G ^a,b,c   Abou Setta, Ahmed M ^a   Aboulghar, Mohamed A ^a,b   Mansour, Ragaa T ^a   Serour, Gamal I ^a  

^a The Egyptian IVF Center   (Egypt)

^b CAIRO UNIVERSITY   (Egypt)

^c NONE   (Egypt)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; HMG; Infertility; Markov model; Meta analysis; Recombinant FSH

Indexed keywords

HUMAN MENOPAUSAL GONADOTROPIN; RECOMBINANT FOLLITROPIN;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; FEMALE INFERTILITY; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; INTRACYTOPLASMIC SPERM INJECTION; META ANALYSIS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; MULTIPLE PREGNANCY; OVULATION INDUCTION; PREGNANCY RATE; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SPONTANEOUS ABORTION;

EID: 33144463586     PISSN: 14726483     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60856-5     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Aboulghar MA 2005 The importance of fertility treatment in the developing world. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 112, 1174-1176.
2. Al-Inany H, Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI 2005 Ovulation induction in the new millennium: recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone versus human menopausal gonadotropin. Gynecological Endocrinology 20, 161-169.
3. Balasch J, Penarrubia J, Fabregues F et al. 2003 Ovarian responses to recombinant FSH or HMG in normogonadotrophic women following pituitary desensitization by a depot GnRH agonist for assisted reproduction. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 7, 35-42.
4. Barlow DH 2001 Cost-effectiveness modelling. Human Reproduction 16, 2479-2480.
5. Bassett RM, Driebergen R 2005 Continued improvements in the quality and consistency of follitropin alfa, recombinant human FSH. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 10, 169-177.
6. Daya S 2000 Cost-effective, evidence-based infertility care. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 12, 227-231.
7. Daya S, Ledger W, Auray JP et al. 2001 Cost-effectiveness modelling of recombinant FSH versus urinary FSH in assisted reproduction techniques in the UK. Human Reproduction 16, 2563-2569.
8. Dyer SJ 2002 The conflict between effective and affordable health care - a perspective from the developing world. Human Reproduction 17, 1680-1683.
9. European and Israeli Study Group on Highly Purified Menotropin versus Recombinant Follicle-Stimulating Hormone 2002 Efficacy and safety of highly purified menotropin versus recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles: a randomized, comparative trial. Fertility and Sterility 78, 520-528.
10. Gerli S, Casini ML, Unfer V et al. 2004 Ovulation induction with urinary FSH or recombinant FSH in polycystic ovary syndrome patients: a prospective randomized analysis of cost-effectiveness. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 9, 494-499.
11. Gol J, Austin C, Lisbona H et al. 1997 Factors influencing patients' decision not to repeat IVF. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 14, 381-384.
12. Gordon UD, Harrison RF, Fawzy M et al. 2001 A randomized prospective assessor-blind evaluation of luteinizing hormone dosage and in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertility and Sterility 75, 324-331.
13. Hatoum HT, Keye WR Jr, Marrs RP et al. 2005 A Markov model of the cost-effectiveness of human-derived follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) versus recombinant FSH using comparative clinical trial data. Fertility and Sterility 83, 804-807.
14. Inhorn MC 2003 Global infertility and the globalization of new reproductive technologies: illustrations from Egypt. Social Science and Medicine 56, 1837-1851.
15. Jansen CA, van Os HC, Out HJ, Coelingh Bennink HJ 1998 A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (Puregon) and human menopausal gonadotrophins (Humegon) in non-down-regulated in-vitro fertilization patients. Human Reproduction 13, 2995-2999.
16. Keck C, Bassett RM, Ludwig M 2005 Endocrinology in ovarian stimulation. Factors influencing response to ovarian stimulation. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 11, 562-569.
17. Kilani Z, Dakkak A, Ghunaim S et al. 2003 A prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing highly purified HMG with recombinant FSH in women undergoing ICSI: ovarian response and clinical outcomes. Human Reproduction 18, 1194-1199.
18. Lloyd A, Kennedy R, Hutchinson J, Sawyer W 2003 Economic evaluation of highly purified menotropin compared with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in assisted reproduction. Fertility and Sterility 80, 1108-1113.
19. Ng EH, Lau EY, Yeung WS, Ho PC 2001 HMG is as good as recombinant human FSH in terms of oocyte and embryo quality: a prospective randomized trial. Human Reproduction 16, 319-325.
20. Okonofua F 1996 The case against new reproductive technologies in developing countries. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 103, 957-996.
21. Out H 2005 Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone: gold standard or not? Reproductive BioMedicine Online 11, 2030.
22. Schroder AK, Katalinic A, Diedrich K, Ludwig M 2004 Cumulative pregnancy rates and drop-out rates in a German IVF programme: 4102 cycles in 2130 patients. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 8, 600-606.
23. Serour GI, El Ghar M, Mansour RT 1991 Infertility: a health problem in the Muslim world. Population Sciences 10, 41-58.
24. Silverberg K, Daya S, Auray JP et al. 2002 Analysis of the cost effectiveness of recombinant versus urinary follicle-stimulating hormone in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection programs in the United States. Fertility and Sterility 77, 107-113.
25. Strehler E, Abt M, El-Danasouri I et al. 2001 Impact of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and human menopausal gonadotropins on in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertility and Sterility 75, 332-336.
26. Sykes D, Out HJ, Palmer SJ, van Loon J 2001 The cost-effectiveness of IVF in the UK: a comparison of three gonadotrophin treatments. Human Reproduction 16, 2557-2562.
27. Wandwalo E, Robberstad B, Morkve O 2005 Cost and cost-effectiveness of community based and health facility based directly observed treatment of tuberculosis in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 3, 6.
28. Westergaard LG, Erb, Laursen SB et al. 2001 Human menopausal gonadotropin versus recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in normogonadotropic women down-regulated with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist who were undergoing in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a prospective randomized study. Fertility and Sterility 76, 543-549.