An economic evaluation of highly purified HMG and recombinant FSH based on a large randomized trial

Reproductive BioMedicine Online

Volumn 15, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 500-506

  Wechowski, Jaroslaw ^a   Connolly, Mark ^b   McEwan, Philip ^c   Kennedy, Richard ^d  

^a Cardiff Research Consortium   (United Kingdom)

^b Business Intelligence   (Switzerland)

^c CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS COVENTRY AND WARWICKSHIRE NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cost savings; Economic evaluation; Gonadotrophins; Human menopausal gonadotrophin; In vitro fertilization; Randomized controlled trial

Indexed keywords

BUSERELIN; CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN; HUMAN MENOPAUSAL GONADOTROPIN; LUTEINIZING HORMONE; PROGESTERONE; RECOMBINANT FOLLITROPIN; TRIPTORELIN;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CHILDBIRTH; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST CONTROL; COST MINIMIZATION ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EMBRYO TRANSFER; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MODEL; MULTICENTER STUDY; PREGNANCY; PROBABILITY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SIMULATION; SINGLE DRUG DOSE; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 36448958775     PISSN: 14726483     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60380-X     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Afnan M, Coomarasamy A, Van Wely M et al. 2007 Statistically significant increase in live births with hMG in IVF and ICSI cycles versus rFSH: results from a systematic review. Human Reproduction 22 (Suppl. 1), Abstract (O-098).
2. Al-Inany HG, Abou-Setta AM, Aboulghar MA et al. 2006 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 12, 163-169.
3. Andersen AN, Goossens V, Gianaroli N et al. 2007 Assisted reproduction technology in Europe, 2003. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Human Reproduction 22, 1513-1525.
4. Andersen AN, Gianaroli L, Felderbaum R et al. 2006a Assisted reproduction technology in Europe, 2002. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Human Reproduction 21, 1680-16
5. Andersen AN, Devroey P, Arce JC et al. 2006b Clinical outcome following stimulation with highly purified hMG or recombinant FS in patients undergoing IVF: a randomized assessor-blind controlled trial. Human Reproduction 21, 3217-3227.
6. Balasch J, Barri PN 2001 Reflections on the cost-effectiveness of recombinant FSH in assisted reproduction. The clinician's perspective. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 18, 45-55.
7. Briggs AH, Wonderling DE, Mooney CZ 1997 Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric, approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Economics 6, 327-340.
8. British National Formulary 2007 BNF 53. Royal Pharmaceutical Soc of Great Britain. Available at www.bnf.org/bnf [accessed 15 March 2007].
9. Buckett W, Bentick B 1997 The epidemiology of infertility in a rural population. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 70, 233-237.
10. Collins J 2002 An international survey of the health economics of IVF and ICSI. Human Reproduction Update 8, 265-277.
11. Curtis L, Netten A 2005 Unit Costs ofHealth and Social Care 2005. Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent at Canterbury, Canterbury.
12. Daya S 2003 Pitfalls in the design and analysis of efficacy trials in subfertility. Human Reproduction 18, 1005-1009.
13. Daya S, Gunby J 1999 Recombinant versus urinary follicle stimulation hormone for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. Human Reproduction 14, 2207-2215.
14. 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.
15. Devlin N, Parkin D 2004 Funding fertility: issues in the allocation and distribution of resources to assisted reproduction technologies. Human Fertility 6 (Suppl.) S2-S6.
16. Engmann L, Maconochie N, Bekir JS et al. 1999 Cumulative probability of clinical pregnancy and live birth after multiple cycle IVF package: a more realistic assessment of overall and age-specific success rates? British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 106, 165-170.
17. Gloucestershire NHS 2006 The Future of Healthcare in Gloucestershire; Proposals for Developing Sustainable NHS Services - A Public Consultation. Available online at www.healthingloucestershire.nhs.uk [accessed 5 September 2006].
18. Gunnell DJ, Ewings P 1994 Infertility prevalence, needs assessment and purchasing. Journal of Public Health 16, 29-35.
19. Hoorens S, Gallo F, Cave J, Grant, J 2007 Can assisted reproduction technologies help to offset population ageing? An assessment of the demographic and economic impact of ART in Denmark and UK: Case Report. Human Reproduction [epub ahead of print, 23 June].
20. Hull M, Glazener C, Kelly NJ et al. 1995 Population study of causes, treatment, and outcome of infertility. British Medical Journal 291, 1693-1697.
21. Jones HW, Cohen J 2004 Insurance Coverage. Fertility and Sterility 81 (Suppl. 4), 17-18.
22. Kennedy R, Kingsland C, Rutherford A et al. 2006 Implementation of the NICE guideline - recommendations from the British Fertility Society for national criteria for N14S funding of assisted conception. Human Fertility 9, 181-189.
23. 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.
24. Ledger WL, Anumba D, Marlow N et al. 2006 The costs to the NHS of multiple births after IVF treatment in the UK. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 113, 21-25.
25. Lloyd A, Kennedy R, Hutchinson J et al. 2003 Economic evaluation of highly purified menotropin compared with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in assisted reproduction. Fertility and Sterility 80, 1108-1113.
26. Mandelblatt JS, Fryback DG, Weinstein MC et al. 1997 Assessing the effectiveness of health interventions for cost-effectiveness Analysis. Journal of General Internal Medicine 12, 551-558.
27. Marci R, Senn A, Dessole S et al. 2001 A low-dose stimulation protocol using highly purified follicle-stimulating hormone can lead to high pregnancy rates in in-vitro fertilization patients with polycystic ovaries who are at risk of a high ovarian response to gonadotropins. Fertility and Sterility 75, 1131-1135.
28. Meldrum DR, Silverberg KM, Bustillo M, Stokes L 1999 Success Tate with repeated cycles of in-vitro ferfilization-embryo transfer. Fertility and Sterility 69, 1005-1009.
29. Nargund G, Waterstone J, Bland JM et al. 2001 Cumulative conception and live birth rates in natural (unstimulated) IVF cycles. Human Reproduction 16, 259-262.
30. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence 2004 Clinical Guideline 11. Fertility: assessment and treatment for people with fertility problems. Available online at www.nice.org.uk [accessed 15 March 2007].
31. Philips Z, Barraza-Llorens M, Posnett J 2000 Evaluation of the relative cost-effectiveness of treatments for infertility in the UK. Human Reproduction 15, 95-106.
32. Rajkhowa M, Mcconnell A, Thomas GE 2006 Reasons for discontinuation of IVF treatment: a questionnaire study. Human Reproduction 21, 358-363.
33. Shahin A 2007 The problem of fVF cost in developing countries: has natural cycle IVF a place? Reproductive BioMedicine Online 15, 51-56.