Cost-effectiveness of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) versus human FSH in intrauterine insemination cycles: A statistical model-derived analysis

Gynecological Endocrinology

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 18-23

  Gerli, Sandro ^a   Bini, Vittorio ^a   Renzo, Gian Carlo Di ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PERUGIA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; Human follicle stimulating hormone; Infertility; Intrauterine insemination; Modeling; Recombinant follicle stimulating hormone

Indexed keywords

RECOMBINANT FOLLITROPIN; UROFOLLITROPIN;

ARTICLE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTRAUTERINE INSEMINATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PREGNANCY RATE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPONTANEOUS ABORTION;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; DECISION TREES; FEMALE; FOLLICLE STIMULATING HORMONE, HUMAN; HUMANS; INSEMINATION, ARTIFICIAL; PREGNANCY; RECOMBINANT PROTEINS;

EID: 38549111102     PISSN: 09513590     EISSN: 14730766     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09513590701690241     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Guzick DS, Sullivan MW, Adamson GD, Cedars MI, Falk RJ, Peterson EP, Steinkampf MP. Efficacy of treatment for unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril 1998;70:207-213.
2. Out H. Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone: gold standard or not? Reprod Biomed Online 2005;11:536-539.
3. Al-Inany HG, Abou-Setta AM, Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI. HMG versus rFSH for ovulation induction in developing countries: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on the results of a recent meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2006;12:163-169.
4. Out HJ, Driessen SG, Mannaerts BM, Coelingh Bennink HJ. Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (follitropin β, Puregon) yields higher pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization than urinary gonadotropins. Fertil Steril 1997;68:138-142.
5. Daya S, Gunby J. Recombinant versus urinary follicle stimulating hormone for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2207-2215.
6. Romeu A, Balasch J, Ruiz Balda JA, Barri PN, Daya S, Auray JP, Duru G, Beresniak A, Peinado JA. Cost-effectiveness of recombinant versus urinary follicle-stimulating hormone in assisted reproduction techniques in the Spanish public health care system. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2003;20:294-300.
7. Mantovani LG, Belisari A, Szucs TD. Pharmaco-economic aspects of in-vitro fertilization in Italy. Hum Reprod 1999;14:953-958.
8. Daya S, Ledger W, Auray JP, Duru G, Silverberg K, Wikland M, Bouzayen R, Howles CM, Beresniak A. Cost-effectiveness modelling of recombinant FSH versus urinary FSH in assisted reproduction techniques in the UK. Hum Reprod 2001;16:2563-2569.
9. Silverberg K, Daya S, Auray JP, Duru G, Ledger W, Wikland M, Bouzayen R, O'Brien M, Falk B, Beresniak A. Analysis of the cost effectiveness of recombinant versus urinary follicle-stimulating hormone in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection programs in the United States. Fertil Steril 2002;77:107-113.
10. Al-Inany H, Aboulghar M, Mansour R, Serour G. Models of cost-effectiveness of recombinant FSH versus urinary FSH. Hum Reprod 2003;18:305-313.
11. Gerli S, Casini ML, Unfer V, Costabile L, Bini V, Di Renzo GC. Recombinant versus urinary follicle-stimulating hormone in intrauterine insemination cycles: a prospective, randomized analysis of cost effectiveness. Fertil Steril 2004;82:573-578.
12. Gerli S, Casini ML, Unfer V, Costabile L, Mignosa M, Di Renzo GC. Ovulation induction with urinary FSH or recombinant FSH in polycystic ovary syndrome patients: a prospective randomized analysis of cost-effectiveness. Reprod Biomed Online 2004;9:494-499.
13. Drummond MF, Sculper JM, Torrance JW, O'Brien B, Stoddart GL. Cost-benefit analysis. In: Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. pp. 211-245.
14. Gold MR, Russell LB, Siegel JE, editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996.
15. Briggs A, Wonderling DE, Mooney CZ. Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ 1997;6:327-340.
16. Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999;18:341-364.
17. Daya S, Gunby J, Hughes EG, Collins JA, Sagle MA. Follicle-stimulating hormone versus human menopausal gonadotrophin for in vitro fertilization cycles: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 1995;64:77-86.
18. Gordon UD, Harrison RF, Fawzy M, Hennelly B, Gordon AC. A randomized prospective assessor-blind evaluation of luteinizing hormone dosage and in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 2001;75:324-331.
19. Filicori M, Cognigni GE, Taraborrelli S, Spettoli D, Ciampaglia W, Tabarelli De Fatis C, Pocognoli P, Cantelli B, Boschi S. Luteinizing hormone activity in menotropins optimizes folliculogenesis and treatment in controlled ovarian stimulation. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2001;86:337-343.
20. Hoomans EHM, Andersen AN, Loft A, Leerentveld RA, van Kamp AA, Zech H. A prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing 150 IU recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (Puregon) and 225 IU highly purified urinary follicle stimulating hormone (Metrodin-HP) in a fixed dose regimen in women undergoing ovarian stimulation. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2442-2447.
21. Van Wely M, Bayram N, Van der Veen F. Recombinant FSH in alternative doses or versus urinary gonadotrophins for ovulation induction in subfertility associated with polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review based on a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod 2003;18:1143-1149.
22. Hatoum HT, Keye WR Jr, Marrs RP, Walton SM, Marshall DC. A Markov model of the cost-effectiveness of human-derived follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) versus recombinant FSH using comparative clinical trial data. Fertil Steril 2005;83:804-807.
23. Lloyd A, Kennedy R, Hutchinson J, Sawyer W. Economic evaluation of highly purified menotropin compared with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril 2003;80:1108-1113.
24. Sykes D, Out HJ, Palmer SJ, van Loon J. The cost-effectiveness of IVF in the UK: a comparison of three gonadotrophin treatments. Hum Reprod 2001;16:2557-2562.
25. The European and Israeli Study Group on Highly Purified Menotropin versus Recombinant Follicle-Stimulating Hormone. Efficacy and safety of highly purified menotropin versus recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles: a randomized, comparative trial. Fertil Steril 2002;78:520-528.
26. Yarali H, Bukulmez O, Gurgan T. Urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) versus recombinant FSH in clomiphene citrate-resistant, normogonadotropic, chronic anovulation: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril 1999;72:276-281.
27. Revelli A, Poso F, Gennarelli G, Moffa F, Grassi G, Massobrio M. Recombinant versus highly-purified, urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (r-FSH vs. HP-uFSH) in ovulation induction: a prospective, randomized study with cost-minimization analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2006;18:38.