Cost-saving treatment strategies in in vitro fertilization: a combined economic evaluation of two large randomized clinical trials comparing highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin and recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone alpha

Fertility and Sterility

Volumn 91, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 1067-1076

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

^a Cardiff Research Consortium   (United Kingdom)

^b Ferring Pharmaceuticals AS   (Denmark)

^c CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL COVENTRY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

cost effectiveness; Economic evaluation; gonadotropins; in vitro fertilization; menotropin; modeling; recombinant FSH

Indexed keywords

GONADOTROPIN; HUMAN MENOPAUSAL GONADOTROPIN; RECOMBINANT FOLLITROPIN;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HUMAN; INFERTILITY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COST SAVINGS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; GLYCOPROTEIN HORMONES, ALPHA SUBUNIT; HUMANS; MENOTROPINS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; RECOMBINANT PROTEINS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 62949098140     PISSN: 00150282     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.01.034     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Cahill D.J., and Wardle P.G. Management of infertility. BMJ 325 (2002) 28-32
2. Gunnell D.J., and Ewings P. Infertility prevalence, needs assessment and purchasing. J Pub Health 16 (1994) 29-35
3. Buckett W., and Bentick B. The epidemiology of infertility in a rural population. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 70 (1997) 233-237
4. Brosens I., Gordts S., Valkenburg M., Puttemans P., Campo R., and Gordts S. Investigation of the infertile couple: when is the appropriate time to explore female infertility?. Hum Reprod 19 (2004) 1689-1692
5. Gloucestershire NHS. The future of healthcare in Gloucestershire: proposals for developing sustainable NHS services-A public consultation. 2006. www.healthingloucestershire.nhs.uk.
6. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Clinical guideline 11. Fertility: assessment and treatment for people with fertility problems. www.nice.org.uk. 2004.
7. Kennedy R., Kingsland C., Rutherford A., Hamilton M., and Ledger W. Implementation of the NICE guideline-Recommendations from the British Fertility Society for national criteria for NHS funding of assisted conception. Hum Fertil 9 (2006) 181-189
8. Andersen A.N., Goossens V., Gianaroli N., Felberbaum R., de Mouzon J., and Nygren K.G. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2003. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 22 (2007) 1513-1525
9. Rajkhowa M., McConnell A., and Thomas G.E. Reasons for discontinuation of IVF treatment: a questionnaire study. Hum Reprod 21 (2005) 358-363
10. Collins J. An international survey of the health economics of IVF and ICSI. Hum Reprod Update 8 (2002) 265-277
11. Sobotka T, Hansen MA, Jensen TK, Pedersen AT, Lutz W, Skakkebaek NE. Will fertility of Danish women remain stable due to assisted reproduction? Assessing the role of assisted reproduction in sustaining cohort fertility rates. Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, March 2007.
12. Hoorens S., Gallo F., Cave J., and Grant J. Can assisted reproductive technologies help to offset population ageing? An assessment of the demographic and economic impact of ART in Denmark and UK: case report. Hum Reprod 22 (2007) 2471-2475
13. 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 78 (2002) 520-528
14. Platteau P., Smitz J., Albano C., Sørensen P., Arce J.-C., and Devroey P. Exogenous luteinizing hormone activity may influence the treatment outcome in in vitro fertilization but not in intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Fertil Steril 81 (2004) 1401-1404
15. Platteau P, Nyboe Andersen A, Loft A, Smitz JEJ, Danglas P, Devroey P. Highly purified hMG versus recombinant FSH for ovarian stimulation in IVF Cycles. Reprod Med Online 2008. Accepted for publication (http://www.rbmonline.com/4DCGI/Article/Detail?38%091%09=%203332%09).
16. Al-Inany H.G., Abou-Setta A.M., Aboulghar M.A., Mansour R.T., and Serour G.I. Efficacy and safety of human menopausal gonadotrophins versus recombinant FSH: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 16 (2008) 81-88
17. Garceau L., Henderson J., Davis J.L., Petrou S., Henderson L.R., McVeigh E., et al. Economic implications of assisted reproductive techniques: a systematic review. Hum Reprod 17 (2002) 3090-3109
18. Mantovani L.G., Belisari A., and Szucs T.D. Pharmaco-economic aspects of in-vitro fertilization in Italy. Hum Reprod 14 (1999) 953-958
19. Van Loon J., Liaropoulos L., and Mousiama T. Economic evaluation of a recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (Follitropin Beta, Puregon) in infertile women undergoing in vitro fertilisation in Greece. Clin Drug Invest 19 (2000) 201-211
20. Ola B., Papaionnou S., Afnan M.A., Hammadieh N., and Gimba S. Recombinant or urinary follicle-stimulating hormone? A cost-effectiveness analysis derived by particularizing the number needed to treat from a published meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 75 (2001) 1106-1110
21. Sykes D., Out H.J., Palmer S.J., and van Loon J. The cost-effectiveness of IVF in the UK: a comparison of three gonadotrophin treatments. Hum Reprod 16 (2001) 2557-2562
22. Silverberg K., Daya S., Auray J.P., Duru G., Ledger W., Wikland M., et al. 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 77 (2002) 107-113
23. Gerli S., Casini M.L., Unfer V., Costabile L., Bini V., and Di Renzo G.C. Recombinant versus urinary follicle-stimulating hormone in intrauterine insemination cycles: a prospective, randomized analysis of cost-effectiveness. Fertil Steril 83 (2004) 573-578
24. Hatoum H.T., Keye W.R., Marrs R.P., Walton S.M., and Marshall D.C. A Markov model of the cost-effectiveness of human-derived follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) versus recombinant FSH using comparative clinical trial data. Fertil Steril 83 (2005) 804-807
25. Al-Inany H.G., Abou-Setta A.M., Aboulghar M.A., Mansour R.T., and Serour G.I. 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 12 (2006) 163-169
26. Lloyd A., Kennedy R., Hutchinson J., and Sawyer W. Economic evaluation of highly purified menotropin compared with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril 80 (2003) 1108-1113
27. Wechowski J., Connolly M., McEwan P., and Kennedy R. An economic evaluation of HP-hMG and rFSH based on a large randomised trial. Reprod Biomed Online 15 (2007) 500-506
28. Daya S., Ledger W., Auray J.P., Duru G., Silverberg K., Wikland M., et al. Cost-effectiveness modeling of recombinant FSH versus urinary FSH in assisted reproduction techniques in the UK. Hum Reprod 16 (2001) 2563-2569
29. Revelli A., Poso F., Gennarelli G., Moffa F., Grassi G., and Massobrio M. Recombinant versus highly-purified, urinary follicle-stimulationg hormone (r-FSH vs. HP-uFSH) in ovulation indication: a prospective, randomized study with cost-minimization analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 4 (2006) 38
30. Andersen A.N., Devroey P., Arce J.C., and MERIT Group. Clinical outcome following stimulation with highly purified hMG or recombinant FSH in patients undergoing IVF: a randomized assessor-blind controlled trial. Hum Reprod 21 (2006) 3217-3227
31. Johnson N.P., Proctor M., and Farquhar C.M. Gaps in the evidence for fertility treatment-an analysis of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group database. Hum Reprod 18 (2003) 947-954
32. Buxton M.J., Drummond M.F., Van Hout B.A., Prince R.L., Sheldon T.A., Szucs T., et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ 7 (1998) 741-742
33. Daya S. Pitfalls in the design and analysis of efficacy trials in subfertility. Hum Reprod 18 (2003) 1005-1009
34. British Medical Association, Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. British National Formulary 53. 2007. Available at: http://www.bnf.org/bnf.
35. Ledger W.L., Anumba D., Marlow N., Thomas C.M., and Wilson E.C. The costs to the NHS of multiple births after IVF treatment in the UK. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 113 (2006) 21-25
36. Mandelblatt J.S., Fryback D.G., Weinstein M.C., Russell L.B., Gold M.R., members of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health, and and Medicine. Assessing the effectiveness of health interventions for cost-effectiveness analysis. J Gen Intern Med 12 (1997) 551-558
37. The Cochrane Collaboration. The Cochrane manual issue 3, 2007. http://www.cochrane.org/admin/manual.htm.
38. Briggs A.H., Wonderling D.E., and Mooney C.Z. Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ 6 (1997) 327-340
39. Gold M.R., Siegel J.E., and Russell L.B. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine (1996), Oxford University Press, New York
40. Fenwick E., O'Brien B.J., and Briggs A. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves-facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ 13 (2004) 405-415
41. van Wely M., Westergaard L., Bossuyt P., and van der Veen F. Effectiveness of human menopausal gonadotropin versus recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in assisted reproductive cycles: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 80 (2003) 1086-1093
42. Cook R.J., and Sackett D.L. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ 310 (1995) 452-454
43. Riegelman R., and Schroth W.S. Adjusting the number needed to treat: incorporating adjustments for the utility and timing of benefits and harm. Med Decis Making 13 (1993) 247-252
44. Marci R., Senn A., Dessole S., Chanson A., Loumaye E., De Grandi P., et al. 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. Fertil Steril 75 (2001) 1131-1135
45. Balasch J., and Barri P.N. Reflections on the cost-effectiveness of recombinant FSH in assisted reproduction. The clinician's perspective. J Assist Reprod Genet 18 (2001) 45-55
46. Engmann L., Maconochie N., Bekir J.S., Jacobs H.S., and Tan S.L. Cumulative probability of clinical pregnancy and live birth after multiple cycle IVF package: a more realistic assessment of overall and age-specific success rates?. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 106 (1999) 165-170
47. Curtis L., and Netten A. Unit costs of health and social care 2005 (2005), Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent