Clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of HP-human FSH (Fostimon®) versus rFSH (Gonal-F®) in IVF-ICSI cycles: A meta-analysis

Gynecological Endocrinology

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 520-529

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF PERUGIA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; Effectiveness; FSH; IVF; Meta analysis; Outcome

Indexed keywords

RECOMBINANT FOLLITROPIN; UROFOLLITROPIN;

ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG EFFICACY; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HUMAN; INTRACYTOPLASMIC SPERM INJECTION; LIVE BIRTH; META ANALYSIS; OOCYTE; PREGNANCY RATE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FOLLICLE STIMULATING HORMONE, HUMAN; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RECOMBINANT PROTEINS; SPERM INJECTIONS, INTRACYTOPLASMIC; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84877636369     PISSN: 09513590     EISSN: 14730766     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/09513590.2012.758703     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Out HJ. Recombinant follicle stimulating hormone: Gold standard or not? Reprod Biomed Online 2005;11:536-9
2. Al-Inany H, Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI. Ovulation induction in the new millennium: Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone versus human menopausal gonadotropin. Gynecol Endocrinol 2005;20:161-9
3. European and Israeli Study Group on Highly Purified Menotropin versus Recombinant Follicle-Stimulating Hormone (EISG). 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;78:520-8
4. Al-Inany H, Aboulghar M, Mansour R, Serour G. Meta-Analysis of recombinant versus urinary-derived FSH: An update. Hum Reprod 2003;18:305-13
5. Coomarasamy A, Afnan M, Cheema D, et al. Urinary hMG versus recombinant FSH for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation following an agonist long down-regulation protocol in IVF or ICSI treatment: A systematic review and meta-Analysis. Hum Reprod 2008;23:310-15
6. van Wely M, Kwan I, Burt AL, et al. Recombinant versus urinary gonadotrophin for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev 2011;CD005354
7. Wide L, Eriksson K, Sluss PM, Hall JE. Serum half-life of pituitary gonadotropins is decreased by sulfonation and increased by sialylation in women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2009;94:958-64
8. Andersen CY, Westergaard LG, van Wely M. FSH isoform composition of commercial gonadotrophin preparations: A neglected aspect? Reprod Biomed Online 2004;9:231-6
9. Andersen CY, Ezcurra D. What is the clinical relevance of folliclestimulating hormone isoforms in fertility treatment? Reprod Biol Insights 2011;4:1-10
10. Giudice E, Crisci C, Altarocca V, O'Brien M. Characterisation of a partially purified human menopausal gonadotropin preparation. J Clin Res 2001;4:27-34
11. Anserini P, Costa M, Remorgida V, Venturini PL. A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study of a new subcutaneous, purified, urinary FSH preparation for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in vitro fertilization. Gynecol Endocrinol 2000;14:75-80
12. Al-Inany HG, Abou-Setta AM. Are all human-derived folliclestimulating hormone products the same? A systematic review and meta-Analysis using direct and adjusted indirect analyses, to determine whether Fostimon is more efficient than Metrodin-HP-. Gynecol Endocrinol 2012;28:94-101
13. Haynes RB, Wilczynski N, McKibbon KA, et al. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound studies in MEDLINE. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1994;1:447-58
14. Abate A, Nazzaro A, Salerno A, et al. Efficacy of recombinant versus human derived follicle stimulating hormone on the oocyte and embryo quality in IVF-ICSI cycles: Randomised, controlled, multi-centre trial. Gynecol Endocrinol 2009;25:479-84
15. Aboulghar M, Saber W, Amin Y, et al. Prospective, randomized study comparing highly purified urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and recombinant FSH for in vitro fertilization/ intracytoplasmic sperm injection in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril 2010;94:2332-4
16. Antoine JM, De Mouzon J, Nicollet B, et al. Effectiveness and tolerability of hFSH compared to rFSH in ICSI: The European study. IBSA Satellite Symposium abstract, ESHRE, Lyon. 2007. Available from: Http://www.ibsa.ch/it/eshre-2007-lyon
17. Baker VL, Fujimoto VY, Kettel LM, et al. Clinical efficacy of highly purified urinary FSH versus recombinant FSH in volunteers undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: A randomized, multicenter, investigator-blind trial. Fertil Steril 2009;91:1005-11
18. Mohamed MA, Sbracia M, Pacchiarotti A, et al. Urinary folliclestimulating hormone (FSH) is more effective than recombinant FSH in older women in a controlled randomized study. Fertil Steril 2006;85:1398-403
19. Moustafa M, Abdelwahed A, Abosekena I, et al. IVF outcomes with either highly purified FSH vs recombinant FSH in down-regulated normogonadotrophic women: A prospective comparative study in a developing country and meta-Analysis. Open Women's Health J 2009;3:11-15
20. Murber A, Fancsovits P, Ledó N, et al. Impact of highly purified versus recombinant follicle stimulating hormone on oocyte quality and embryo development in intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Acta Biol Hung 2011;62:255-64
21. Selman HA, De Santo M, Sterzik K, et al. Effect of highly purified urinary follicle stimulating hormone on oocyte and embryo quality. Fertil Steril 2002;78:1061-7
22. Selman H, Pacchiarotti A, El-Danasouri I. Ovarian stimulation protocols based on follicle-stimulating hormone glycosylation pattern: Impact on oocyte quality and clinical outcome. Fertil Steril 2010;94:1782-6
23. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1-12
24. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-Analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7:177-88
25. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-Analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557-60
26. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994;50:1088-101
27. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in metaanalysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629-34
28. Egger M, Smith GD, Phillips AN. Meta-Analysis: Principles and procedures. BMJ 1997;315:1533-7
29. Tobias A. Assessing the influences of a single study in metaanalysis. Statal Tech Bull 1999;47:15-17
30. Gerli S, Casini ML, Unfer V, et al. Ovulation induction with urinary FSH or recombinant FSH in polycystic ovary syndrome patients: A prospective randomized analysis of cost-effectiveness. Reprod Biomed Online 2004;9:494-9
31. Gerli S, Bini V, Di Renzo GC. Cost-effectiveness of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) versus human FSH in intrauterine insemination cycles: A statistical model-derived analysis. Gynecol Endocrinol 2008;24:18-23
32. D'Antonio MD, Borrelli F, Datola A, et al. Biological characterization of recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone isoforms. Hum Reprod 1999;14:1160-7
33. Vitt UA, Kloosterboer HJ, Rose UM, et al. Isoforms of human recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone: Comparison of effects on murine follicle development in vitro. Biol Reprod 1998;59:854-61
34. West CR, Carlson NE, Lee JS, et al. Acidic mix of FSH isoforms are better facilitators of ovarian follicular maturation and E2 production than the less acidic. Endocrinology 2002;143:107-16
35. Dakin H, Wordsworth S. Cost-minimisation analysis versus costeffectiveness analysis, revisited. Health Econ 2013;22:22-34
36. Bouwmans CA, Lintsen BM, Eijkemans MJ, et al. A detailed cost analysis of in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment. Fertil Steril 2008;89:331-41
37. Hatoum HT, Keye Jr. WR, Marrs RP, et al. 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;83:804-7
38. Silverberg K, Daya S, Auray JP, 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 2002;77:107-13
39. Al-Inany HG, Abou-Setta AM, Aboulghar MA, et al. HMG versus rFSH for ovulation induction in developing countries: A costeffectiveness analysis based on the results of a recent meta-Analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2006;12:163-9
40. Daya S, Ledger W, Auray JP, et al. Cost-effectiveness modelling of recombinant FSH versus urinary FSH in assisted reproduction techniques in the UK. Hum Reprod 2001;16:2563-9
41. Mantovani LG, Belisari A, Szucs TD. Pharmaco-economic aspects of in-vitro fertilization in Italy. Hum Reprod 1999;14:953-8
42. Romeu A, Balasch J, Ruiz Balda JA, et al. 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
43. Gerli S, Bini V, Di Renzo GC. Pharmacoeconomy in ART: The importance of the gonadotrophin choice. Middle East Fertil Soc J 2010;15:64-7
44. Chambers GM, Sullivan EA, Ishihara O, et al. The economic impact of assisted reproductive technology: A review of selected developed countries. Fertil Steril 2009;91:2281-94
45. Collins J. An international survey of the health economics of IVF and ICSI. Hum Reprod 2002;8:265-7
46. Mladovsky P, Sorenson C. Public financing of IVF: A review of policy rationales. Health Care Anal 2010;18:113-28