Patients' preferences for gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogs in in vitro fertilization

Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation

Volumn 78, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 16-21

  Van Den Wijngaard, Lotte ^a   Van Wely, Madelon ^a   Dancet, Eline A F ^a   Van Mello, Nora M ^a   Koks, Carolien A M ^b   Van Der Veen, Fulco ^a   Mol, Ben W J ^c   Mochtar, Monique H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b MÁXIMA MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Discrete choice experiment; Gonadotrophin releasing hormone analogs; In vitro fertilization; Patient preference

Indexed keywords

GONADORELIN AGONIST; GONADORELIN ANTAGONIST; GONADORELIN;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISCRETE CHOICE EXPERIMENT; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FACTORIAL DESIGN; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HEADACHE; HOT FLUSH; HUMAN; INSOMNIA; INTRACYTOPLASMIC SPERM INJECTION; MEDICATION COMPLIANCE; NETHERLANDS; OVARY HYPERSTIMULATION; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PILOT STUDY; PREGNANCY RATE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK REDUCTION; TREATMENT DURATION; DRUG INDUCED HEADACHE; INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES; ADVERSE EFFECTS; ANALOGS AND DERIVATIVES; ANTAGONISTS AND INHIBITORS; CHEMICALLY INDUCED; OVARIAN HYPERSTIMULATION SYNDROME; PREGNANCY; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; GONADOTROPIN-RELEASING HORMONE; HUMANS; NETHERLANDS; OVARIAN HYPERSTIMULATION SYNDROME; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY RATE; QUESTIONNAIRES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84902301837     PISSN: 03787346     EISSN: 1423002X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000362274     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Domar AD, Smith K, Conboy L, Iannone M, Alper M: A prospective investigation into the reasons why insured United States patients drop out of in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertil Steril 2010; 94:1457-1459.
2. Olivius C, Friden B, Borg G, Bergh C: Why do couples discontinue in vitro fertilization treatment? A cohort study. Fertil Steril 2004; 81:258-261. (Pubitemid 38223895)
3. Verberg MF, Eijkemans MJ, Heijnen EM, Broekmans FJ, de Klerk C, Fauser BC, et al: Why do couples drop-out from IVF treatment? A prospective cohort study. Hum Re-prod 2008; 23:2050-2055.
4. Rombauts L, Talmor A: Corifollitropin alfa for female infertility. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2012; 12:107-112.
5. Hughes EG, Fedorkow DM, Daya S, Sagle MA, Van de Koppel P, Collins JA: The routine use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists prior to in vitro fertilization and gamete intrafallopian transfer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Fertil Steril 1992; 58:888-896.
6. Weissman A, Ravhon A, Steinfeld Z, Nahum H, Golan A, Levran D: Controlled ovarian stimulation using a long gonadotropin-re-leasing hormone antagonist protocol: a proof of concept and feasibility study. Gynecol Ob-stet Invest 2013; 76:113-118.
7. Al-Inany HG, Youssef MA, Aboulghar M, Broekmans F, Sterrenburg M, Smit J, et al: Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; 5: CD001750.
8. Ekerhovd E: Use of GnRH antagonist for in vitro fertilization (in Norwegian). Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2011; 131:1649-1652.
9. Borm G, Mannaerts B: Treatment with the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist ganirelix in women undergoing ovarian stimulation with recombinant follicle stimulating hormone is effective, safe and convenient: results of a controlled, randomized, multicentre trial. The European Orgalutran Study Group. Hum Reprod 2000; 15:1490-1498.
10. van Empel IW, Dancet EA, Koolman XH, Nelen WL, Stolk EA, Sermeus W, et al: Physicians underestimate the importance of pa-tient-centredness to patients: a discrete choice experiment in fertility care. Hum Reprod 2011; 26:584-593.
11. Ryan M, Farrar S: Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 2000; 320:1530-1533. (Pubitemid 30330316)
12. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teij-lingen ER, Russell EM, et al: Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess 2001; 5:1-186.
13. Ryan M, Bate A, Eastmond CJ, Ludbrook A: Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Qual Health Care 2001; 10(suppl 1):i55-i60.
14. Ryan M, Gerard K: Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003; 2:55-64.
15. Bosch E, Valencia I, Escudero E, Crespo J, Simon C, Remohi J, et al: Premature luteiniza-tion during gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cycles and its relationship with in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 2003; 80:1444-1449. (Pubitemid 37532460)
16. Ben-Rafael Z: Agonist or antagonist: what is preferable for in vitro fertilization? Gynecol Endocrinol 2012; 28(suppl 1):18-21.
17. Al-Inany HG, Youssef MA, Aboulghar M, Broekmans F, Sterrenburg M, Smit J, et al: GnRH antagonists are safer than agonists: an update of a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod Update 2011; 17:435.
18. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD: Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007.
19. Ryan M, Hughes J: Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ 1997; 6:261-273. (Pubitemid 27296590)
20. Musters AM, de Bekker-Grob EW, Mochtar MH, van der Veen F, van Mello NM: Women's perspectives regarding subcutaneous injections, costs and live birth rates in IVF. Hum Reprod 2011; 26:2425-2431.
21. Fiddelers AA, Nieman FH, Dumoulin JC, van Montfoort AP, Land JA, Evers JL, et al: During IVF treatment patient preference shifts from singletons towards twins but only a few patients show an actual reversal of preference. Hum Reprod 2011; 26:2092-2100.
22. Gyrd-Hansen D, Sogaard J: Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes. Health Econ 2001; 10:617-634. (Pubitemid 32998373)
23. Sculpher M, Bryan S, Fry P, de Winter P, Payne H, Emberton M: Patients' preferences for the management of non-metastatic prostate cancer: discrete choice experiment. BMJ 2004; 328:382.
24. Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Phillips KA, Marshall JK, Thabane L, Kulin NA: Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. Value Health 2007; 10:415-430. (Pubitemid 47481113)
25. Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Kulin NA, Oz-demir S, Walsh JM, Marshall JK, et al: How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated-choice survey. Health Econ 2009; 18:1420-1439.
26. de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K: Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ 2012; 21:145-172.
27. Sills ES, Collins GS, Salem SA, Jones CA, Peck AC, Salem RD: Balancing selected medication costs with total number of daily injections: a preference analysis of GnRH-agonist and antagonist protocols by IVF patients. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2012; 10:67.
28. Al-Inany HG, Abou-Setta AM, Aboulghar M: Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; 3:CD001750.