Fertility and Sterility
Volume 91, Issue 4 , Pages 1067-1076 , April 2009

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

  • Jaroslaw Wechowski, M.D., Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • Health Economics, Cardiff Research Consortium, Cardiff, United Kingdom
    • ,
  • Mark Connolly, M.Sc.

      Affiliations

    • Health Economics, Ferring International Center, St. Prex, Switzerland
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Mark Connolly, Director Market Access, Ferring International Center SA, Chemin de Vergognausaz 50, CH-1162, St. Prex, Switzerland (FAX: 41-0-58-301-0371).
    • ,
  • Dirk Schneider, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Health Economics, Ferring International Center, St. Prex, Switzerland
    • ,
  • Philip McEwan, Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • School of Mathematics, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom
    • ,
  • Richard Kennedy, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Centre for Reproductive Medicine, University Hospital, Coventry, United Kingdom

Received 8 October 2007 ,Revised 8 January 2008 ,Accepted 8 January 2008.

References 

  1. Cahill DJ, Wardle PG. Management of infertility. BMJ. 2002;325:28–32
  2. Gunnell DJ, Ewings P. Infertility prevalence, needs assessment and purchasing. J Pub Health. 1994;16:29–35
  3. Buckett W, Bentick B. The epidemiology of infertility in a rural population. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1997;70:233–237
  4. Brosens I, Gordts S, Valkenburg M, Puttemans P, Campo R, Gordts S. Investigation of the infertile couple: when is the appropriate time to explore female infertility?. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:1689–1692
  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, Ledger W. Implementation of the NICE guideline—Recommendations from the British Fertility Society for national criteria for NHS funding of assisted conception. Hum Fertil. 2006;9:181–189
  8. Andersen AN, Goossens V, Gianaroli N, Felberbaum R, de Mouzon J, Nygren KG. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2003. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:1513–1525
  9. Rajkhowa M, McConnell A, Thomas GE. Reasons for discontinuation of IVF treatment: a questionnaire study. Hum Reprod. 2005;21:358–363
  10. Collins J. An international survey of the health economics of IVF and ICSI. Hum Reprod Update. 2002;8:265–277
  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, 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. 2007;22:2471–2475
  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. 2002;78:520–528
  14. Platteau P, Smitz J, Albano C, Sørensen P, Arce J-C, Devroey P. Exogenous luteinizing hormone activity may influence the treatment outcome in in vitro fertilization but not in intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:1401–1404
  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 HG, Abou-Setta AM, Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI. Efficacy and safety of human menopausal gonadotrophins versus recombinant FSH: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;16:81–88
  17. Garceau L, Henderson J, Davis JL, Petrou S, Henderson LR, McVeigh E, et al. Economic implications of assisted reproductive techniques: a systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:3090–3109
  18. Mantovani LG, Belisari A, Szucs TD. Pharmaco-economic aspects of in-vitro fertilization in Italy. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:953–958
  19. Van Loon J, Liaropoulos L, 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. 2000;19:201–211
  20. Ola B, Papaionnou S, Afnan MA, Hammadieh N, 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. 2001;75:1106–1110
  21. 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
  22. Silverberg K, Daya S, Auray JP, 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. 2002;77:107–113
  23. 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;83:573–578
  24. Hatoum HT, Keye WR, 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. Wechowski J, Connolly M, McEwan P, Kennedy R. An economic evaluation of HP-hMG and rFSH based on a large randomised trial. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;15:500–506
  28. Daya S, Ledger W, Auray JP, 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. 2001;16:2563–2569
  29. Revelli A, Poso F, Gennarelli G, Moffa F, Grassi G, 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. 2006;4:38
  30. Andersen AN, Devroey P, Arce JC 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. 2006;21:3217–3227
  31. Johnson NP, Proctor M, Farquhar CM. Gaps in the evidence for fertility treatment—an analysis of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group database. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:947–954
  32. Buxton MJ, Drummond MF, Van Hout BA, Prince RL, Sheldon TA, Szucs T, et al. Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life. Health Econ. 1998;7:741–742
  33. Daya S. Pitfalls in the design and analysis of efficacy trials in subfertility. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:1005–1009
  34. British Medical Association, Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. British National Formulary 53. 2007. Available at: http://www.bnf.org/bnf.
  35. Ledger WL, Anumba D, Marlow N, Thomas CM, Wilson EC. The costs to the NHS of multiple births after IVF treatment in the UK. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;113:21–25
  36. Mandelblatt JS, Fryback DG, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, Gold MR, members of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health, and Medicine . Assessing the effectiveness of health interventions for cost-effectiveness analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12:551–558
  37. The Cochrane Collaboration. The Cochrane manual issue 3, 2007. http://www.cochrane.org/admin/manual.htm.
  38. Briggs AH, 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
  39. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996;
  40. Fenwick E, O'Brien BJ, Briggs A. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves—facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ. 2004;13:405–415
  41. van Wely M, Westergaard L, Bossuyt P, 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. 2003;80:1086–1093
  42. Cook RJ, Sackett DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ. 1995;310:452–454
  43. Riegelman R, Schroth WS. Adjusting the number needed to treat: incorporating adjustments for the utility and timing of benefits and harm. Med Decis Making. 1993;13:247–252
  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. 2001;75:1131–1135
  45. Balasch J, Barri PN. Reflections on the cost-effectiveness of recombinant FSH in assisted reproduction. The clinician's perspective. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2001;18:45–55
  46. Engmann L, Maconochie N, Bekir JS, Jacobs HS, Tan SL. 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. 1999;106:165–170
  47. Curtis L, Netten A. Unit costs of health and social care 2005. Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2005;

 This study was funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals, St. Prex, Switzerland.

 Dr. Jaroslaw Wechowski and Dr. Philip McEwan are academic consultants who provide health-consulting services to pharmaceutical and medical device companies and governments. Dr. Jaroslaw Wechowski is the owner of Pharmarchitecture Limited, a consultancy for pharmaceutical companies not involved in the current study. Dr. Richard Kennedy is clinical director of the University Hospital Centre for Reproductive Medicine in Coventry and has worked as a nonremunerated advisor to this project. Mark Connolly and Dirk Schneider are employees of Ferring Pharmaceuticals.

 The results of this study were presented in an abbreviated format at the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology meeting, which was held in Lyon, France, in July 2007.

PII: S0015-0282(08)00041-1

doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.01.034

Fertility and Sterility
Volume 91, Issue 4 , Pages 1067-1076 , April 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution