Minimal ovarian stimulation is an alternative to conventional protocols for older women according to Poseidon's stratification: a retrospective multicenter cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether minimal ovarian stimulation (mOS) is as effective as conventional ovarian stimulation (cOS) for older women belonging to different groups according to the Poseidon criteria. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Observational retrospective multicentre cohort including women from Poseidon's groups 2 and 4 that underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF). We performed a mixed-effects logistic regression model, adding as a random effect the patients and the stimulation cycle considering the dependence of data. Survival curves were employed as a measure of the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR). The primary outcomes were live birth rate per embryo transfer and CLBR per consecutive embryo transfer and oocyte consumed until a live birth was achieved. RESULTS: A total of 2002 patients underwent 3056 embryo transfers (mOS = 497 and cOS = 2559). The live birth rates per embryo transfer in mOS and cOS showed no significant difference in both Poseidon's groups. Likewise, the logistic regression showed similar live birth rates between the two protocols in Poseidon's groups 2 (OR 1.165, 95% CI 0.77-1.77; p = 0.710) and 4 (OR 1.264 95% CI 0.59-2.70; p = 0.387). However, the survival curves showed higher CLBR per oocyte in women that received mOS (Poseidon group 2: p < 0.001 and Poseidon group 4: p = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: Minimal ovarian stimulation is a good alternative to COS as a first-line treatment for patients belonging to Poseidon's groups 2 and 4. The number of oocytes needed to achieve a live birth seems inferior in mOS strategy than cOS.

Gonadotrophins versus clomiphene citrate with or without IUI in women with normogonadotropic anovulation and clomiphene failure: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

STUDY QUESTION: Are six cycles of ovulation induction with gonadotrophins more cost-effective than six cycles of ovulation induction with clomiphene citrate (CC) with or without IUI in normogonadotropic anovulatory women not pregnant after six ovulatory cycles with CC? SUMMARY ANSWER: Both gonadotrophins and IUI are more expensive when compared with CC and intercourse, and gonadotrophins are more effective than CC. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In women with normogonadotropic anovulation who ovulate but do not conceive after six cycles with CC, medication is usually switched to gonadotrophins, with or without IUI. The cost-effectiveness of these changes in policy is unknown. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an economic evaluation of ovulation induction with gonadotrophins compared with CC with or without IUI in a two-by-two factorial multicentre randomized controlled trial in normogonadotropic anovulatory women not pregnant after six ovulatory cycles with CC. Between December 2008 and December 2015 women were allocated to six cycles with gonadotrophins plus IUI, six cycles with gonadotrophins plus intercourse, six cycles with CC plus IUI or six cycles with CC plus intercourse. The primary outcome was conception leading to a live birth achieved within 8 months of randomization. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis on direct medical costs. We calculated the direct medical costs of ovulation induction with gonadotrophins versus CC and of IUI versus intercourse in six subsequent cycles. We included costs of medication, cycle monitoring, interventions, and pregnancy leading to live birth. Resource use was collected from the case report forms and unit costs were derived from various sources. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for gonadotrophins compared to CC and for IUI compared to intercourse. We used non-parametric bootstrap resampling to investigate the effect of uncertainty in our estimates. The analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We allocated 666 women in total to gonadotrophins and IUI (n = 166), gonadotrophins and intercourse (n = 165), CC and IUI (n = 163), or CC and intercourse (n = 172). Mean direct medical costs per woman receiving gonadotrophins or CC were €4495 versus €3006 (cost difference of €1475 (95% CI: €1457-€1493)). Live birth rates were 52% in women allocated to gonadotrophins and 41% in those allocated to CC (relative risk (RR) 1.24:95% CI: 1.05-1.46). The ICER was €15 258 (95% CI: €8721 to €63 654) per additional live birth with gonadotrophins. Mean direct medical costs per woman allocated to IUI or intercourse were €4497 versus €3005 (cost difference of €1510 (95% CI: €1492-€1529)). Live birth rates were 49% in women allocated to IUI and 43% in those allocated to intercourse (RR = 1.14:95% CI: 0.97-1.35). The ICER was €24 361 (95% CI: €-11 290 to €85 172) per additional live birth with IUI. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We allowed participating hospitals to use their local protocols for ovulation induction and IUI, which may have led to variation in costs, but which increases generalizability. Indirect costs generated by transportation or productivity loss were not included. We did not evaluate letrozole, which is potentially more effective than CC. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Gonadotrophins are more effective, but more expensive than CC, therefore, the use of gonadotrophins in women with normogonadotropic anovulation who have not conceived after six ovulatory CC cycles depends on society's willingness to pay for an additional child. In view of the uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness estimate of IUI, these data are not sufficient to make recommendations on the use of IUI in these women. In countries where ovulation induction regimens are reimbursed, policy makers and health care professionals may use our results in their guidelines. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This trial was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw number: 80-82310-97-12067). The Eudract number for this trial is 2008-006171-73. The Sponsor's Protocol Code Number is P08-40. CBLA reports unrestricted grant support from Merck and Ferring. BWM is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for Merck, ObsEva and Guerbet. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR1449.

Cost-effectiveness of ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophin and clomiphene citrate in an intrauterine insemination programme for subfertile couples.

Ovarian stimulation with low-dose human menopausal gonadotrophin (HMG) is superior to clomiphene citrate in intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles with respect to clinical pregnancy rate, but it is unclear whether HMG is also the more cost-effective option. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of ovarian stimulation with low-dose subcutaneously administred HMG (37.5-75 IU per day) to orally administred clomiphene citrate (50 mg/day from day 3-7) in an IUI programme for subfertile couples. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using the results of a randomized trial, including 620 IUI cycles. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of using HMG versus clomiphene citrate. Results are presented from the healthcare payer perspective. The total cost per patient associated with one IUI treatment with HMG is €764, whereas it is €558 if clomiphene citrate is used, resulting in an incremental cost of €206 for HMG per treatment. The incremental clinical pregnancy rate of using HMG instead of clomiphene citrate, however, is also 5.7 percentage points higher, resulting in an ICER of HMG versus clomiphene citrate of €3615 per additional clinical pregnancy achieved. On average, HMG was found to be more cost-effective than clomiphene citrate.

A case-control pilot study of low-intensity IVF in good-prognosis patients.

Low-intensity IVF (LI-IVF) is rapidly gaining in popularity. Yet studies comparing LI-IVF to standard IVF are lacking. This is a case-control pilot study, reporting on 14 first LI-IVF and 14 standard IVF cycles in women with normal age-specific ovarian reserve under age 38, matched for age, laboratory environment, staff and time of cycle. LI-IVF cycles underwent mild ovarian stimulation, utilizing clomiphene citrate, augmented by low-dose gonadotrophin stimulation. Control patients underwent routine ovarian stimulation. LI-IVF and regular IVF patients were similar in age, body mass index, FSH and anti-Müllerian hormone. Standard IVF utilized more gonadotrophins (P<0.001), yielded more oocytes (P<0.001) and cryopreserved more embryos (P<0.001). With similar embryo numbers transferred, after ethnicity adjustments, standard IVF demonstrated better odds for pregnancy (OR 7.07; P=0.046) and higher cumulative pregnancy rates (63.3% versus 21.4%; OR 6.6; P=0.02). Adjustments for age, ethnicity and diagnosis maintained significance but oocyte adjustment did not. Cost assessments failed to reveal differences between LI-IVF and standard IVF. In this small study, LI-IVF reduced pregnancy chances without demonstrating cost advantages, raising questions about its utility. In the absence of established clinical and/or economic foundations, LI-IVF should be considered an experimental procedure. Low-intensity IVF (LI-IVF) is increasingly propagated as an alternative to standard IVF. LI-IVF has, however, never been properly assessed in comparison to standard IVF. Such a comparison is presented in the format of a small pilot study, matching LI-IVF cycles with regular IVF cycles and comparing outcomes as well as costs. The study suggests that LI-IVF, at least in this setting, is clinically inferior and economically at best similar to standard IVF. LI-IVF should, therefore, as of this point not be offered as routine IVF treatment but only as an experimental procedure.

A prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing three different gonadotropin regimens in oocyte donors: ovarian response, in vitro fertilization outcome, and analysis of cost minimization.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of three different gonadotropin regimens in an oocyte donation program. The analysis of cost minimization also was evaluated. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled study. SETTING: Instituto Universitario-IVI, Valencia, Spain. PATIENT(S): One thousand twenty-eight donors undergoing a GnRH agonist protocol were assigned randomly to one of three groups: group 1 (n=346), only recombinant FSH (rFSH); group 2 (n=333), only highly purified menotropin (HP-hMG); and group 3 (n=349), rFSH plus HP-hMG. One thousand seventy-nine oocyte recipients. INTERVENTION(S): Controlled ovarian stimulation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Controlled ovarian stimulation parameters, IVF outcome, and cost analysis. RESULT(S): No differences were found among the groups with respect to days of stimulation, gonadotropin dose, final E2 and P levels, number of oocytes retrieved, and cancellation rate. Similarly, there were no differences among the groups in terms of embryo development parameters. Moreover, implantation, pregnancy, and miscarriage rates with the three regimens were similar. However, the cost of rFSH was greater than that of the other protocols. CONCLUSION(S): This study suggests that in the GnRH agonist protocol the three different gonadotropin regimens evaluated herein are equally effective. Protocols using HP-hMG would appear to be the best in terms of cost-effectiveness in an oocyte donation program.

In vitro fertilization (IVF) versus gonadotropins followed by IVF as treatment for primary infertility: a cost-based decision analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the economic consequences of proceeding directly to IVF to those of proceeding with gonadotropins followed by IVF in patients <35 years of age with unexplained infertility. DESIGN: A decision-tree model. The model incorporated the cost and success of each infertility regimen as well as the pregnancy-associated costs of singleton or multiple gestations and the risk and cost of cerebral palsy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Cost per live birth. RESULT(S): Both treatment arms resulted in a >80% chance of birth. The gonadotropin arm was over four times more likely to result in a high-order multiple pregnancy (HOMP). Despite this, when the base case estimates were utilized, immediate IVF emerged as more costly per live birth. In sensitivity analysis, immediate IVF became less costly per live birth when IVF was more likely to achieve birth (55.1%) or cheaper (11,432 dollars) than our base case assumptions. CONCLUSION(S): After considering the risk and cost of HOMP, immediate IVF is more costly per live birth than a trial of gonadotropins prior to IVF.

Economic evaluation of the administration of follitropin-beta with a pen device.

Previous studies suggest that administration of follitropin-beta with a pen device (Puregon Pen(R)) is more convenient, less painful and 16-18% more efficient. The aim of this study was to perform an economic evaluation of the administration of follitropin-beta by this pen device against follitropin-alpha by multidose and highly purified (HP) HMG by conventional syringe in IVF treatment by comparing the process utilities and the costs for the Dutch setting. Conjoint analysis assessed the process utilities for the three administration modes on a scale from 0 to 1. A decision analytic model estimated the costs of an average IVF cycle from a societal perspective. Patients estimated the process utility at 0.96 for the pen, 0.53 for the multidose and 0.36 for the conventional syringe. Additional costs were estimated at 0 Euros and 194 Euros, comparing the pen with multidose or conventional methods respectively. Assuming a 16% efficiency gain of the pen, costs ranged from Euros-135 (savings) to 60 Euros (extra costs). In conclusion, patients perceive sufficient benefits to the pen device to choose it over other dosing methods. Dominance of the pen device over the multidose method was shown. Compared with the conventional administration method, the added value of the pen device was 2.7 (0.96/0.36) times higher.

An economic evaluation of laparoscopic ovarian diathermy versus gonadotrophin therapy for women with clomiphene citrate-resistant polycystic ovarian syndrome.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Women with polycystic ovarian syndrome are typically anovulatory and require ovulation induction. Ovarian wedge resection was the first treatment for anovulation but was eventually abandoned because of the increased risk of postsurgical adhesions and as medical ovulation induction with clomiphene and gonadotrophins was introduced. However, with the advent of laparoscopy, there has been a return to surgical approaches. The potential advantages of laparoscopic surgery include avoidance of hyperstimulation and the lowered costs make ovarian surgery an attractive alternative to gonadotrophins. RECENT FINDINGS: Clinical trials in New Zealand and the Netherlands have compared costs of laparoscopic ovarian drilling with gonadotrophins. The total cost of treatment in the Netherlands study for the ovarian drilling group was euro 4664 and for the gonadotrophins group was euro 5418. Without the cost of monitoring and the diagnostic laparoscopy then the difference was euro 2110 in favour of ovarian drilling. It was estimated that the cost per term pregnancy would be euro 14,489 for gonadotrophin and euro 11,301 for ovarian drilling (22% lower). The higher rates of multiple pregnancy in the gonadotrophin group were considered to be responsible for the increased costs. In the New Zealand trial the costs of a live birth were one-third lower in the group that underwent laparoscopic ovarian diathermy compared with those women who received gonadotrophins (NZ$19,640 and 29,836, respectively). SUMMARY: Treating women with clomiphene-resistant polycystic ovarian syndrome with laparoscopic ovarian diathermy results in reduced direct and indirect costs. The reduction in multiple pregnancies makes the alternative of surgery particularly attractive.

Comparison of clinical outcome and costs with CC + gonadotropins and gnrha + gonadotropins during Ivf/ICSI cycles.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical outcome and costs of CC + gonadotropins with GnRHa + gonadotropins during IVF/ICSI cycles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical outcome and expenses of 382 CC + gonadotropin and 964 GnRHa + gonadotropin cycles were compared. Medication costs were calculated on the basis of the mean number of ampoules and the proportion of various gonadotropins. Costs per clinical pregnancy were calculated on the basis of expenses and clinical pregnancy rates. RESULTS: Women in the CC + gonadotropin group were younger, and had fewer follicles, oocytes, embryos, and embryos transferred. Clinical pregnancy rates were higher in the GnRHa group (35.9 % vs 26.2%, p < 0.001). More ampoules of gonadotropins were used in the GnRHa group (24.0 +/- 0.3 vs 20.0 +/- 0.5, p < 0.001). Medication costs per cycle were higher in the GnRHa group (US dollars 357 vs 248). Expenses per pregnancy however were lower in the GnRHa group (USdollars 4197 vs 5335 with IVF; USdollars 5590 vs 7244 with ICSI). When different age subgroups with similar baseline characteristics and stimulation parameters were compared, pregnancy rates were significantly higher in the GnRHa groups. Medication cost per cycle was higher in the GnRHa subgroups, and the expense per pregnancy was lower with GnRHa protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Cost per cycle is higher with GnRHa + gonadotropin. However, because of the better performance of the GnRHa + gonadotropin stimulation, the cumulative costs are reduced by the time a clinical pregnancy is achieved.

An economic evaluation of laparoscopic ovarian diathermy versus gonadotrophin therapy for women with clomiphene citrate resistant polycystic ovary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ovarian diathermy and gonadotrophin ovulation induction for women with clomiphene citrate resistant polycystic ovary syndrome have been shown to result in similar pregnancy rates, but their relative cost-effectiveness has not been evaluated. METHODS: A cost-minimization study was undertaken alongside a randomized controlled trial in women with anovulatory infertility secondary to clomiphene resistant polycystic ovary syndrome. Inclusion criteria were age less than 39 years, body mass index less than 35 kg/m(2), failure to ovulate with 150 mg of clomiphene citrate for 5 days in the early follicular phase, more than 12 months of infertility and no other causes of infertility. Laparoscopic ovarian diathermy was compared with three cycles of urinary or recombinant gonadotrophins. Direct and indirect costs were based on the results of a randomized trial. RESULTS: The cost of a live birth was one third lower in the group that underwent laparoscopic ovarian diathermy compared to those women who received gonadotrophins (19 640 New Zealand dollars and 29 836 New Zealand dollars, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This economic evaluation shows that treating women with clomiphene-resistant polycystic ovarian syndrome with laparoscopic ovarian diathermy results in a significant reduction in both direct and indirect costs.

Bye-bye urinary gonadotrophins? Recombinant FSH: a real progress in ovulation induction and IVF?

Whether recombinant gonadotrophin products do, indeed, represent progress for routine ovulation induction and IVF cycles, in comparison with urinary products, has remained controversial. Here we review published data with regard to respective risks, outcomes and cost for both medication options. Safety considerations favour recombinant products, while overall outcome and cost considerations favour urinary gonadotrophins. Outcome, however, appears to differ, based on age and ovarian function, with younger patients benefiting from the FSH/LH combination offered by urinary products, while older women and young women with ovarian resistance, apparently benefiting from pure FSH stimulation. Young women with poor ovarian reserve may be best stimulated with a pure FSH/antagonist protocol. We conclude that under current pricing structures in the United States, recombinant gonadotrophins do not represent a major progress for the treatments of ovulation induction and IVF. They, however, allow for an improved selectivity of stimulation protocols. The creation of recombinant FSH/LH products and cost adjustments for recombinant products, may affect these conclusions in favour of recombinant products.

Is there a risk of prion disease after the administration of urinary-derived gonadotrophins?

Concern has been raised recently about the possibility of prion proteins appearing in the urine of animals and, possibly, humans affected by prion disease [scrapie, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and Creutzfeldt Jakob disease (CJD)]. A debate has started in which the suggestion has been made that the purification of human urine for the provision of gonadotrophins should be discontinued. The alternative would be to use recombinantly-derived gonadotrophin preparations. The recombinant products, however, rely upon bovine serum during the cell culture process and could potentially also be exposed to abnormal prion proteins. It is reassuring that the different types of gonadotrophin preparations that are currently available are produced with either urine or bovine serum that is sourced from countries that at the present time appear to be free of BSE and new variant CJD. We can therefore be reassured that the gonadotrophins that we use therapeutically appear to be equally safe.

Ovulation induction with gonadotropins and intrauterine insemination compared with in vitro fertilization and no therapy: a prospective, nonrandomized, cohort study and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether one to four cycles of ovulation induction with hMG and IUI or one cycle of IVF results in the highest pregnancy rate and is least expensive and whether published pregnancy rates for one to four cycles of hMG and IUI results in a higher pregnancy rate than rates for one cycle of IVF, zygote intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT), or GIFT. DESIGN: Prospective, nonrandomized, cohort study. Patients were excluded who were infertile for < 18 months, had a significant male factor, had greater than mild endometriosis, or had bilateral nonpatency of the fallopian tubes. Cohort groups included 47 hMG and IUI patients (99 cycles), 19 IVF patients (19 cycles), and 21 patients (210 cycles) receiving no treatment. A meta-analysis on accumulated hMG and IUI data using similar entry criteria was also performed. Theoretical calculations were performed and stable fecundity assumed to compare with national data on IVF, ZIFT, and GIFT. SETTING: Fertility Center, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. RESULTS: A course of therapy with one to four cycles of hMG and IUI was just as effective as one cycle of IVF in achieving pregnancy. No significant difference in pregnancy rates was found between one IVF cycle and one to four cycles of hMG and IUI in our population. In vitro fertilization was more expensive than four cycles of hMG and IUI. Both IVF and hMG and IUI were more effective than no therapy. Published data also suggest that four cycles of hMG and IUI theoretically result in higher pregnancy rates than one cycle of IVF, ZIFT, or GIFT. CONCLUSION: Cost-benefit analysis comparing hMG and IUI, IVF, and no therapy in infertility patients may favor a course of four cycles of hMG and IUI as the first line of therapy. Using meta-analysis and theoretical assumptions, the pregnancy rate for one cycle of hMG and IUI is inferior to IVF, GIFT, or ZIFT; two cycles are comparable to IVF or ZIFT and inferior to GIFT; three cycles are superior to IVF or ZIFT and comparable to GIFT; and four cycles are theoretically superior to all techniques.