Pregnancy outcome and cost-effectiveness comparisons of artificial cycle-prepared frozen embryo transfer with or without GnRH agonist pretreatment for polycystic ovary syndrome: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the live birth rate and cost effectiveness of artificial cycle-prepared frozen embryo transfer (AC-FET) with or without GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) pretreatment for women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). DESIGN: Open-label, randomised, controlled trial. SETTING: Reproductive centre of a university-affiliated hospital. SAMPLE: A total of 343 women with PCOS, aged 24-40 years, scheduled for AC-FET and receiving no more than two blastocysts. METHODS: The pretreatment group (n = 172) received GnRH-a pretreatment and the control group (n = 171) did not. Analysis followed the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was live birth rate. Secondary outcome measures included clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, early pregnancy loss rate and direct treatment costs per FET cycle. RESULTS: Among the 343 women randomised, 330 (96.2%) underwent embryo transfer and 328 (95.6%) completed the protocols. Live birth rate according to ITT did not differ between the pretreatment and control groups [85/172 (49.4%) versus 92/171 (53.8%), absolute rate difference -4.4%, 95% CI -10.8% to 2.0% (P = 0.45). Implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate and early pregnancy loss rate also did not differ between groups, but median direct cost per FET cycle was significantly higher in the pretreatment group (7799.2 versus 4438.9 RMB, OR = 1.9, 95%CI 1.2-3.4, P < 0.001). Median direct cost per live birth was also significantly higher in the pretreatment group (15663.1 versus 8189.9 RMB, odds ratio [OR] = 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-3.8, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment with GnRH-a does not improve pregnancy outcomes for women with PCOS receiving AC-FET, but significantly increases patient cost. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: For women with PCOS, artificial cycle-prepared FET with GnRH agonist pretreatment provides no pregnancy outcome benefit but incurs higher cost.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Triptorelin, Goserelin, and Leuprolide in the Treatment of Patients With Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Societal Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: Metastatic prostate cancer is the most common malignant cancer and the second leading cause of death due to various types of cancer among men after lung cancer. This study aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of triptorelin, goserelin, and leuprolide in the treatment of the patients with metastatic prostate cancer from the societal perspective in Iran in 2020. METHODS: This is a cost-effectiveness study in which a 20-year Markov transition modeling was applied. In this study, local cost and quality-of-life data of each health state were gathered from cohort of patients. The TreeAge pro 2020 and Microsoft Excel 2016 software were used to simulate cost-effectiveness of each treatment in the long term. The one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed to measure robustness of the model outputs. RESULTS: The findings indicated that the mean costs and utility gained over a 20-year horizon for goserelin, triptorelin, and leuprolide treatments were $ 13 539.13 and 6.365 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), $ 18 124.75 and 6.658 QALY, and $ 26 006.92 and 6.856 QALY, respectively. Goserelin was considered as a superior treatment option, given the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the study outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of the present study, goserelin was the most effective and cost-effective strategy versus 2 other options. It could be recommended to policy makers of the Iran healthcare system to prioritize it in clinical guidelines and reimbursement policies.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of degarelix for advanced hormone-dependent prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of degarelix vs luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue (triptorelin) plus short-term antiandrogen treatment for advanced prostate cancer. METHODS: We developed a decision analytic model based on a clinical trial and literature review. The two interventions evaluated were: (i) monthly injection of degarelix and (ii) 3-monthly triptorelin therapy plus short-term flutamide, cyproterone or bicalutamide treatment. The model consisted of a decision tree monitoring a hypothetical cohort of patients aged 70 years from the start of hormonal treatment to the end of the first month, and a Markov model monitoring patients from the end of month 1 for a time horizon of 10 years (i.e. when 96% of patients are assumed to have died). The base-case analysis assumed patients present with asymptomatic metastatic prostate cancer. Costs and outcomes were collected over the model time horizon. Outcome measures were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Sensitivity analyses (one-way and multi-way) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the uncertainties around the assumptions. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for degarelix vs triptorelin plus antiandrogen was £59,000 per QALY gained. The model was most sensitive to the rate of significant adverse events in the triptorelin plus antiandrogen group. The model was also sensitive to the assumed survival of patients with metastatic prostate cancer and the price of degarelix. The results of the probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that there was a low probability (9.6%) of degarelix being the most cost-effective treatment option when a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained is assumed. CONCLUSION: Degarelix is unlikely to be cost-effective compared to triptorelin plus short-term antiandrogen in the management of advanced prostate cancer with respect to the usual thresholds of cost-effectiveness used in the UK: £20,000-30,000 per QALY gained (used by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence).

Cost-effectiveness analysis of LHRH agonists in the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer in Italy.

OBJECTIVES: Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists represent one of the main cost factors in the management of patients with metastatic prostate cancer. We compared the cost-effectiveness of the five different 3-month formulations of LHRH agonists currently available for advanced prostate cancer in Italy, because these differ both in their capacity to suppress testosterone and in their acquisition costs. METHODS: A probabilistic, patient-level simulation model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness, from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service (INHS), of leuprorelin 11.25 mg and 22.5 mg, triptorelin 11.25 mg, buserelin 9.9 mg, and goserelin 10.8 mg. The model incorporated testosterone-dependent progression-free and cancer-specific survival functions, LHRH agonist effectiveness data, and national costs and tariffs. Cox's proportional hazard models were used to compute total and progression-free survival functions based on clinical data from 129 patients with metastatic prostate cancer treated in an Italian center. Bayesian random effects models were employed to summarize evidence from published literature on testosterone suppression obtained with the available LHRH agonists. RESULTS: Estimated total survival was ≈5 years, with a maximum difference between treatment options of ≈2 months. There was a mean difference of almost €2,500 in lifetime total costs between the least costly option (leuprorelin 22.5 mg) and the most expensive (goserelin). In the incremental cost-effectiveness analysis, leuprorelin 22.5 mg dominated all alternatives except buserelin, which had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio versus leuprorelin 22.5 mg of ≈€12,000 per life-month gained. CONCLUSIONS: Based on modelling with meta-analysis of comparative survival data, leuprorelin 22.5 mg was the most cost-effective treatment of the available depot formulation LHRH agonists.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist treatment of girls with constitutional short stature and normal pubertal development.

GnRH agonists have been proposed to improve final height in patients with constitutional short stature. We treated 31 girls, aged 11.9 +/- 1 yr (mean +/- SD), with short stature, recent pubertal onset and predicted final height of 155 cm or less with depot triptorelin. During the 23 +/- 4 months of treatment, bone age progression was 0.6 +/- 0.3 bone age yr/yr, and growth velocity declined from 7 +/- 2 to 4 +/- 0.8 cm/yr (P < 0.0001). Height prognosis, calculated by the Bayley-Pinneau method, progressed from 149.6 +/- 3.4 to 151.8 +/- 4 cm at the end of treatment (+2.2 +/- 2.6 cm; P < 0.0001). When treatment was interrupted, growth velocity slightly increased to 4.6 +/- 1.6 cm/yr, and bone age maturation was accelerated: 1.3 +/- 0.4 bone age yr/yr during the first posttreatment year. At the last visit, 26 +/- 9 months after interruption of treatment, bone age was 14.9 +/- 1.3 yr (> or = 13.5 yr in all patients), height was 149.1 +/- 4 cm, and final height prognosis was 150.6 +/- 3.6 cm. Final height prognosis was 1 +/- 2.3 cm greater than pretreatment height prognosis (P < 0.02) and 1.2 +/- 2.2 cm below the height predicted at the end of the treatment (P < 0.01). No major side-effect was observed. Height SD score decreased during treatment with GnRH agonist from -2.3 +/- 0.9 to -2.7 +/- 0.7 SD score (P < 0.0001). We conclude that 2 yr of depot triptorelin-induced pubertal delay has a limited effect on near-final height in girls with constitutional short stature and that the growth benefit observed does not currently justify the use of GnRH agonists, given their cost and potential side-effects.

An open and randomized study comparing the efficacy of standard danazol and modified triptorelin regimens for postoperative disease management of moderate to severe endometriosis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of danazol and triptorelin (Decapeptyl CR, Ferring, Kiel, Germany) in the management of moderate and severe endometriosis in terms of symptom control and revised American Fertility Society (AFS) score reduction, and to evaluate the hormonal profile of patients treated with triptorelin every 6 weeks. DESIGN: Open and randomized trial. SETTING: Kwong Wah Hospital, a large public hospital in an urban location (Hong Kong). PATIENT(S): Forty patients after their first conservative operation for endometriosis, with surgical confirmation of revised AFS stage III or IV endometriosis. INTERVENTION(S): Postoperative 6 months' therapy of danazol or triptorelin every 6 weeks, postmedical therapy second-look laparoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Symptom control and patients' tolerance during medical therapy, posttherapy revised AFS score, hormonal profile during triptorelin therapy. RESULT(S): Pain control was similar between danazol and triptorelin therapy. There was less breakthrough bleeding with triptorelin. More patients failed to complete the whole course of danazol because of its side effects. The revised AFS score at second-look laparoscopy did not show a significant difference between the two medications. Adequate pituitary suppression was observed with injection of triptorelin every 6 weeks. CONCLUSION(S): Lengthening of triptorelin administration intervals from 4 weeks to 6 weeks is effective in maintaining a hypoestrogenic state. Patients were more compliant with triptorelin than danazol. Thus, triptorelin injection every 6 weeks is more cost-effective than conventional regimens.

Cost-effectiveness comparison between pituitary down-regulation with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist short regimen on alternate days and an antagonist protocol for assisted fertilization treatments.

OBJECTIVE: To compare cost-effectiveness between pituitary down-regulation with a GnRH agonist (GnRHa) short regimen on alternate days and GnRH antagonist (GnRHant) multidose protocol on in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) outcome. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized. SETTING: A private center. PATIENT(S): Patients were randomized into GnRHa (n = 48) and GnRHant (n = 48) groups. INTERVENTION(S): GnRHa stimulation protocol: administration of triptorelin on alternate days starting on the first day of the cycle, recombinant FSH (rFSH), and recombinant hCG (rhCG) microdose. GnRHant protocol: administration of a daily dose of rFSH, cetrorelix, and rhCG microdose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): ICSI outcomes and treatment costs. RESULT(S): A significantly lower number of patients underwent embryo transfer in the GnRHa group. Clinical pregnancy rate was significantly lower and miscarriage rate was significantly higher in the GnRHa group. It was observed a significant lower cost per cycle in the GnRHa group compared with the GnRHant group ($5,327.80 ± 387.30 vs. $5,900.40 ± 472.50). However, mean cost per pregnancy in the GnRHa was higher than in the GnRHant group ($19,671.80 ± 1,430.00 vs. $11,328.70 ± 907.20). CONCLUSION(S): Although the short controlled ovarian stimulation protocol with GnRHa on alternate days, rFSH, and rhCG microdose may lower the cost of an individual IVF cycle, it requires more cycles to achieve pregnancy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01468441.

The use of clomiphene citrate/human menopausal gonadotrophins in conjunction with GnRH antagonist in an IVF/ICSI program is not a cost effective protocol.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of a clomiphene citrate (CC)/human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG)/GnRH antagonist protocol versus a long-acting GnRH agonist/hMG protocol. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: One hundred eighty nine couples having their first trial of ICSI for male factor infertility were divided into two groups. Group I (no = 33) received CC 100-150 mg/day for five days starting from day 2 of the cycle and 150 IU of hMG/day on days 6-10. GnRH antagonist (Centrorelix) 0.25 mg/day was started when the leading follicle reached 16 mm in the absence of an LH surge. Group II (no = 156) received 0.1 mg Deacapeptyl/day as our standard long protocol. RESULTS: Clinical pregnancy was observed in 8 out of the 33 cases in group I (24%) while in group II, 92 out of 156 achieved clinical pregnancy (59%), the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.019). The cost of medications/cycle was estimated to be 1110+/-492 E.P in group I, while it was 1928+/-456 E.P. in group II. However, the total cost per pregnancy was 19653 EP in group I and 10047 EP in group II. CONCLUSION: The use of the clomid/hMG/antagonist protocol is not a cost effective strategy and should not be recommended in IVF-ICSI cycles.