The cumulative live birth rate and cost-effectiveness of the clomiphene and gonadotropin cotreatment protocol versus the mid-luteal GnRH agonist protocol in women over 35 years old.

The decrease in assisted reproductive technology success among older women, attributed to decreased oocyte quantity and quality, poses a significant challenge. Currently, no consensus on the optimal ovarian stimulation protocol for older women undergoing IVF exists. This retrospectively registered cohort study aimed to compare the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR), time to live birth (TTLB), and cost-effectiveness among women older than 35 years who were receiving either the gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) or clomiphene citrate and gonadotropin cotreatment with ovarian stimulation (CC cotreatment) protocol. To compare treatment outcomes, we performed propensity score matching (PSM) on 2871 IVF cycles in women older than 35 years who received either the GnRHa or CC cotreatment protocol, resulting in 375 cycles in each group. Additionally, a decision tree model was utilized to assess the cost-effectiveness of the two protocols. Following PSM, both groups had similar baseline characteristics. The CC cotreatment protocol resulted in a greater rate of cycle cancellation (13.07% vs. 8.00%, p = 0.032), but the groups maintained comparable fertilization rates and embryo quality. Although the TTLB was longer in the CC cotreatment group, the CLBR per initial cycle (41.07% vs. 45.33%, p = 0.269) and delivery outcomes were similar between the two groups at the 24 months follow-up. Additionally, the average cost per live birth in the CC cotreatment group was 21.27% lower than in the GnRHa group (¥32,301.42 vs. ¥39,174.22). In conclusion, for women older than 35 years undergoing IVF, the CC cotreatment protocol offered a comparable CLBR to the GnRHa protocol but with reduced costs, indicating its potential as a viable and cost-effective ovarian stimulation option.Clinical trial registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/ , identifier [ChiCTR2300076537].

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.

Cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies in women with PCOS who do not conceive after six cycles of clomiphene citrate.

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of treatments for women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) who ovulate on clomiphene citrate but do not conceive after six cycles. A decision-analytic framework was developed for six scenarios: (1) three cycles of IVF; (2) continuation of clomiphene citrate for six cycles, followed by three cycles of IVF in case of no birth; (3) six cycles of gonadotrophins and three cycles of IVF; (4) 12 cycles of gonadotrophins and three cycles of IVF; (5) continuation of clomiphene citrate for six cycles, six cycles of gonadotrophins and three cycles of IVF; (6) continuation of clomiphene citrate for six cycles, 12 cycles of gonadotrophins and three cycles of IVF. Two-year cumulative birth rates were 58%, 74%, 89%, 97%, 93% and 98% and costs per couple were € 9518, € 7530, € 9711, € 9764, € 7651 and € 7684 for scenarios 1-6, respectively. Scenario 2 was the lowest cost option. The extra cost for at least one live birth in scenario 5 was € 629 and in scenario 6 € 630. In these subjects, continuation of treatment for six cycles of clomiphene citrate, 6 or 12 cycles of gonadotrophins and IVF is potentially cost-effective. These results should be confirmed in a randomized clinical trial.

Sequential clomiphene citrate/hMG versus hMG for ovulation induction in clomiphene citrate-resistant women.

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to compare sequential clomiphene citrate/hMG regimen to hMG regimen for ovulation induction in clomiphene citrate-resistant women. STUDY DESIGN: A comparative prospective study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety infertile women were randomized to receive either sequential CC/hMG regimen (45 women) or low-dose step-up protocol of hMG (45 women). All participants had received at least six consecutive cycles of clomiphene citrate for ovulation induction within the last year before inclusion in this study, but they did not conceive. The CC/hMG regimen group received clomiphene citrate 100 mg/day for 5 days, followed by hMG 75 IU for 4 days. The hMG group received low-dose step-up protocol for 10-14 days. To detect the number and size of the follicles, TVS was done on cycle day 8 and repeated daily or every other day according to follicular development. When one to three follicles reached a diameter ≥18 mm, hCG injection was scheduled. Before hCG injection, the E2 level and endometrial thickness were evaluated. ß-hCG levels were measured on cycle day 22. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two studied groups regarding the demographic data, sperm parameters, and day 3 FSH, LH and estradiol. Also, there was no significant difference between the two studied groups regarding endometrial thickness, number of mature follicles, peak of E2 before hCG injection and number of cases that developed ovarian cyst or OHSS. The dose of gonadotropins used was significantly low in the CC/hMG group compared to the hMG group (295.2 ± 75.5 vs. 625.3 ± 65.0, respectively), and the pregnancy rate was significantly high in the CC/hMG group compared to the hMG group [12 (26.7 %) vs. 3 (6.7 %), respectively, p < 0.05]. CONCLUSION: The sequential CC/hMG regimen is as effective as hMG regimen for ovulation induction, produces satisfactory pregnancy results and reduces the treatment cost.

Modified repeated intracyclic clomiphene citrate therapy after conventional clomiphene therapy.

PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION: We compared modified repeated intracyclic clomiphene citrate therapy (RICCT) to gonadotropin therapy to determine whether this modified regimen was an effective alternative after conventional clomiphene therapy. METHODS: Patients with ovulation disorder received treatment with modified RICCT and gonadotropin, and ovulation, pregnancy, total drug cost, and adverse effects were compared. RESULTS: Among a total of 16 patients, 14 successfully ovulated after modified RICCT and 11 ovulated after gonadotropin therapy; two did not respond to either therapy. The total drug cost was US $36.3+/-17.9 for modified RICCT, which was significantly lower than the cost of gonadotropin therapy, US $213.9+/-100.4 (p=0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Because modified RICCT does not require the discomfort of daily injection and has excellent ovulation-inducing effects, it is a useful treatment after conventional clomiphene therapy.

Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic electrocautery of the ovaries versus ovulation induction with recombinant FSH in clomiphene citrate-resistant women with polycystic ovary syndrome: an economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic electrocautery of the ovaries and ovulation induction with gonadotrophins are both second line treatments for women with clomiphene citrate-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Long-term follow-up after electrocautery versus ovulation induction with gonadotrophins has demonstrated at least comparable chances for a first live born child with a reduced need for ovulation induction or assisted reproduction treatment and increased chances for a second live born child. In this study, we report on the long-term economic consequences of both treatment modalities. METHODS: Between February 1998 and October 2001, we performed a multi-centre randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing a strategy of laparoscopic electrocautery of the ovaries, followed by clomiphene citrate and gonadotrophins when anovulation persisted, and a strategy of ovulation induction with gonadotrophins in women with clomiphene citrate-resistant PCOS. Eight to twelve years after randomization we performed a follow-up study on reproductive outcome in these women and the fertility treatments they had needed including data on direct medical costs of pregnancy and delivery. Clinical data included number of treatment cycles, live births, miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies and multiple pregnancies. We calculated mean costs per woman after randomization until the first live birth. Confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by bootstrapping. RESULTS: We obtained data for an economic analysis on 159 of the 168 randomized women (95%). In total, 71 of 83 women (86%) allocated to the electrocautery strategy and 69 of 85 women (81%) allocated to the gonadotrophin strategy had at least one live birth. Given the equivalence between the two treatment strategies in terms of a first live birth-the primary outcome measure-our analysis focused on the cost difference between the two strategies within a mean follow-up time of 8-12 years. The mean costs per first live birth after randomization were €11 176 (95% CI: €9689-€12 549) for the electrocautery group and €14 423 (95% CI: €12 239-€16 606) for the recombinant FSH group, resulting in significantly lower costs (P < 0.05) per first live birth for women allocated to the electrocautery group (mean difference €3247; 95% CI: €650-€5814). CONCLUSION: In women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS, laparoscopic electrocautery of the ovaries results in significantly lower costs per live birth than ovulation induction with gonadotrophins for an at least equal effectiveness.

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.

Clomifene citrate and intrauterine insemination as first-line treatments for unexplained infertility: are they cost-effective?

BACKGROUND: First-line treatments for unexplained infertility traditionally include clomifene citrate (CC) or unstimulated intrauterine insemination (IUI). A recently published randomized controlled trial considered the effectiveness of CC and IUI in patients with unexplained infertility and found that neither treatment offered a superior live birth rate when compared with expectant management (EM). This paper reports the economic evaluation conducted alongside this trial in order to assess whether health care providers are gaining value for money in this clinical area. METHODS: Five hundred and eighty women across five Scottish hospitals were randomized to either EM, CC or IUI for 6 months. The primary outcome measure was live births. Resource-use data were collected during the trial and costs were calculated from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated, expressed as cost per live birth, in order to compare the cost-effectiveness of CC and IUI with that of EM to treat unexplained infertility. RESULTS: Live birth rates in the three randomized groups were: EM = 32/193 (17%), CC = 26/194 (13%) and IUI = 43/193 (22%). The mean (standard deviation) costs per treatment cycle were £0 for EM, £83 (£17) for CC and £98 (£31) for IUI. The mean treatment costs per patient for EM, CC and IUI were £12 (£117), £350 (£220) and £331 (£222), respectively. The cost per live birth for EM, CC and IUI was £72 (95% confidence interval £0-£206), £2611 (£1870-£4166) and £1487 (£1116-£2155), respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for IUI versus EM was £5604 (-£12204 to £2227), with CC dominated by IUI. CONCLUSIONS: Despite being more expensive, existing treatments such as empirical CC and unstimulated IUI do not offer superior live birth rates compared with EM of unexplained infertility. They are unlikely to be a cost-effective use of limited NHS resources. The study's main limitation is that it did not consider the psychological effects on couples. ISRCT Number: 71762042.

Efficacy of letrozole in ovulation induction compared to that of clomiphene citrate in patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of letrozole with clomiphene citrate for ovulation induction in patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). STUDY DESIGN: In this clinical trial, 107 infertile patients with PCOS received either 100 mg clomiphene citrate (n = 57) or 5 mg letrozole (n = 50) daily since day 3-7 of their menstrual cycle. Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) was administered at a dose of 10,000 IU when at least 1 mature follicle was detected. A single intrauterine insemination was performed 34 hours later. Then the size, number and growth rate of follicles, ovulation rate, endometrial thickness and pregnancy rate were measured in both groups. RESULTS: The number and the size of mature follicles were similar between the 2 groups. The pregnancy rate in letrozole group was higher than that in the clomiphene group (20% vs. 14%), but the difference was not significant (p = 0.286). In letrozole group, 86% of patients developed mature follicles, all showing ovulation, whereas 72% of patients in clomiphene citrate group developed mature follicles (p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Letrozole might be an acceptable alternative to clomiphene citrate to induce ovulation and pregnancy in PCOS patients.

Clomiphene citrate and testosterone gel replacement therapy for male hypogonadism: efficacy and treatment cost.

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy of oral clomiphene citrate (CC) in the treatment of male hypogonadism and male infertility (MI) with low serum testosterone and normal gonadotropin levels has been reported. AIM: The aim of this article is to evaluate CC and testosterone gel replacement therapy (TGRT) with regard to biochemical and clinical efficacy and cost. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were change in serum testosterone with CC and TGRT therapy, and change in the androgen deficiency in aging male (ADAM) questionnaire scores with CC therapy. METHODS: Men receiving CC or TGRT with either Androgel 1% or Testim 1% for hypogonadism (defined as testosterone < 300 ng/mL) or MI were included. Serum values were collected 1-2 months after treatment initiation and semi-annually thereafter. Retrospective data collection was performed via chart review. Subjective follow up of patients receiving CC was performed via telephone interview using the ADAM questionnaire. RESULTS: A hundred and four men (65 CC and 39 TGRT) were identified who began CC (50 mg every other day) or TGRT (5 g). Average age (years) was 42(CC) vs. 57 (TGRT). Average follow up was 23 months (CC, range 8-40 months) vs. 46 months (TGRT, range 6-149 months). Average posttreatment testosterone was 573 ng/dL in the CC group and 553 ng/dL in the TGRT group (P value < 0.001). The monthly cost of Testim 1% (5 gm daily) is $270, Androgel 1% (5 gm daily) is $265, and CC (50 mg every other day) is $83. Among CC patients, the average pretreatment ADAM score was 4.9 vs. 2.1 at follow up (P < 0.05). Average pretreatment ADAM sexual function domain score was 0.76 vs. 0.23 at follow up (P < 0.05). There were no adverse events reported. CONCLUSION: CC represents a treatment option for men with hypogonadism, demonstrating biochemical and clinical efficacy with few side effects and lower cost as compared with TGRT.

Discussion: 'Novel clomiphene protocol in polycystic ovarian syndrome' by Hurst et al.

In the roundtable that follows, clinicians discuss a study published in this issue of the Journal in light of its methodology, relevance to practice, and implications for future research. Article discussed: Hurst BS, Hickman JM, Matthews ML, Usadi RS, Marshburn PB. Novel clomiphene "stair-step" protocol reduces time to ovulation in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;200:510.e1-510.e4.

Clomifene citrate or unstimulated intrauterine insemination compared with expectant management for unexplained infertility: pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of clomifene citrate and unstimulated intrauterine insemination with expectant management for the treatment of unexplained infertility. DESIGN: Three arm parallel group, pragmatic randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Four teaching hospitals and a district general hospital in Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: Couples with infertility for over two years, confirmed ovulation, patent fallopian tubes, and motile sperm. INTERVENTION: Expectant management, oral clomifene citrate, and unstimulated intrauterine insemination. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was live birth. Secondary outcome measures included clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, and acceptability. RESULTS: 580 women were randomised to expectant management (n=193), oral clomifene citrate (n=194), or unstimulated intrauterine insemination (n=193) for six months. The three randomised groups were comparable in terms of age, body mass index, duration of infertility, sperm concentration, and motility. Live birth rates were 32/193 (17%), 26/192 (14%), and 43/191 (23%), respectively. Compared with expectant management, the odds ratio for a live birth was 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.45 to 1.38) after clomifene citrate and 1.46 (0.88 to 2.43) after unstimulated intrauterine insemination. More women randomised to clomifene citrate (159/170, 94%) and unstimulated intrauterine insemination (155/162, 96%) found the process of treatment acceptable than those randomised to expectant management (123/153, 80%) (P=0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: In couples with unexplained infertility existing treatments such as empirical clomifene and unstimulated intrauterine insemination are unlikely to offer superior live birth rates compared with expectant management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCT No: 71762042.

Oral ovulation induction agents combined with low-dose gonadotropin injections and intrauterine insemination: cost- and clinical effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of different induction protocols involving gonadotropins with intrauterine insemination (IUI). STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective chart review of 648 IUI cycles. Some patients had gonadotropin injections alone before human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) and IUI (human menopausal gonadotropin protocol); others were given oral medications, then gonadotropins before hCG and IUI (combination protocol). Outcomes included pregnancy rates, multiple birth rates, endometrial thickness, number of ovarian follicles, injection days, ampules of gonadotropins and cost. RESULTS: The combination protocol was more cost-effective. In first cycles, pregnancy rates, multiple birth rates, number of large follicles produced and cancellation rates were similar. The combination group had fewer days of injections and fewer ampules used. When all cycles were analyzed, the multiple birth rate was lower in the combination group. Comparing the different oral medications in the combination protocols, letrozole yielded higher pregnancy rates than tamoxifen or clomiphene. Multiple birth rates were similar for all oral medications. CONCLUSION: Combination protocols are less costly and equally effective, with potentially fewer multiple births than with gonadotropins alone. Letrozole may be more effective than clomiphene and tamoxifen in a combination protocol.

Use of alternative and hormonal therapies in male infertility.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the patterns of use of alternative and hormonal therapies in men presenting for infertility evaluation. METHODS: We administered a questionnaire on the use of alternative and hormonal therapies to 500 consecutive men presenting for infertility evaluation at our male infertility clinic. The questionnaire asked about the use of specific therapies (eg, vitamins, herbal medicine, or hormones), the monthly cost of these therapies, and whether the principal healthcare provider had been made aware of the use of therapies. RESULTS: Of the 481 men who completed the questionnaire, 147 (31%) admitted to using one or more alternative therapies. Most of the men using alternative therapies (92 of 147, 63%) were taking one or more antioxidant vitamins or minerals (ie, vitamins C, E, selenium, zinc), and 18 men admitted to using herbal medicines. Of concern, 25 men reported using agents with clear hormonal activity (testosterone, clomiphene citrate), and 6 of these men had not informed their principal healthcare provider of this. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that a significant percentage ( approximately 30%) of men presenting for infertility evaluation do use alternative therapies. It is important to inquire about the use of these therapies because some of these treatments may be toxic to the gonads.

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.

Minimal stimulation achieves pregnancy rates comparable to human menopausal gonadotropins in the treatment of infertility.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of a novel clomiphene citrate (CC) and hMG combination protocol ("minimal stimulation") for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Minimal stimulation consists of administering 100 mg/d CC for 5 days followed by a single dose of 150 IU hMG. The results of this analysis are compared with those of an hMG-alone protocol. In vitro fertilization-embryo transfer and donor insemination patients are excluded from this analysis. DESIGN: Retrospective review of minimal stimulation and hMG cycles from January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1992. SETTING: Tertiary care center reproductive endocrinology and infertility clinic. PATIENTS: Two hundred thirty-two women who underwent 549 treatment cycles. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical and multiple pregnancy rates (PRs) and medication costs. RESULTS: Sixty-one women received 106 cycles of minimal stimulation and 183 received 443 cycles of hMG. Although subject groups were not assigned randomly, multivariate analysis detected no significant differences between the treatment groups. The total ampules of hMG required differed significantly (2.0 for minimal stimulation versus 16.8 +/- 8.5 [mean +/- SD] for hMG). Pregnancy rates and multiple gestation rates were similar. Medication expense of minimal stimulation is 21% that of the hMG protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Minimal stimulation is as effective as hMG in the population examined. The comparable PRs and decreased medication costs of minimal stimulation justifies further evaluation of its role in the treatment of infertility.