Replacing HMG/FSH by low-dose HCG to complete corifollitropin alfa stimulation reduces cost per clinical pregnancy: a randomized pragmatic trial.

RESEARCH QUESTION: The cost of IVF treatment remains high, among other factors because of the medication needed for ovarian stimulation. This study investigated the effect of using low-dose human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) for the second phase of follicular maturation after corifollitropin alfa induction, to replace the more expensive, either recombinant or human menopausal gonadotrophin (HMG), on the cost of ovarian stimulation. DESIGN: One hundred and five patients were randomly divided into two groups: patients in the HCG group (n = 50) received low-dose HCG from Day 7 until the diameter of at least three follicles reached 17 mm or more, while patients in the FSH group (n = 55) received conventional ovarian stimulation with highly purified HMG injections. RESULTS: The clinical pregnancy rate in the HCG group was 38% higher than in the FSH group (number needed to treat, NNT = 13). The cost per pregnancy needed for ovarian stimulation was reduced from €4902 in the FSH group to €2684 in the HCG group. Hence, the cost of ovarian stimulation medication to obtain 10 pregnancies using the conventional FSH protocol is sufficient to attain 18 pregnancies when applying the low-dose HCG protocol. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that using HCG instead of HMG/FSH for ovarian stimulation results in a significant reduction in the cost of IVF with, at least, an equivalent pregnancy rate.

Cumulative Live Birth Rate and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone-Antagonist Protocol and Multiple Minimal Ovarian Stimulation in Poor Responders.

Background: The overall cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) of poor ovarian responders (POR) is extremely low. Minimal ovarian stimulation (MOS) provides a relatively realistic solution for ovarian stimulation in POR. Our study aimed to investigate whether multiple MOS strategies resulted in higher CLBR compared to conventional gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists in POR. Methods: This retrospective study included 699 patients (1,058 cycles) from one center, who fulfilled the Bologna criteria between 2010 and 2018. Overall, 325 women (325 cycles) were treated with one-time conventional GnRH antagonist ovarian stimulation (GnRH-antagonist). Another 374 patients (733 cycles) were treated with multiple MOS including natural cycles. CLBR and time-and-cost-benefit analyses were compared between these two groups of women. Results: GnRH antagonists provided more retrieved oocytes, meiosis II oocytes, fertilized oocytes, and more viable embryos compared to both the first MOS (p < 0.001) and the cumulative corresponding numbers in multiple MOSs (p < 0.001). For the first in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle, GnRH antagonists resulted in higher CLBR than MOS [12.92 versus 4.54%, adjusted OR (odds ratio) 2.606; 95% CI (confidence interval) 1.386, 4.899, p = 0.003]. The one-time GnRH-antagonist induced comparable CLBR (12.92 versus 7.92%, adjusted OR 1.702; 95% CI 0.971, 2.982, p = 0.063), but a shorter time to live birth [9 (8, 10.75) months versus 11 (9, 14) months, p = 0.014] and similar financial expenditure compared to repeated MOS [20,838 (17,953, 23,422) ¥ versus 21,261.5 (15,892.5, 35,140.25) ¥, p = 0.13]. Conclusion: Both minimal ovarian stimulation (MOS) and GnRH-antagonists provide low chances of live birth in poor responders. The GnRH antagonist protocol is considered a suitable choice for PORs with comparable CLBR, shorter times to live birth, and similar financial expenditure compared to repeated MOS.

Gonadotrophins or clomiphene citrate in couples with unexplained infertility undergoing intrauterine insemination: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the cost-effectiveness of gonadotrophins compared with clomiphene citrate in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian stimulation under strict cancellation criteria? DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Between July 2013 and March 2016, 738 couples were randomized to gonadotrophins (369) or clomiphene citrate (369) in a multicentre RCT in the Netherlands. The direct medical costs of both strategies were compared. Direct medical costs included costs of medication, cycle monitoring, insemination and, if applicable, pregnancy monitoring. Non-parametric bootstrap resampling was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in estimates. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed according to intention-to-treat. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between gonadotrophins and clomiphene citrate for ongoing pregnancy and live birth was assessed. RESULTS: The mean costs per couple were €1534 for gonadotrophins and €1067 for clomiphene citrate (mean difference of €468; 95% confidence interval [CI] €464-472). As ongoing pregnancy rates were 31% in women allocated to gonadotrophins and 26% in women allocated to clomiphene citrate (relative risk 1.16, 95% CI 0.93-1.47), the ICER was €21,804 (95% CI €11,628-31,980) per additional ongoing pregnancy with gonadotrophins and €17,044 (95% CI €8998-25,090) per additional live birth with gonadotrophins. CONCLUSIONS: Gonadotrophins are more expensive compared with clomiphene citrate in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with adherence to strict cancellation criteria, without being significantly more effective.

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.

Defining thresholds for abnormal premature progesterone levels during ovarian stimulation for assisted reproduction technologies.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate methodologies to establish abnormal progesterone (P) levels on the day of trigger for recommending freeze only cycles. DESIGN: Threshold analysis and cost analysis. SETTING: Private ART practice. PATIENT(S): Fresh autologous ART. INTERVENTIONS(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Live birth. RESULT(S): Fourteen established statistical methodologies for generating clinical thresholds were evaluated. These methods were applied to 7,608 fresh ART transfer cycles to generate various P thresholds which ranged widely from 0.4 to 3.0 ng/mL. Lower thresholds ranged from 0.4 to 1 ng/mL and classified the majority of cycles as abnormal as well as required very large number needed to treat (NNT) to increase one live birth. Frozen embryo transfer was cost-effective when P was ≥1.5 ng/mL, with 12% of the population having an abnormal test result and an NNT of 13. Statistical and cost-effective thresholds clustered between 1.5 and 2.0 ng/mL. CONCLUSION(S): Statistically significant thresholds for P were demonstrated as low as 0.4 ng/mL but resulted in a very large NNT to increase one live birth. A clinical benefit to a freeze-only approach was demonstrated above P thresholds ranging from 1.5 to 2.0 ng/dL. At these thresholds, elevated P has a demonstrable and clinically significant negative effect and captures a smaller percentage of the patient population at higher risk for fresh transfer failure, thus making freeze-only a cost-effective option.

Effect of simultaneously started clomiphene citrate and gonadotropins in antagonist regimes, on cumulative live births, fresh-cycle live births and cost of stimulation in IVF cycles.

AIM: The aim of the study was to compare simultaneously started clomiphene citrate (CC) and gonadotropins (Gn) with gonadotropins alone in conventional antagonist regimes with respect to fresh-cycle live births, cumulative live births and cost of ovarian stimulation per started cycle. METHODS: This was a single-center prospective cohort study conducted over 1 year. Women undergoing autologous in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment in antagonist protocols and who consented to participate in the study were divided into two cohorts. The CC cohort (n = 86) received 50 mg CC for 5 days and individualized Gn daily until the hCG trigger, both starting from day 2 and antagonist daily from day 8 of menstrual cycle. The Gn-only cohort (n = 349) received individualized Gn from day 2 and the antagonist from day 7 of menstrual cycle. IVF outcomes and cost of stimulation were compared between two cohorts across expected ovarian response categories. RESULTS: The CC cohort used a mean lower dose of Gn (1741.38 ± 604.46 vs 1980.54 ± 686.42; MD = -239.16; 95%CI = -348.03 to -189.24; P = 0.003) over fewer days (8.54 ± 1.86 vs 9.25 ± 1.97; MD =-0.71;95% CI = -1.17 to -0.25; P = 0.0026) to achieve similar retrieved oocytes, (9.19 ± 5.92 vs 9.36 ± 6.96; MD = -0.17; 95%CI -1.77 to + 1.43; P = 0.83), positive bhCG rates (40% vs 29.6%, MD = 10.4%; OR = 1.65, 95%CI = 0.95-2.86; P = 0.078) and live births in fresh cycles (32.31% vs 21.30%; MD = 11.01%; OR = 1.76; 95%CI = 0.97-3.19; P = 0.06) and cumulative live births per initiated cycle (30.23% vs 20.34%; MD = 9.89%; OR = 1.697; 95%CI = 0.99-2.88; P = 0.0501). The dose lowering achieved a 28-40% reduction in the cost of stimulation, which was most noticeable in the hyper-responder category for both hMG cycles, (Rs.11 602.3 ± 3365.9 vs 19615 ± 2677.1; MD = -8012.7; %age reduction: 40.8%; P = 0.0007) and recombinant FSH cycles (Rs. 22 459.6 ± 6255.3 vs 33 022.1 ± 9891.2; MD: -10 562; %age reduction: -32%; P = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: CC started simultaneously with Gn in antagonist regimes helps lower the cost of stimulation without affecting IVF outcomes.

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.

Prognosis and cost-effectiveness of IVF in poor responders according to the Bologna Criteria.

Poor ovarian response (POR) to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization (IVF) is one of the most challenging issue in the field of reproductive medicine. However, even if improving IVF outcome in poor responders (PORs) represents a main priority, the lack of a unique definition of POR has hampered research in this area. In order to overcome this impediment, an ESHRE Campus Workshop was organized in Bologna in 2010 and reached a consensus on the criteria for the diagnosis of POR ("Bologna Criteria"). In this review we aimed to estimate the prognostic potential of the ESHRE definition, to elucidate its possible weaknesses and to analyze the economic aspects of IVF in a population of poor responders (PORs). Available evidence confirmed that the Bologna criteria are able to select a population with a poor IVF prognosis thus supporting their validity. Nonetheless, different aspects of the definition have been criticized. The main points of debate concern the homogeneity of the population identified, the cut-off values chosen for the ovarian reserve tests and the risks factors other than age associated with POR. Data concerning the economic profile of IVF in PORs are scanty. The only published study on the argument showed that IVF in these cases is not cost-effective. However, considering the potential substantial impact of cost-effectiveness analyses on public health policies, there is the need for further and independent validations.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of lifestyle intervention in obese infertile women.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment in obese infertile women? SUMMARY ANSWER: Lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment as compared to prompt infertility treatment in obese infertile women is not a cost-effective strategy in terms of healthy live birth rate within 24 months after randomization, but is more likely to be cost-effective using a longer follow-up period and live birth rate as endpoint. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In infertile couples, obesity decreases conception chances. We previously showed that lifestyle intervention prior to infertility treatment in obese infertile women did not increase the healthy singleton vaginal live birth rate at term, but increased natural conceptions, especially in anovulatory women. Cost-effectiveness analyses could provide relevant additional information to guide decisions regarding offering a lifestyle intervention to obese infertile women. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment compared to prompt infertility treatment was evaluated based on data of a previous RCT, the LIFEstyle study. The primary outcome for effectiveness was the vaginal birth of a healthy singleton at term within 24 months after randomization (the healthy live birth rate). The economic evaluation was performed from a hospital perspective and included direct medical costs of the lifestyle intervention, infertility treatments, medication and pregnancy in the intervention and control group. In addition, we performed exploratory cost-effectiveness analyses of scenarios with additional effectiveness outcomes (overall live birth within 24 months and overall live birth conceived within 24 months) and of subgroups, i.e. of ovulatory and anovulatory women, women <36 years and ≥36 years of age and of completers of the lifestyle intervention. Bootstrap analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS: Infertile women with a BMI of ≥29 kg/m2 (no upper limit) were allocated to a 6-month lifestyle intervention programme preceding infertility treatment (intervention group, n = 290) or to prompt infertility treatment (control group, n = 287). After excluding women who withdrew informed consent or who were lost to follow-up we included 280 women in the intervention group and 284 women in the control group in the analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Total mean costs per woman in the intervention group within 24 months after randomization were €4324 (SD €4276) versus €5603 (SD €4632) in the control group (cost difference of -€1278, P < 0.05). Healthy live birth rates were 27 and 35% in the intervention group and the control group, respectively (effect difference of -8.1%, P < 0.05), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €15 845 per additional percentage increase of the healthy live birth rate. Mean costs per healthy live birth event were €15 932 in the intervention group and €15 912 in the control group. Exploratory scenario analyses showed that after changing the effectiveness outcome to all live births conceived within 24 months, irrespective of delivery within or after 24 months, cost-effectiveness of the lifestyle intervention improved. Using this effectiveness outcome, the probability that lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment was cost-effective in anovulatory women was 40%, in completers of the lifestyle intervention 39%, and in women ≥36 years 29%. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: In contrast to the study protocol, we were not able to perform the analysis from a societal perspective. Besides the primary outcome of the LIFEstyle study, we performed exploratory analyses using outcomes observed at longer follow-up times and we evaluated subgroups of women; the trial was not powered on these additional outcomes or subgroup analyses. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Cost-effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention is more likely for longer follow-up times, and with live births conceived within 24 months as the effectiveness outcome. This effect was most profound in anovulatory women, in completers of the lifestyle intervention and in women ≥36 years old. This result indicates that the follow-up period of lifestyle interventions in obese infertile women is important. The scenario analyses performed in this study suggest that offering and reimbursing lifestyle intervention programmes in certain patient categories may be cost-effective and it provides directions for future research in this field. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was supported by a grant from ZonMw, the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (50-50110-96-518). The department of obstetrics and gynaecology of the UMCG received an unrestricted educational grant from Ferring pharmaceuticals BV, The Netherlands. B.W.J.M. is a consultant for ObsEva, Geneva. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The LIFEstyle RCT was registered at the Dutch trial registry (NTR 1530). http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC = 1530.

Economic impact of ovarian stimulation with corifollitropin alfa versus conventional daily gonadotropins in oocyte donors: a randomized study.

Assisted reproductive technologies are well-established treatments for many types of subfertility representing substantial economic and healthcare implications for patients, healthcare providers and society as a whole. In order to optimize outcomes according to the type of gonadotrophins within an oocyte donor programme, we performed an economic evaluation based on data collected in a multicentre, prospective, randomized study within three private clinics belonging to the IVI Group. Results showed no relevant between-group differences in the clinical variables. According to the economic analysis, ovarian stimulation with corifollitropin alfa increased the overall cost of the treatment as well as the cost per retrieved and effective oocyte, although the differences were not statistically significant. In conclusion, cost savings can be achieved using cheaper gonadotrophins during ovarian stimulation. The cost of corifollitropin alfa compared with recombinant FSH and highly purified human menopausal gonadotrophin should be considered when making treatment decisions.

Comparing the long-acting and short-acting forms of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists in the long protocol of IVF/ICSI Cycles: A retrospective study.

AIM: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of long- and short-acting gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist on clinical outcomes of in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) long protocol cycles. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 478 patients were enrolled from October 2012 to November 2014. The pituitary downregulation result, serum hormone levels, gonadotropin (Gn) dose during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation, and outcome of IVF/ICSI-embryo transfer were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Compared with the long-acting group, in the short-acting group the duration of downregulation and stimulation was significantly shorter; the total Gn doses, cost of an IVF cycle, rate of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, superior-quality embryo rate, and implantation rate were significantly lower; and the serum luteinizing hormone concentrations on the day of Gn and human chorionic gonadotropin administration were significantly higher. The serum estradiol level on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin was higher in the long-acting group. However, no significant differences were noted in other parameters. CONCLUSION: The long-acting group was associated with greater amounts of Gn and a longer duration of use for ovarian stimulation. This increased the cost per IVF cycle and may have had a detrimental effect on the pregnancy outcome because of a subsequent increase in the rate of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and decrease in the superior-quality embryo rate and implantation rate.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Hysteroscopic Polypectomy Before Controlled Ovarian Hyperstimulation and Intrauterine Insemination in Infertile Women.

Objective: To examine the cost benefit of performing hysteroscopic polypectomy (HP) in infertile women with endometrial polyp(s) before controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with intrauterine insemination (COH/IUI). Study Design: Decision analytic model comparing costs and clinical outcomes. Results: HP and COH/IUI costs ranged from $537­$12,530 and $800­$7,600, respectively. Performing an HP before COH/IUI lowered fertility cost by $7,652 per clinical pregnancy. When COH/IUI costs remained constant, HP was most cost beneficial when the cost of HP was below a threshold value of $9,452. When HP costs remained constant, the threshold value at which HP was no longer cost beneficial was at COH/IUI costs below $704. The cost benefit was greatest when an office-based HP is performed. Conclusion: HP before COH/IUI is more cost beneficial than fertility treatment alone, particularly when office-based hysteroscopy is performed.

Luteinizing Hormone is an effective replacement for hCG to induce ovulation in Xenopus.

Injection of human Chorionic Gonadotropin (hCG) directly into the dorsal lymph sac of Xenopus is a commonly used protocol for induction of ovulation, but recent shortages in the stocks of commercially available hCG as well as lack of a well tested alternative have resulted in frustrating experimental delays in laboratories that predominantly use Xenopus in their research. Mammalian Luteinizing Hormones (LH) share structural similarity, functional equivalency, and bind the same receptor as hCG; this suggests that LH may serve as a good alternative to hCG for promoting ovulation in Xenopus. LH has been found to induce maturation of Xenopus oocytes in vitro, but whether it can be used to induce ovulation in vivo has not been examined. Here we compared the ability of four mammalian LH proteins, bovine (bLH), human (hLH), ovine (oLH), porcine (pLH), to induce ovulation in Xenopus when injected into the dorsal lymph sac of sexually mature females. We find that both ovine and human LH, but not bovine or porcine, are good substitutes for hCG for induction of ovulation in WT and J strain Xenopus laevis and Xenopus tropicalis.

Financial compensation of oocyte donors: an Ethics Committee opinion.

Financial compensation of women donating oocytes for infertility therapy or for research is justified on ethical grounds and should acknowledge the time, inconvenience, and discomfort associated with screening, ovarian stimulation, and oocyte retrieval, and not vary according to the planned use of the oocytes, the number or quality of oocytes retrieved, the number or outcome of prior donation cycles, or the donor's ethnic or other personal characteristics. This document replaces the document of the same name, last published in 2007 (Fertil Steril 2007;88:305-9).

Is IVF-served two different ways-more cost-effective than IUI with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation?

STUDY QUESTION: What is the cost-effectiveness of in vitro fertilization (IVF) with conventional ovarian stimulation, single embryo transfer (SET) and subsequent cryocycles or IVF in a modified natural cycle (MNC) compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (IUI-COH) as a first-line treatment in couples with unexplained subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis on natural conception?. SUMMARY ANSWER: Both IVF strategies are significantly more expensive when compared with IUI-COH, without being significantly more effective. In the comparison between IVF-MNC and IUI-COH, the latter is the dominant strategy. Whether IVF-SET is cost-effective depends on society's willingness to pay for an additional healthy child. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IUI-COH and IVF, either after conventional ovarian stimulation or in a MNC, are used as first-line treatments for couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility. As IUI-COH is less invasive, this treatment is usually offered before proceeding to IVF. Yet, as conventional IVF with SET may lead to higher pregnancy rates in fewer cycles for a lower multiple pregnancy rate, some have argued to start with IVF instead of IUI-COH. In addition, IVF in the MNC is considered to be a more patient friendly and less costly form of IVF. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized noninferiority trial. Between January 2009 and February 2012, 602 couples with unexplained infertility and a poor prognosis on natural conception were allocated to three cycles of IVF-SET including frozen embryo transfers, six cycles of IVF-MNC or six cycles of IUI-COH. These couples were followed until 12 months after randomization. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We collected data on resource use related to treatment, medication and pregnancy from the case report forms. We calculated unit costs from various sources. For each of the three strategies, we calculated the mean costs and effectiveness. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH and for IVF-MNC compared with IUI-COH. Nonparametric bootstrap resampling was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in our estimates. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There were 104 healthy children (52%) born in the IVF-SET group, 83 (43%) the IVF-MNC group and 97 (47%) in the IUI-COH group. The mean costs per couple were €7187 for IVF-SET, €8206 for IVF-MNC and €5070 for IUI-COH. Compared with IUI-COH, the costs for IVF-SET and IVF-MNC were significantly higher (mean differences €2117; 95% CI: €1544-€2657 and €3136, 95% CI: €2519-€3754, respectively).The ICER for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH was €43 375 for the birth of an additional healthy child. In the comparison of IVF-MNC to IUI-COH, the latter was the dominant strategy, i.e. more effective at lower costs. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We only report on direct health care costs. The present analysis is limited to 12 months. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since we found no evidence in support of offering IVF as a first-line strategy in couples with unexplained and mild subfertility, IUI-COH should remain the treatment of first choice. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study was supported by a grant from ZonMw, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, (120620027) and a grant from Zorgverzekeraars Nederland, the Netherlands' association of health care insurers (09-003). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52843371; Nederlands Trial Register NTR939.

Gonadotropin Therapy versus Laparoscopic Ovarian Drilling in Clomiphene Citrate-Resistant Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Patients: A Retrospective Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Gonadotropin therapy and laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) are treatment options for ovulation induction (OI) in clomiphene citrate (CC)-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) patients. The current evidence of the cost-effectiveness of both treatments is scarce, conflicting and performed from different health-economic perspectives. METHODS: A retrospective health-economic evaluation was performed from a societal perspective in which human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) therapy (n = 43) was compared with LOD (n = 35), followed by OI with CC and/or hMG if spontaneous ovulation did not occur within 2 months. Data were collected until the patients were pregnant, with a time limit of 6 months after the onset of treatment. Outcomes were expressed as ongoing pregnancy rate and number of live-born children. RESULTS: The ongoing pregnancy rate was 21/35 (60%) after LOD and 30/43 (69.8%) after hMG treatment (relative risk 0.85, 95% CI 0.61-1.19). The societal cost per patient, up to an ongoing pregnancy, was significantly higher after LOD versus hMG treatment (adjusted mean difference EUR 1,073, 95% CI 180-1,967). CONCLUSION: This economic evaluation based on real-life data shows that the societal cost up to an ongoing pregnancy is less after hMG treatment when compared with LOD surgery in CC-resistant PCOS patients.

Ovarian stimulation in ART - Unwinding pressing issues.

Conventional controlled ovarian stimulation (cCOS) can cause significant discomfort, including ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Clearly, management of OHSS and poor responder patients requires new strategies to overcome these problems and facilitate the birth of a healthy child with the fewest stimulation cycles. Several alternative methods have been developed. Non-conventional controlled ovarian stimulation (non-cCOS) is based on low-dose stimulation regimens and is often termed "light", "soft", "mini", "minimal", "mild", "low cost", or "low dose IVF". Non-controlled ovarian stimulation therapies (non-COS) include natural cycle IVF or a mixture between non-controlled and non-cCOS, termed "modified natural IVF" or "antiestrogen/aromatase inhibitor/low dose FSH-cycles", in which cycles are monitored but not controlled. These approaches promise to reduce the physical, emotional, and financial burden of IVF therapy while maintaining acceptable pregnancy rates. Such approaches might reduce the risk of OHSS. However, the overall cost per baby increases due to the higher number of stimulation cycles required, and the inconvenience of ovum pick-up still remains. The primary focus should be to obtain several good quality blastocysts after a single cCOS cycle. Thus, adequate numbers of mature oocytes are mandatory. What is more difficult and expensive for patients: several non-COS/non-cCOS cycles to obtain a baby or a single cCOS cycle with a high probability to obtain more than one child? Classic cCOS using the GnRH agonist long protocol followed by single embryo transfer (SET) at the blastocyst stage and aseptic vitrification of surplus embryos optimizes the IVF outcome. This strategy, combined with outpatient management in the case of OHSS, minimizes inconvenience and risks of OHSS. Accumulation cycles (AC) by repeated COS with subsequent freezing of blastocysts, combined with preimplantation genetic screening (PGS), is a promising new approach for low responders, especially in cases of advanced maternal age (AMA).

A retrospective evaluation of prognosis and cost-effectiveness of IVF in poor responders according to the Bologna criteria.

STUDY QUESTION: Do the Bologna criteria for poor responders successfully identify women with poor IVF outcome? SUMMARY ANSWER: The Bologna criteria effectively identify a population with a uniformly low chance of success. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: Women undergoing IVF who respond poorly to ovarian hyper-stimulation have a low chance of success. Even if improving IVF outcome in this population represents a main priority, the lack of a unique definition of the condition has hampered research in this area. To overcome this impediment, a recent expert meeting in Bologna proposed a new definition of poor responders ('Bologna criteria'). However, data supporting the relevance of this definition in clinical practice are scanty. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Retrospective study of women undergoing IVF-ICSI between January 2010 and December 2012 in two independent infertility units. Women could be included if they fulfilled the definition of poor ovarian response (POR) according to Bologna criteria prior to initiation of the cycle. Women were included only for one cycle. The main outcome was the live birth rate per started cycle. The perspective of the cost analysis was the one of the health provider. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Three-hundred sixty-two women from two independent Infertility Units were selected. A binomial distribution model was used to calculate the 95% CI of the rate of success. Characteristics of women who did and did not obtain a live birth were compared. A logistic regression model was used to adjust for confounders. The economic analysis included costs for pharmacological compounds and for the IVF procedure. The benefits were estimated on quality-adjusted life years (QALY). To develop the model, we used the local life-expectancy tables, we applied a 3% discount of life years gained and we used a 0.07 improvement in quality of life associated with parenthood. Sensitivity analyses were performed varying the improvement of the quality of life and including/excluding the male partner. The reference values for cost-effectiveness were the Italian and the local (Lombardy) gross domestic product (GDP) pro capita per year in the studied period and the upper and lower limits suggested by NICE. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Overall, 23 women had a live birth (6%, 95% CI: 4-9%), in line with the previous evidence. This proportion did not significantly differ in the different subgroups of poor responders. Positive predictive factors of success were previous deliveries (adjusted OR = 3.0, 95% CI: 1.1-8.7, P = 0.039) and previous chemotherapy (adjusted OR = 13.9, 95% CI: 2.5-77.2, P = 0.003). Age, serum AMH, serum FSH and antral follicle count were not significantly associated with live birth. The total cost per live birth was 87 748 Euros, corresponding to 49 919 Euros per QALY. This is above both the limits suggested by NICE for cost-effectiveness and the Italian and local GDP pro capita. Sensitivity analyses mainly support the robustness of the conclusion. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We lack a control group and we cannot thus exclude that an alternative definition of poor responders may be equally if not more valid. Moreover, independent validations are warranted prior to concluding that IVF is not cost-effective. Women should thus not be denied treatment based on our findings. Noteworthy, there is also not yet a consensus on the most appropriate economic model to be used. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We recommend the use of the Bologna criteria when designing future studies on poor responders. Large multi-centred international studies are now required to draw definite conclusions on the economic profile of IVF in this situation.

Human recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) compared to urinary human menopausal gonadotropin (HMG) for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction: a literature review and cost evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Gonadotropins are protein hormones which are central to the complex endocrine system that regulates normal growth, sexual development, and reproductive function. There is still a lively debate on which type of gonadotropin medication should be used, either human menopausal gonadotropin or recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone. The objective of the study was to perform a systematic review of the recent literature to compare recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone to human menopausal gonadotropin with the aim to assess any differences in terms of efficacy and to provide a cost evaluation based on findings of this systematic review. METHODS: The review was conducted selecting prospective, randomized, controlled trials comparing the two gonadotropin medications from a literature search of several databases. The outcome measure used to evaluate efficacy was the number of oocytes retrieved per cycle. In addition, a cost evaluation was performed based on retrieved efficacy data. RESULTS: The number of oocytes retrieved appeared to be higher for human menopausal gonadotropin in only 2 studies while 10 out of 13 studies showed a higher mean number of oocytes retrieved per cycle for recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone. The results of the cost evaluation provided a similar cost per oocyte for both hormones. CONCLUSIONS: Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone treatment resulted in a higher oocytes yield per cycle than human menopausal gonadotropin at similar cost per oocyte.