A direct healthcare cost analysis of recombinant LH versus hMG supplementation on FSH during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in the GnRH-antagonist protocol.

PURPOSE: We have previously published a retrospective matched-case control study comparing the effect of recombinant LH (r-hLH) versus highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) supplementation on the follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in the GnRH-antagonist protocol. The result from that study showed that the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) was significantly higher in the r-hLH group (53% vs. 64%, p = 0.02). In this study, we aim to do a cost analysis between these two groups based on our previous study. METHODS: The analysis consisted of 425 IVF and ICSI cycles in our previous study. There were 259 cycles in the r-hFSH + hMG group and 166 cycles in the r-hFSH + r-hLH group. The total cost related to the treatment of each patient was recorded. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) were performed and created. RESULTS: The total treatment cost per patient was significantly higher in the r-hFSH + r-hLH group than in the r-hFSH + hMG group ($4550 ± 798.86 vs. $4290 ± 734.6, p = 0.003). However, the mean cost per live birth in the r-hFSH + hMG group was higher at $8052, vs. $7059 in the r-hFSH + r-hLH group. The CEAC showed that treatment with hFSH + r-hLH proved to be more cost-effective than treatment with r-hFSH + hMG. Willingness-to-pay was evident when considering a hypothetical threshold of $18,513, with the r-hFSH + r-hLH group exhibiting a 99% probability of being considered cost-effective. CONCLUSION: The cost analysis showed that recombinant LH is more cost-effective than hMG supplementation on r-hFSH during COH in the GnRH-antagonist protocol.

A retrospective, matched case-control study of recombinant LH versus hMG supplementation on FSH during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in the GnRH-antagonist protocol.

Background: The role of luteinizing hormone (LH) in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) requires more evidence for its efficacy. Several studies compared recombinant human LH (r-hLH) or human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) in combination with recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (r-hFSH) but lack the results with GnRH-antagonist protocol and in Asians. Methods: This is a retrospective, single-center study inspecting women receiving GnRH antagonist protocol and r-hFSH+hMG or r-hFSH+r-hLH regimen for over five days for COH in the in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycle in Taiwan from 2013 to 2018. The outcomes of IVF/ICSI cycles were analyzed after propensity score matching between the two groups. A subgroup analysis was conducted in cycles in which women underwent their first embryo transfer (ET), including fresh ET and frozen ET (FET). Results: With a total of 503 cycles, the results revealed that the r-hFSH+r-hLH group performed better in terms of numbers of oocytes retrieved (r-hFSH+hMG vs. r-hFSH+r-hLH, 11.7 vs. 13.7, p=0.014), mature oocytes (8.7 vs. 10.9, p=0.001), and fertilized oocytes (8.3 vs. 9.8, p=0.022), while other outcomes were comparable. The analysis of first ET cycles also showed similar trends. Although the implantation rate (39% vs. 43%, p=0.37), pregnancy rate (52% vs. 53%, p=0.90), and live birth rate (39% vs. 45%, p=0.19) were not significantly different, the miscarriage rate was higher in the r-hFSH+hMG group than the r-hFSH+r-hLH group (26% vs. 15%, p<0.05) in first ET cycles. The cumulative pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the r-hFSH+r-hLH group (53% vs. 64%, p=0.02). No significant difference in rates of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) was observed. Conclusion: The results support the hypothesis that the treatment of r-hLH+r-hFSH improves COH clinical outcomes in the IVF/ICSI cycle.