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.

Decision analysis about the cost-effectiveness of different in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer protocol under considering governments, hospitals, and patient.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the benefits of in vitro fertilization (IVF) for patients and hospitals under different protocols and if IVF treatment should be incorporated into health care. PERSPECTIVE: The government should consider including IVF treatment in health insurance. Hospitals and patients could obtain the best benefit by following the hospital's recommended protocol. SETTING: This retrospective study was conducted from January 2014 to August 2017 at an academic hospital. METHODS: A total of 7440 patients used gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) protocol, 2619 patients used, gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists (GnRHant) protocol, and 1514 patients used GnRHa ultra-long protocol. Primary outcomes were live birth rate (LBR), cost-effectiveness, hospital revenue, and government investment. RESULTS: The cycle times for the GnRHa protocol and the GnRHa ultra-long protocol were significantly higher than the GnRHant protocol. Patients who were ≤29 years chose the GnRHant protocol. The cost of a successful cycle was 67,579.39 ±â€Š9,917.55 ¥ and LBR was 29.25%. Patients who were >30 years had the GnRHa protocol as the dominant strategy, as it was more effective at lower costs and higher LBR. When patients were >30 to ≤34 years, the cost of a successful cycle was 66,556.7 ±â€Š8,448.08 ¥ and the LBR was 31.05%. When patients were >35 years, the cost of a successful cycle was 83,297.92 ±â€Š10,918.05 ¥ and the LBR was 25.07%. The government reimbursement for a cycle ranged between 11,372.12 ±â€Š2,147.71 ¥ and 12,753.67 ±â€Š1,905.02 ¥. CONCLUSIONS: The government should consider including IVF treatment in health insurance. Hospitals recommend the GnRHant protocol for patients <29 years old and the GnRHa protocol for patients >30 years old, to obtain the best benefits. Patients could obtain the best benefit by using the protocol recommended by the hospital.

Elagolix for endometriosis: all that glitters is not gold.

Elagolix, an orally active non-peptidic GnRH antagonist, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the management of moderate to severe pain associated with endometriosis. As the degree of ovarian suppression obtained with elagolix is dose-dependent, pain relief may be achieved by modulating the level of hypo-oestrogenism while limiting side effects. Elagolix may thus be considered a novelty in terms of its endocrine and pharmacological properties but not for its impact on the pathogenic mechanisms of endometriosis, as the target of this new drug is, yet again, alteration of the hormonal milieu. Given the oestrogen-dependent nature of endometriosis, a reduction of side effects may imply a proportionate decrease in pain relief. Furthermore, if low elagolix doses are used, ovulation is not consistently inhibited, and patients should use non-hormonal contraceptive systems and perform serial urine pregnancy tests to rule out unplanned conception during periods of treatment-induced amenorrhoea. If high elagolix doses are used to control severe pain for long periods of time, add-back therapies should be added, similar to that prescribed when using GnRH agonists. To date, the efficacy of elagolix has only been demonstrated in placebo-controlled explanatory trials. Pragmatic trials comparing elagolix with low-dose hormonal contraceptives and progestogens should be planned to verify the magnitude of the incremental benefit, if any, of this GnRH antagonist over currently used standard treatments. The price of elagolix may impact on patient adherence and, hence, on clinical effectiveness. In the USA, the manufacturer AbbVie Inc. priced elagolix (OrilissaTM) at around $10 000 a year, i.e. $845 per month. When faced with unaffordable treatments, some patients may choose to forego care. If national healthcare systems are funded by the tax payer, the approval and the use of a new costly drug to treat a chronic condition, such as endometriosis, means that some finite financial resources will be diverted from other areas, or that similar patients will not receive the same level of care. Thus, defining the overall 'value' of a new drug for endometriosis also has ethical implications, and trade-offs between health outcomes and costs should be carefully weighed up.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Microscopic and Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Surgery Versus Medical Therapy in the Management of Microprolactinoma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Although prolactinomas are treated effectively with dopamine agonists, some have proposed curative surgical resection for select cases of microprolactinomas to avoid life-long medical therapy. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing transsphenoidal surgery (either microsurgical or endoscopic) and medical therapy (either bromocriptine or cabergoline) with decision analysis modeling. METHODS: A 2-armed decision tree was created with TreeAge Pro Suite 2012 to compare upfront transsphenoidal surgery versus medical therapy. The economic perspective was that of the health care third-party payer. On the basis of a literature review, we assigned plausible distributions for costs and utilities to each potential outcome, taking into account medical and surgical costs and complications. Base-case analysis, sensitivity analysis, and Monte Carlo simulations were performed to determine the cost-effectiveness of each strategy at 5-year and 10-year time horizons. RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, microscopic transsphenoidal surgery was the most cost-effective option at 5 years from the time of diagnosis; however, by the 10-year time horizon, endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery became the most cost-effective option. At both time horizons, medical therapy (both bromocriptine and cabergoline) were found to be more costly and less effective than transsphenoidal surgery (i.e., the medical arm was dominated by the surgical arm in this model). Two-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that endoscopic resection would be the most cost-effective strategy if the cure rate from endoscopic surgery was greater than 90% and the complication rate was less than 1%. Monte Carlo simulation was performed for endoscopic surgery versus microscopic surgery at both time horizons. This analysis produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $80,235 per quality-adjusted life years at 5 years and $40,737 per quality-adjusted life years at 10 years, implying that with increasing time intervals, endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery is the more cost-effective treatment strategy. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the results of our model, transsphenoidal surgical resection of microprolactinomas, either microsurgical or endoscopic, appears to be more cost-effective than life-long medical therapy in young patients with life expectancy greater than 10 years. We caution that surgical resection for microprolactinomas be performed only in select cases by experienced pituitary surgeons at high-volume centers with high biochemical cure rates and low complication rates.

Multi-modal management of acromegaly: a value perspective.

PURPOSE: The Acromegaly Consensus Group recently released updated guidelines for medical management of acromegaly patients. We subjected these guidelines to a cost analysis. METHODS: We conducted a cost analysis of the recommendations based on published efficacy rates as well as publicly available cost data. The results were compared to findings from a previously reported comparative effectiveness analysis of acromegaly treatments. Using decision tree software, two models were created based on the Acromegaly Consensus Group's recommendations and the comparative effectiveness analysis. The decision tree for the Consensus Group's recommendations was subjected to multi-way tornado analysis to identify variables that most impacted the value analysis of the decision tree. RESULTS: The value analysis confirmed the Consensus Group's recommendations of somatostatin analogs as first line therapy for medical management. Our model also demonstrated significant value in using dopamine agonist agents as upfront therapy as well. Sensitivity analysis identified the cost of somatostatin analogs and growth hormone receptor antagonists as having the most significant impact on the cost effectiveness of medical therapies. CONCLUSION: Our analysis confirmed the value of surgery as first-line therapy for patients with surgically accessible lesions. Surgery provides the greatest value for management of patients with acromegaly. However, in accordance with the Acromegaly Consensus Group's recent recommendations, somatostatin analogs provide the greatest value and should be used as first-line therapy for patients who cannot be managed surgically. At present, the substantial cost is the most significant negative factor in the value of medical therapies for acromegaly.

Where vaptans do and do not fit in the treatment of hyponatremia.

The treatment of hyponatremia, an exceedingly common electrolyte disorder, has been a subject of controversy for many years. The advent of vasopressin antagonists (vaptans) has added to the treatment arsenal. This review focuses on why hyponatremia should be treated and the role of these antagonists in the treatment. Upon analysis of the available literature, we conclude that there is presently no role for vaptans in acute symptomatic hyponatremia. Although numerous therapeutic approaches are available for chronic symptomatic hyponatremia, vasopressin antagonists provide a simpler treatment option. Vaptans are efficacious in raising serum sodium in long-standing 'asymptomatic' hyponatremia. However, the cost of the only Food and Drug Administration-approved oral agent (tolvaptan) makes its use prohibitive for most patients in this setting.

Balancing selected medication costs with total number of daily injections: a preference analysis of GnRH-agonist and antagonist protocols by IVF patients.

BACKGROUND: During in vitro fertilization (IVF), fertility patients are expected to self-administer many injections as part of this treatment. While newer medications have been developed to substantially reduce the number of these injections, such agents are typically much more expensive. Considering these differences in both cost and number of injections, this study compared patient preferences between GnRH-agonist and GnRH-antagonist based protocols in IVF. METHODS: Data were collected by voluntary, anonymous questionnaire at first consultation appointment. Patient opinion concerning total number of s.c. injections as a function of non-reimbursed patient cost associated with GnRH-agonist [A] and GnRH-antagonist [B] protocols in IVF was studied. RESULTS: Completed questionnaires (n = 71) revealed a mean +/- SD patient age of 34 +/- 4.1 yrs. Most (83.1%) had no prior IVF experience; 2.8% reported another medical condition requiring self-administration of subcutaneous medication(s). When out-of-pocket cost for [A] and [B] were identical, preference for [B] was registered by 50.7% patients. The tendency to favor protocol [B] was weaker among patients with a health occupation. Estimated patient costs for [A] and [B] were $259.82 +/- 11.75 and $654.55 +/- 106.34, respectively (p < 0.005). Measured patient preference for [B] diminished as the cost difference increased. CONCLUSIONS: This investigation found consistently higher non-reimbursed direct medication costs for GnRH-antagonist IVF vs. GnRH-agonist IVF protocols. A conditional preference to minimize downregulation (using GnRH-antagonist) was noted among some, but not all, IVF patient sub-groups. Compared to IVF patients with a health occupation, the preference for GnRH-antagonist was weaker than for other patients. While reducing total number of injections by using GnRH-antagonist is a desirable goal, it appears this advantage is not perceived equally by all IVF patients and its utility is likely discounted heavily by patients when nonreimbursed medication costs reach a critical level.

Extended high dose letrozole regimen versus short low dose letrozole regimen as an adjuvant to gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist protocol in poor responders undergoing IVF-ET.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of extended high dose letrozole regimen/HPuFSH-gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist (GnRHant) protocol with short low dose letrozole regimen/HPuFSH-GnRHant protocol in poor responders undergoing IVF-ET. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, 136 women who responded poorly to GnRH agonist long protocol in their first IVF cycle were randomized into two equal groups using computer generated list and were treated in the second IVF cycle by either extended letrozole regimen (5 mg/day during the first 5 days of cycle and 2.5 mg/day during the subsequent 3 days) combined with HPuFSH-GnRHant protocol or short letrozole regimen (2.5 mg/day from cycle day 3-7) combined with HPuFSH-GnRHant protocol. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between both groups with regard to number of oocytes retrieved and clinical pregnancy rate (5.39 ± 2.08 vs. 5.20 ± 1.88 and 22.06% vs. 16.18%, respectively).The total gonadotropins dose and medications cost per cycle were significantly lower in extended letrozole group (44.87 ± 9.16 vs. 59.97 ± 14.91 ampoules and 616.52 ± 94.97 vs. 746.84 ± 149.21 US Dollars ($), respectively).The cost-effectiveness ratio was 2794 $ in extended letrozole group and 4616 $ in short letrozole group. CONCLUSION: Extended letrozole regimen/HPuFSH-GnRHant protocol was more cost-effective than short letrozole regimen/HPuFSH-GnRHant protocol in poor responders undergoing IVF-ET.

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.

Optimizing somatostatin analog therapy in acromegaly: long-acting formulations.

Somatostatin peptide analogs have revolutionized the medical treatment of patients with acromegaly. More recent deep intramuscular depot preparations have further improved control, with consistent suppression of growth hormone secretion and optimal lowering of insulin-like growth factor-1. Effective control of growth hormone should, with long-term use, reduce morbidity and mortality from acromegaly and has been shown to result in partial involution of the pituitary adenoma in the majority of treated patients. The currently available depot formulations allow for an injection frequency of 14 days (lanreotide LA 30mg) to 28 days (octreotide LAR 20mg) according to the manufacturers' recommendations. In clinical practice, dose titration by evaluating a growth hormone day profile prior to the next injection can extend the interval between injection (to 6 or even 8 weeks in certain individuals). This is especially true for octreotide LAR, which also has increased flexibility regarding dosage with a 10 and 30mg preparation. The annual 'drug cost' is broadly similar between the two formulations though the additional expenditure on nurse time and clinic visits incurred by an increased injection frequency is a significant consideration. Decreased injection frequency improves acceptability for the patient without a loss in treatment efficacy. A subjective return of typical acromegalic symptoms, such as sweating and headache, also seem to be useful in predicting the timing of the next injection. Other formulations and doses of lanreotide are currently being evaluated, but more interestingly, newer analogs with greater efficacy at the type 5 somatostatin receptor subtype, and pan-receptor analogs, are being developed. These peptides, in conjunction with the likely availability of a growth hormone receptor blocking agent (pegvisomant), will further expand the medical therapy options for patients with acromegaly.

Goserelin (Zoladex) or orchiectomy in metastatic prostate cancer? A quality of life and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: We have today two treatment alternatives (orchiectomy or LHRH-analogue) in metastatic prostate cancer offering the same expectations of survival. This study documents the quality of life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness of these alternatives. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 65 consecutive patients treated at the University Hospital of Tromsø (UHT), Norway, between 1994 and 1999 were registered. At evaluation, 45 patients (LHRH-analogue--15 patients, orchiectomy--30 patients) were alive and included in the QoL-study (EORTC QLQ C-30, QoL 15D). 45 patients were followed-up at the UHT and included in the cost-analysis. Costs were calculated for a 36-month interval and converted to British pounds (1 Pound = 13 NOK). A 5% d.r. was employed. RESULTS: The mean QoL (15D) was 76.4 (orchiectomy) and 72 (LHRH) (0-100 scale). Constipation, urinating problems, fatigue, pain and loss of sexual functioning were the dominant symptoms. The treatment costs per patient treated were 8,895 Pounds (orchiectomy) and 10,937 Pounds (LHRH-analogue). The crossover in cost was located at 25 months. A sensitivity analysis varying discount rate (0-10%), drug charges (25-50% off) and treatment time (12-18 months) did not alter the conclusion. CONCLUSION: Orchiectomy is the treatment of choice when life expectancy is more than two years.

Treatment of Chinese acromegaly with a combination of bromocriptine and octreotide.

BACKGROUND: Good results have been reported with combined use of octreotide and bromocriptine in acromegalic Caucasians. Data concerning the efficacy and tolerability of this combination treatment in Chinese acromegalic patients are scanty. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of combined therapy using bromocriptine and octreotide in the treatment of acromegaly in Chinese patients and to compare the cost-effectiveness of various regimes. METHODS: Sixteen Chinese acromegalic patients with growth hormone (GH) concentration not suppressible to below 5 mU/L (2 microg/L) during an extended OGTT were recruited to undergo four phases of the study. During the study period, the patients were given bromocriptine alone, bromocriptine and low dose octreotide, bromocriptine and medium dose octreotide, and medium dose octreotide alone. Plasma concentrations of GH and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) were measured before and after the completion of each phase. RESULTS: The number of patients reaching target GH concentrations was significantly higher when treated with octreotide compared to baseline (p<0.05). Bromocriptine alone had a significant effect but not to the extent of octreotide alone. A combination of low dose octreotide and bromocriptine is as efficacious in the treatment of acromegaly as high dose octreotide. None of the patients suffered from serious adverse effects. CONCLUSION: The results confirmed the usefulness and tolerability of bromocriptine and octreotide in Chinese acromegalics. The most cost-effective regime in this study was a combination of low dose octreotide and bromocriptine.

An economically rational method of managing early-stage endometriosis.

Endometriosis is a common gynecologic disease among women of reproductive age. The lesions of early endometriosis may be missed during laparoscopy, which has been considered to be the definitive means of both diagnosis and treatment. Moreover, laparoscopic treatment of minimal-to-mild (stage 1 to 2) endometriosis does not always resolve associated chronic pelvic pain in many women. Instead, medical therapy with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists may be more effective in providing long-lasting pain relief in patients with similar disease stages. The author outlines the cost effectiveness of a trial course of GnRH agonists in women presenting with chronic pelvic pain.

Primary gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist therapy for suspected endometriosis: a nonsurgical approach to the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pelvic pain.

Chronic pelvic pain is a condition that affects one in seven women of reproductive age in the United States. Direct and indirect medical costs associated with this condition are estimated to be more than $3 billion annually before factoring in the costs of diagnostic testing. At many medical centers, endometriosis is the most common single cause of chronic pelvic pain; other causes include intra-abdominal adhesions, chronic pelvic inflammatory disease, ovarian cysts, and adenomyosis. The current approach to diagnosis and treatment of chronic pelvic pain is a two-step approach, with medical history, physical examination, laboratory testing, and empiric therapy (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, oral contraceptives, and/or antibiotics) comprising Step 1 and surgical diagnosis with laparoscopy as Step 2. At many centers, the most common diagnosis at the time of laparoscopy for chronic pelvic pain is endometriosis, typically minimal to mild disease that can be effectively treated with hormonal therapy. Therefore, a rational alternative approach is a 3-month empiric course of therapy with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist before laparoscopy. The advantages of this approach are the high rate of pain relief in women, the possibility of avoiding an invasive procedure (laparoscopy), the ability to extend therapy, if pain is relieved, to the full 6-month therapeutic course of endometriosis, and a potentially lower cost relative to laparoscopy.