Economic Evaluation of Highly Purified Human Menotropin or Recombinant Follicle-stimulating Hormone for Controlled Ovarian Stimulation in High-responder Patients: Analysis of the Menopur in Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone Antagonist Single Embryo...

Overview

Journal F S Rep

Specialty Reproductive Medicine

Date 2021 Jul 5

PMID 34223253

Citations 4

Authors

Jared C Robins

Andrew F Khair

Eric A Widra

Michael M Alper

Winnie W Nelson

Eric D Foster

Anshul Sinha

Masakazu Ando

Patrick W Heiser

Gaurang S Daftary

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To determine the cost of achieving a live birth after first transfer using highly purified human menotropin (HP-hMG) or recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) for controlled ovarian stimulation in predicted high-responder patients in the Menopur in Gonadotropin-releasing hormone Antagonist Single Embryo Transfer-High Responder (MEGASET-HR) trial.

Design: Cost minimization analysis of trial results.

Setting: Thirty-one fertility centers.

Patients: Six hundred and nineteen women with serum antimüllerian hormone ≥5 ng/mL.

Interventions: Controlled ovarian stimulation with HP-hMG or recombinant FSH in a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist assisted reproduction cycle where fresh transfer of a single blastocyst was performed unless ovarian response was excessive whereupon all embryos were cryopreserved and patients could undergo subsequent frozen blastocyst transfer within 6 months of randomization.

Main Outcome Measures: Mean cost of achieving live birth after first transfer (fresh or frozen).

Results: First-transfer efficacy, defined as live birth after first fresh or frozen transfer, was 54.5% for HP-hMG and 48.0% for recombinant FSH (difference 6.5%). Average cost to achieve a live birth after first transfer (fresh or frozen) was lower with HP-hMG compared with recombinant FSH. For fresh transfers, the cost was lower with HP-hMG compared with recombinant FSH. The average cost to achieve a live birth after first frozen transfer was also lower in patients treated with HP-hMG compared with recombinant FSH.

Conclusions: Treatment of predicted high-responders with HP-hMG was associated with lower cost to achieve a live birth after first transfer compared with recombinant FSH.

Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT02554279.

Citing Articles

Economic evaluations of assisted reproductive technologies in high-income countries: a systematic review.

Olive E, Bull C, Gordon A, Davies-Tuck M, Wang R, Callander E Hum Reprod. 2024; 39(5):981-991.

PMID: 38438132 PMC: 11063548. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deae039.

Highly Purified Human Menopausal Gonadotropin (HP-hMG) Versus Recombinant Follicle-Stimulating Hormone (rFSH) for Controlled Ovarian Stimulation in US Predicted High-Responder Patients: A Cost-Comparison Analysis.

Khair A, Brown T, Markert M, Barsoe C, Daftary G, Heiser P Pharmacoecon Open. 2023; 7(5):851-860.

PMID: 37480456 PMC: 10471533. DOI: 10.1007/s41669-023-00429-8.

Proceedings of the first world conference on AI in fertility.

Curchoe C J Assist Reprod Genet. 2023; 40(2):215-222.

PMID: 36598733 PMC: 9935785. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-022-02704-9.

Ovarian Stimulation in Assisted Reproductive Technology Cycles for Varied Patient Profiles: An Indian Perspective.

Jirge P, Patil M, Gutgutia R, Shah J, Govindarajan M, Roy V J Hum Reprod Sci. 2022; 15(2):112-125.

PMID: 35928474 PMC: 9345274. DOI: 10.4103/jhrs.jhrs_59_22.

References

. Efficacy and safety of highly purified menotropin versus recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles: a randomized, comparative trial. Fertil Steril. 2002; 78(3):520-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(02)03250-8. View

Mascarenhas M, Balen A . The high responder: a review of pathophysiology and outcomes during IVF treatment. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2017; 20(3):155-167. DOI: 10.1080/14647273.2017.1293851. View

Lloyd A, Kennedy R, Hutchinson J, Sawyer W . Economic evaluation of highly purified menotropin compared with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2003; 80(5):1108-13. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(03)02185-x. View

Bosch E, Vidal C, Labarta E, Simon C, Remohi J, Pellicer A . Highly purified hMG versus recombinant FSH in ovarian hyperstimulation with GnRH antagonists--a randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2008; 23(10):2346-51. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/den220. View

Csokmay J, Yauger B, Henne M, Armstrong A, Queenan J, Segars J . Cost analysis model of outpatient management of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome with paracentesis: "tap early and often" versus hospitalization. Fertil Steril. 2008; 93(1):167-73. PMC: 3575958. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.09.054. View

Arce J, Nyboe Andersen A, Fernandez-Sanchez M, Visnova H, Bosch E, Garcia-Velasco J . Ovarian response to recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone: a randomized, antimüllerian hormone-stratified, dose-response trial in women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 2014; 102(6):1633-40.e5. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.08.013. View

Wechowski J, Connolly M, Schneider D, McEwan P, Kennedy R . Cost-saving treatment strategies in in vitro fertilization: a combined economic evaluation of two large randomized clinical trials comparing highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin and recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone alpha. Fertil Steril. 2008; 91(4):1067-76. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.01.034. View

Wu A, Elliott P, Katz P, Smith J . Time costs of fertility care: the hidden hardship of building a family. Fertil Steril. 2013; 99(7):2025-30. PMC: 3736984. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.01.145. View

Ye H, Huang G, Pei L, Zeng P, Luo X . Outcome of in vitro fertilization following stimulation with highly purified hMG or recombinant FSH in downregulated women of advanced reproductive age: a prospective, randomized and controlled trial. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2012; 28(7):540-4. DOI: 10.3109/09513590.2011.650742. View

10.

Dyer S, Vinoos L, Ataguba J . Poor recovery of households from out-of-pocket payment for assisted reproductive technology. Hum Reprod. 2017; 32(12):2431-2436. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dex315. View

11.

Kilani Z, Dakkak A, Ghunaim S, Cognigni G, Tabarelli C, Parmegiani L . A prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing highly purified hMG with recombinant FSH in women undergoing ICSI: ovarian response and clinical outcomes. Hum Reprod. 2003; 18(6):1194-9. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deg252. View

12.

Huang L, Bogale B, Tang Y, Lu S, Xie X, Racowsky C . Noninvasive preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in spent medium may be more reliable than trophectoderm biopsy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019; 116(28):14105-14112. PMC: 6628824. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1907472116. View

13.

Hompes P, Broekmans F, Hoozemans D, Schats R . Effectiveness of highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin vs. recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in first-cycle in vitro fertilization-intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients. Fertil Steril. 2007; 89(6):1685-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.05.039. View

14.

Murugappan G, Ohno M, Lathi R . Cost-effectiveness analysis of preimplantation genetic screening and in vitro fertilization versus expectant management in patients with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss. Fertil Steril. 2015; 103(5):1215-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.02.012. View

15.

Arce J, La Marca A, Klein B, Nyboe Andersen A, Fleming R . Antimüllerian hormone in gonadotropin releasing-hormone antagonist cycles: prediction of ovarian response and cumulative treatment outcome in good-prognosis patients. Fertil Steril. 2013; 99(6):1644-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.12.048. View

16.

Neal S, Morin S, Franasiak J, Goodman L, Juneau C, Forman E . Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy is cost-effective, shortens treatment time, and reduces the risk of failed embryo transfer and clinical miscarriage. Fertil Steril. 2018; 110(5):896-904. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.06.021. View

17.

Munne S, Kaplan B, Frattarelli J, Child T, Nakhuda G, Shamma F . Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus morphology as selection criteria for single frozen-thawed embryo transfer in good-prognosis patients: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2019; 112(6):1071-1079.e7. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.07.1346. View

18.

Wex-Wechowski J, Abou-Setta A, Nielsen S, Kennedy R . HP-HMG versus rFSH in treatments combining fresh and frozen IVF cycles: success rates and economic evaluation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010; 21(2):166-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.05.005. View

19.

Devroey P, Pellicer A, Nyboe Andersen A, Arce J . A randomized assessor-blind trial comparing highly purified hMG and recombinant FSH in a GnRH antagonist cycle with compulsory single-blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril. 2012; 97(3):561-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.12.016. View

20.

Chen Z, Legro R . Fresh versus Frozen Embryos in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375(20):e42. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc1611871. View