Cost-effectiveness of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) versus human FSH in intrauterine insemination cycles: A statistical model-derived analysis

References

• Guzick D S, Sullivan M W, Adamson G D, Cedars M I, Falk R J, Peterson E P, Steinkampf M P. Efficacy of treatment for unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril 1998; 70: 207–213
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Out H. Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone: gold standard or not?. Reprod Biomed Online 2005; 11: 536–539
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Inany H G, Abou-Setta A M, Aboulghar M A, Mansour R T, Serour G I. HMG versus rFSH for ovulation induction in developing countries: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on the results of a recent meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2006; 12: 163–169
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Out H J, Driessen S G, Mannaerts B M, Coelingh Bennink H J. Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (follitropin β, Puregon) yields higher pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization than urinary gonadotropins. Fertil Steril 1997; 68: 138–142
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daya S, Gunby J. Recombinant versus urinary follicle stimulating hormone for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 2207–2215
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romeu A, Balasch J, Ruiz Balda J A, Barri P N, Daya S, Auray J P, Duru G, Beresniak A, Peinado J A. Cost-effectiveness of recombinant versus urinary follicle-stimulating hormone in assisted reproduction techniques in the Spanish public health care system. J Assist Reprod Genet 2003; 20: 294–300
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mantovani L G, Belisari A, Szucs T D. Pharmaco-economic aspects of in-vitro fertilization in Italy. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 953–958
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daya S, Ledger W, Auray J P, Duru G, Silverberg K, Wikland M, Bouzayen R, Howles C M, Beresniak A. Cost-effectiveness modelling of recombinant FSH versus urinary FSH in assisted reproduction techniques in the UK. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 2563–2569
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silverberg K, Daya S, Auray J P, Duru G, Ledger W, Wikland M, Bouzayen R, O'Brien M, Falk B, Beresniak A. Analysis of the cost effectiveness of recombinant versus urinary follicle-stimulating hormone in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection programs in the United States. Fertil Steril 2002; 77: 107–113
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Inany H, Aboulghar M, Mansour R, Serour G. Models of cost-effectiveness of recombinant FSH versus urinary FSH. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 305–313
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerli S, Casini M L, Unfer V, Costabile L, Bini V, Di Renzo G C. Recombinant versus urinary follicle-stimulating hormone in intrauterine insemination cycles: a prospective, randomized analysis of cost effectiveness. Fertil Steril 2004; 82: 573–578
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerli S, Casini M L, Unfer V, Costabile L, Mignosa M, Di Renzo G C. Ovulation induction with urinary FSH or recombinant FSH in polycystic ovary syndrome patients: a prospective randomized analysis of cost-effectiveness. Reprod Biomed Online 2004; 9: 494–499
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond M F, Sculper J M, Torrance J W, O'Brien B, Stoddart G L. Cost-benefit analysis. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2005; 211–245
   Google Scholar
• Gold M R, Russell L B, Siegel J E. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1996
   Google Scholar
• Briggs A, Wonderling D E, Mooney C Z. Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ 1997; 6: 327–340
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999; 18: 341–364
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daya S, Gunby J, Hughes E G, Collins J A, Sagle M A. Follicle-stimulating hormone versus human menopausal gonadotrophin for in vitro fertilization cycles: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 1995; 64: 77–86
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon U D, Harrison R F, Fawzy M, Hennelly B, Gordon A C. A randomized prospective assessor-blind evaluation of luteinizing hormone dosage and in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 2001; 75: 324–331
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filicori M, Cognigni G E, Taraborrelli S, Spettoli D, Ciampaglia W, Tabarelli De Fatis C, Pocognoli P, Cantelli B, Boschi S. Luteinizing hormone activity in menotropins optimizes folliculogenesis and treatment in controlled ovarian stimulation. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2001; 86: 337–343
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoomans E HM, Andersen A N, Loft A, Leerentveld R A, van Kamp A A, Zech H. A prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing 150 IU recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (Puregon) and 225 IU highly purified urinary follicle stimulating hormone (Metrodin-HP) in a fixed dose regimen in women undergoing ovarian stimulation. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 2442–2447
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Wely M, Bayram N, Van der Veen F. Recombinant FSH in alternative doses or versus urinary gonadotrophins for ovulation induction in subfertility associated with polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review based on a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 1143–1149
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatoum H T, Keye W R, Jr, Marrs R P, Walton S M, Marshall D C. A Markov model of the cost-effectiveness of human-derived follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) versus recombinant FSH using comparative clinical trial data. Fertil Steril 2005; 83: 804–807
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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: 1108–1113
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sykes D, Out H J, Palmer S J, van Loon J. The cost-effectiveness of IVF in the UK: a comparison of three gonadotrophin treatments. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 2557–2562
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The European and Israeli Study Group on Highly Purified Menotropin versus Recombinant Follicle-Stimulating Hormone. 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: 520–528
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yarali H, Bukulmez O, Gurgan T. Urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) versus recombinant FSH in clomiphene citrate-resistant, normogonadotropic, chronic anovulation: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril 1999; 72: 276–281
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revelli A, Poso F, Gennarelli G, Moffa F, Grassi G, Massobrio M. Recombinant versus highly-purified, urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (r-FSH vs. HP-uFSH) in ovulation induction: a prospective, randomized study with cost-minimization analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2006; 18: 38
   Google Scholar