Cost-effectiveness of different types of COH protocols for in vitro fertilization at national level

References

• Homburg R. Ovulation induction and controlled ovarian stimulation, a practical guide. 2nd ed. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Santos MA, Kuijk EW, Macklon NS. The impact of ovarian stimulation for IVF on the developing embryo. Reproduction. 2010;139:23–34.1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Inany НG, Youssef MA, Ayeleke RO, et al. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2016 Sep 28];4:CD001750. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001750.pub4/abstract
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Inany H, Aboulghar M. GnRH antagonist in assisted reproduction: a Cochrane review. Human Reprod. 2002;17(4):874–885.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bodri D, Sunkara SK, Coomarasamy A. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists versus antagonists for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in oocyte donors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2011; 95:164–1691.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Góra K. A cost of a childbirth with in vitro fertilization in Poland. Value in Health. 2013;16(7):A332–A323.
   Google Scholar
• Clazien AM, Lindsen B, Eijkemans M, et al. A detailed cost analysis of in vitro fertilization and intracytoplazmic sperm injection treatment. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(2):331–341. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001750.pub4/abstract.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suchartwatnachai C, Wongkularb A, Srisombut C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of IVF in women 38 years and older. Int J Gynaecol Obst. 2000;69(2):143–148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moolenaar L, Broekmans F, Disseldorp J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of ovarian reserve testing in in vitro fertilization: a Markov decision-analytic model. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(4):889–894.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Wely M, Kwan I, Burt AL, et al. Recombinant versus urinary gonadotrophin for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(2): CD005354. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005354.pub2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wechowski J, Connolly M, Schneider D, et al. 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-alfa. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(4):1067–1076.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Inany Н. 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(2):163–169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daya S, Ledger W, Auray JP, et al. Cost-effectiveness modelling of recombinant FSH versus urinary FSH in assisted reproduction techniques in the UK. Human Reprod. 2001;16(12):2563–2569.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatoum HT, Keye WR Jr, Marrs RP, et al. 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(3):804–807.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho C-H, Chen SU, Peng FS, et al. Prospective comparison of short and long GnRH agonist protocols using recombinant gonadotropins for IVF/ICSI treatments. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;16(5):632–639.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Espigares N, Hernandes T, Alkala C, et al. Economic evaluation of two alternative treatments for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. Value in Health. 2009;12(7):A293.
   Google Scholar
• Petrova G, Benbassat B. Cost-effectiveness of short COH protocols with GnRH antagonists using different types of gonadotropins for in vitro fertilization. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip. 2016;30(3):614–621.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DG SANCO. Comparative analysis of medically assisted reproduction in the EU: regulation and technologies. SANCO/2008/C6/051 [Internet]. Grimbergen: ESHRE; 2008 [cited 2016 Sep 28]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/health/blood_tissues_organs/docs/study_eshre_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kdous M. Increased risk of early pregnancy loss and lower live birth rate with GnRH-antagonist vs long GnRD-agonist protocol in PCOS women undergoing. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. La Tunisie Medicale. 2009;87(12):834–842.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Xiao J, Chang S, Chen S. The effectiveness of gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(6):1594–1601.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiao J, Chen S, Zhang C, et al. Effectiveness of GnRH antagonist in the treatment of patients with polycystic ovary syndrome undergoing IVF: a systematic review and meta analysis. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2013;29(3):187–191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turkcapar AF, Seckin B, Onalan B, et al. Human menopausal gonadotropin versus recombinant FSH in polycystic ovary syndrome patients undergoing in vitro fertilization. Int J Fertil Steril. 2013;6(4):238–243.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Devroey P, Aboulghar M, Garcia-Velasco J, et al. Improving the patient's experience of IVF/ICSI: a proposal for an ovarian stimulation protocol with GnRH antagonist co-treatment. Human Reprod. 2009;24(4):764–774.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filicori M, Cognigni GE, Pocognoli P, et al. Comparison of controlled ovarian stimulation with human menopausal gonadotropin or recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(2):390–397.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill MJ, Levens ED, Levy G, et al. The use of recombinant luteinizing hormone in patients undergoing assisted reproductive techniques with advanced reproductive age: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(5):1108–1114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paterson ND, Foong SC, Greene CA. Improved pregnancy rates with luteinizing hormone supplementation in patients undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF. Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29:579–583.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Statistical Institute [Internet]. Bulgarian. Available from: www.nsi.bg
   Google Scholar
• Polinder S, Heijnen EM, Macklon NS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a mild compared with a standard strategy for IVF: a randomized comparison using cumulative term live birth as the primary endpoint. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(2):316–323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Inany H, Youssef MA, Aboulghar M, et al. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2016 Sep 28];(5):CD001750. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001750.pub3/abstract
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Health, National Centre for Assisted Reproduction [Internet]. Rules of organization of work and activities of the center of assisted reproduction. Available from: http://www.car-bg.org/documents.htm
   Google Scholar
• Johnston-MacAnanny EB, DiLuigi AJ, Engmann LL, et al. Selection of first in vitro fertilization cycle stimulation protocol for good prognosis patients: gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist versus agonist protocols. J Reprod Med. 2011;56(1–2):12–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grow D, Kawwassb JF, Kulkarni AD, et al. GnRH agonist and GnRH antagonist protocols: comparison of outcomes among good prognosis patients using national surveillance data. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;29:299–304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiao J-s, Su C-m, Zeng X-t. Comparisons of GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol in supposed normal ovarian responders undergoing IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(9):e106854. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0106854
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu H-C, Lai YM, Davis O, et al. Improved pregnancy outcome with gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) stimulation is due to the improvement in oocyte quantity rather than quality? J Assist Reprod Genet. 1992;9(4):338–344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rutherford AJ, Subak-Sharpe RJ. Improvement of in vitro fertilisation after treatment with buserelin, an agonist of luteinising hormone releasing hormone. British Med J. 1988;296:1765–1768.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapman ET, Caswell W, Calvert NE, et al. Deciding the most advantageous controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocol for obtaining better outcomes: pure recombinant FSH (rFSH) or a combination of rFSH and human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG). Fertil Steril. 2004;82(2):S237–S238.
   Google Scholar
• Nassar ZA, Massad Z, Abdo G, et al. Ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization (IVF): a prospective randomized comparison of recombinant FSH alone or in combination with human menopausal gonadotropins. Fertil Steril. 2001;76(3):S92.
   Google Scholar
• Londra LC, Marconi G, Inza R, et al. Effect of the addition of LH activity through HMG in GnRH antagonist cycles for assisted reproduction techniques (ART). Fertil Steril. 2005;84(1):S313.
   Google Scholar
• Martin-Johnston M, Beltsos AN, Grotjan HE, et al. Adding human menopausal gonadotrophin to antagonist protocols – is there a benefit? Reprod BioMed Online. 2007;15(2):161–168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar