Clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of HP-human FSH (Fostimon®) versus rFSH (Gonal-F®) in IVF-ICSI cycles: a meta-analysis

References

• Out HJ. Recombinant follicle stimulating hormone: gold standard or not? Reprod Biomed Online 2005;11:536–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Inany H, Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI. Ovulation induction in the new millennium: recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone versus human menopausal gonadotropin. Gynecol Endocrinol 2005;20:161–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European and Israeli Study Group on Highly Purified Menotropin versus Recombinant Follicle-Stimulating Hormone (EISG). 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;78:520–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Inany H, Aboulghar M, Mansour R, Serour G. Meta-analysis of recombinant versus urinary-derived FSH: an update. Hum Reprod 2003;18:305–13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coomarasamy A, Afnan M, Cheema D, et al. Urinary hMG versus recombinant FSH for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation following an agonist long down-regulation protocol in IVF or ICSI treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2008;23:310–15
   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 of Syst Rev 2011;CD005354
   Google Scholar
• Wide L, Eriksson K, Sluss PM, Hall JE. Serum half-life of pituitary gonadotropins is decreased by sulfonation and increased by sialylation in women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2009;94:958–64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen CY, Westergaard LG, van Wely M. FSH isoform composition of commercial gonadotrophin preparations: a neglected aspect? Reprod Biomed Online 2004;9:231–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen CY, Ezcurra D. What is the clinical relevance of follicle-stimulating hormone isoforms in fertility treatment? Reprod Biol Insights 2011;4:1–10
   Google Scholar
• Giudice E, Crisci C, Altarocca V, O’Brien M. Characterisation of a partially purified human menopausal gonadotropin preparation. J Clin Res 2001;4:27–34
   Google Scholar
• Anserini P, Costa M, Remorgida V, Venturini PL. A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study of a new subcutaneous, purified, urinary FSH preparation for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in vitro fertilization. Gynecol Endocrinol 2000;14:75–80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Inany HG, Abou-Setta AM. Are all human-derived follicle-stimulating hormone products the same? A systematic review and meta-analysis using direct and adjusted indirect analyses, to determine whether Fostimon® is more efficient than Metrodin-HP®. Gynecol Endocrinol 2012;28:94--101
   Google Scholar
• Haynes RB, Wilczynski N, McKibbon KA, et al. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound studies in MEDLINE. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1994;1:447–58
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abate A, Nazzaro A, Salerno A, et al. Efficacy of recombinant versus human derived follicle stimulating hormone on the oocyte and embryo quality in IVF-ICSI cycles: randomised, controlled, multi-centre trial. Gynecol Endocrinol 2009;25:479–84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aboulghar M, Saber W, Amin Y, et al. Prospective, randomized study comparing highly purified urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and recombinant FSH for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril 2010;94:2332–4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Antoine JM, De Mouzon J, Nicollet B, et al. Effectiveness and tolerability of hFSH compared to rFSH in ICSI: the European study. IBSA Satellite Symposium abstract, ESHRE, Lyon. 2007. Available from: http://www.ibsa.ch/it/eshre_2007_lyon_abstracts-3.pdf [last accessed November 2011]
   Google Scholar
• Baker VL, Fujimoto VY, Kettel LM, et al. Clinical efficacy of highly purified urinary FSH versus recombinant FSH in volunteers undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a randomized, multicenter, investigator-blind trial. Fertil Steril 2009;91:1005–11
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohamed MA, Sbracia M, Pacchiarotti A, et al. Urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) is more effective than recombinant FSH in older women in a controlled randomized study. Fertil Steril 2006;85:1398–403
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moustafa M, Abdelwahed A, Abosekena I, et al. IVF outcomes with either highly purified FSH vs recombinant FSH in down-regulated normogonadotrophic women: a prospective comparative study in a developing country and meta-analysis. Open Women’s Health J 2009;3:11–15
   Google Scholar
• Murber A, Fancsovits P, Ledó N, et al. Impact of highly purified versus recombinant follicle stimulating hormone on oocyte quality and embryo development in intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Acta Biol Hung 2011;62:255–64
   Google Scholar
• Selman HA, De Santo M, Sterzik K, et al. Effect of highly purified urinary follicle stimulating hormone on oocyte and embryo quality. Fertil Steril 2002;78:1061–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selman H, Pacchiarotti A, El-Danasouri I. Ovarian stimulation protocols based on follicle-stimulating hormone glycosylation pattern: impact on oocyte quality and clinical outcome. Fertil Steril 2010;94:1782–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1–12
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7:177–88
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557–60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994;50:1088–101
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629–34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egger M, Smith GD, Phillips AN. Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. BMJ 1997;315:1533–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tobias A. Assessing the influences of a single study in meta-analysis. Statal Tech Bull 1999;47:15–17
   Google Scholar
• Gerli S, Casini ML, Unfer V, et al. Ovulation induction with urinary FSH or recombinant FSH in polycystic ovary syndrome patients: a prospective randomized analysis of cost-effectiveness. Reprod Biomed Online 2004;9:494–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerli S, Bini V, Di Renzo GC. Cost-effectiveness of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) versus human FSH in intrauterine insemination cycles: a statistical model-derived analysis. Gynecol Endocrinol 2008;24:18–23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Antonio MD, Borrelli F, Datola A, et al. Biological characterization of recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone isoforms. Hum Reprod 1999;14:1160–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vitt UA, Kloosterboer HJ, Rose UM, et al. Isoforms of human recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone: comparison of effects on murine follicle development in vitro. Biol Reprod 1998;59:854–61
   Google Scholar
• West CR, Carlson NE, Lee JS, et al. Acidic mix of FSH isoforms are better facilitators of ovarian follicular maturation and E2 production than the less acidic. Endocrinology 2002;143:107–16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dakin H, Wordsworth S. Cost-minimisation analysis versus cost-effectiveness analysis, revisited. Health Econ 2013;22:22--34
   Google Scholar
• Bouwmans CA, Lintsen BM, Eijkemans MJ, et al. A detailed cost analysis of in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment. Fertil Steril 2008;89:331–41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatoum HT, Keye Jr WR, 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;83:804–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silverberg K, Daya S, Auray JP, et al. 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;77:107–13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Inany HG, Abou-Setta AM, Aboulghar MA, et al. 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;12:163–9
   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. Hum Reprod 2001;16:2563–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mantovani LG, Belisari A, Szucs TD. Pharmaco-economic aspects of in-vitro fertilization in Italy. Hum Reprod 1999;14:953–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romeu A, Balasch J, Ruiz Balda JA, et al. 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
• Gerli S, Bini V, Di Renzo GC. Pharmacoeconomy in ART: the importance of the gonadotrophin choice. Middle East Fertil Soc J 2010;15:64–7
   Google Scholar
• Chambers GM, Sullivan EA, Ishihara O, et al. The economic impact of assisted reproductive technology: a review of selected developed countries. Fertil Steril 2009;91:2281–94
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins J. An international survey of the health economics of IVF and ICSI. Hum Reprod 2002;8:265–7
   Google Scholar
• Mladovsky P, Sorenson C. Public financing of IVF: a review of policy rationales. Health Care Anal 2010;18:113–28
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar