Recombinant versus highly-purified, urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (r-FSH vs. HP-uFSH) in ovulation induction: a prospective, randomized study with cost-minimization analysis

Alberto Revelli, Francesca Poso, Gianluca Gennarelli, Federica Moffa, Giuseppina Grassi, Marco Massobrio, Alberto Revelli, Francesca Poso, Gianluca Gennarelli, Federica Moffa, Giuseppina Grassi, Marco Massobrio

Abstract

Background: Both recombinant FSH (r-FSH) and highly-purified, urinary FSH (HP-uFSH) are frequently used in ovulation induction associated with timed sexual intercourse. Their effectiveness is reported to be similar, and therefore the costs of treatment represent a major issue to be considered. Although several studies about costs in IVF have been published, data obtained in low-technology infertility treatments are still scarce.

Methods: Two hundred and sixty infertile women (184 with unexplained infertility, 76 with CC-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome) at their first treatment cycle were randomized and included in the study. Ovulation induction was accomplished by daily administration of rFSH or HP-uFSH according to a low-dose, step-up regimen aimed to obtain a monofollicular ovulation. A bi- or tri-follicular ovulation was anyway accepted, whereas hCG was withdrawn and the cycle cancelled when more than three follicles greater than or equal to 18 mm diameter were seen at ultrasound. The primary outcome measure was the cost of therapy per delivered baby, estimated according to a cost-minimization analysis. Secondary outcomes were the following: monofollicular ovulation rate, total FSH dose, cycle cancellation rate, length of the follicular phase, number of developing follicles (>12 mm diameter), endometrial thickness at hCG, incidence of twinning and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, delivery rate.

Results: The overall FSH dose needed to achieve ovulation was significantly lower with r-FSH, whereas all the other studied variables did not significantly differ with either treatments. However, a trend toward a higher delivery rate with r-FSH was observed in the whole group and also when results were considered subgrouping patients according to the indication to treatment.

Conclusion: Considering the significantly lower number of vials/patient and the slight (although non-significant) increase in the delivery rate with r-FSH, the cost-minimization analysis showed a 9.4% reduction in the overall therapy cost per born baby in favor of r-FSH.

References

    1. Risquez F. Induction of follicular growth and ovulation with urinary and recombinant gonadotropins. Reprod Biomed Online. 2001;3:54–72.
    1. Out HJ, Mannaerts BMJL, Driessen SGAJ, Coelingh Bennink HJT. A prospective, randomized, assessor-blind, multicentre study comparing recombinant and urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (Puregon vs Metrodin) in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:2534–2540.
    1. Out HJ, Driessen SG, Mannaerts BM, Coelingh Bennink HJ. Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (follitropin beta, Puregon) yields higher pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization than urinary gonadotropins. Fertil Steril. 1997;68:138–142. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(97)81490-2.
    1. Bergh C, Howles CM, Borg K, Hamberger L, Josefsson B, Nilsson L, Wikland M. Recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (r-hFSH;Gonal F) versus highly purified urinary FSH (Metrodin HP): results of a randomized comparative study in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:2133–2139. doi: 10.1093/humrep/12.10.2133.
    1. Strehler E, Abt M, El-Danasouri I, De Santo M, Sterzik K. Impact of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and human menopausal gonadotropins on in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril. 2001;75:332–336. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(00)01696-4.
    1. Hugues JN, Bry-Gauillard H, Bständig B, Uzan M, Cedrin-Durnerin I. Comparison of recombinant and urinary follicle-stimulating hormone preparations in short-term gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist protocol for in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. J Ass Reprod Genet. 2001;18:191–196.
    1. Ravhon A, Lavery S, Aurell R, Trew G, Margara R, Winston R. Cilinical experience with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and urinary FSH: a retrospective case-controlled analysis. Fertil Steril. 2001;75:92–95. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(01)01684-3.
    1. Daya S, Gunby J. Recombinant versus urinary follicle stimulating hormone for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2207–2215. doi: 10.1093/humrep/14.9.2207.
    1. Silverberg KM, Ormand RA, Hansard LJ, Vaughn TC. Recombinant FSH provides more efficient, cost-effective stimulation for Ovulation Induction/Intrauterine Insemination (OI/IUI) cycles than higlhy purified urinary FSH. Fertil Steril. 2001;75:S15–S16. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(01)01740-X.
    1. Matorras R, Recio V, Corcóstegui B, Rodríguez-Escuedero FJ. Recombinant human FSH versus highly purified urinary FSH: a randomized study in intrauterine insemination with husbands' spermatozo. Hum Reprod. 2000;16:1231–1234. doi: 10.1093/humrep/15.6.1231.
    1. Coelingh Bennink HJT, Fauser BCJM, Out HJ. Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH; Puregon) is more efficient than urinary FSH (Metrodin) in women with clomiphene citrate-resistant, normogonadotropic, chronic anovulation: a prospective, multicenter, assessor-blind, randomized, clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 1998;69:19–25. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(97)00423-8.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00209-5.
    1. Loumaye E, Martineau I, Piazzi A, O'Dea L, Ince S, Howles C, Decosterd G, Van Loon K, Galazka A. Clinical assessment of human gonadotrophins produced by recombinant DNA technology. Hum Reprod. 1996;11:95–107.
    1. Fulghesu AM, Apa R, Belosi C, Ciampelli M, Selvaggi LJr, Cucinelli F, Caruso A, Mancuso S, Lanzone A. Recombinant versus urinary follicle-stimulating hormone in the low-dose regimen in anovulatory patients with polycystic ovary syndrome: a safer and more effective treatment. Horm Res. 2001;55:224–228. doi: 10.1159/000050000.
    1. Hugues JN, Bständig Bry-Gauillard B, Uzan I, Cédrin-Durnerin I. Comparison of recombinant and urinary follicle stimulating hormone preparations' effectiveness for achievement of follicular selection in chronic anovulation. Reprod BioMed Online. 2001;3:195–198.
    1. Bayram N, vanWely M, vander Veen F. Recombinant FSH versus urinary gonadotrophins or recombinant FSH for ovulation induction in subfertility associated with polycystic ovary syndrome. 2002. pp. 1–23.
    1. Gerli S, Casini ML, Unfer V, Costabile L, Mignosa M, DiRenzo GC. Ovulation induction with urinary FSH or recombinant FSH in polycystic ovary sindrome patients: a prospective randomized analysis of cost-effectiveness. Reprod Biomed Online. 2004;9:494–499.
    1. Gerli S, Casini ML, Unfer V, Costabile L, Bini V, Di Renzo GC. Recombinant versus urinary follicle-stimulating hormone in intrauterine insemination cycles: a prospective, randomized analysis of cost effectiveness. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:573–578. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.04.026.
    1. World Health Organization . WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen-Cervical Mucus Interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK; 1992.
    1. Howles CM. Genetic engineering of human FSH (Gonal F) Hum Reprod Update. 1996;2:172–191. doi: 10.1093/humupd/2.2.172.
    1. Al-Inany H, Afnan M. Models of cost-effectiveness of recombinant FSH versus urinary FSH. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:1671–1674. doi: 10.1093/humrep/17.6.1671-a.
    1. Frydman R, Howles CM, Truong F. A double-blind, randomized study to compare recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone (FSH; Gonal-F®) with highly purified urinary FSH (Metrodin® HP) in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques including intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:520–525. doi: 10.1093/humrep/15.3.520.
    1. Schats R, De Sutter P, Bassil S, Kremer JAM, Tournaye H, Donnez J. Ovarian stimulation during assisted reproduction treatment: a comparison of recombinant and highly purified urinary human FSH. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:1691–1697. doi: 10.1093/humrep/15.8.1691.
    1. Olijve W, de Boer W, Mulders JWM, van Wezenbeeck PM. Molecular biology and biochemistry of human recombinant stimulating hormone (Puregon) Mol Hum Reprod. 1996;5:371–382.
    1. Balasch J, Fabregues F, Pennarrubia J, Creus M, Vidal R, Casamitjana I, Manau D, Vanrell JA. Follicular development and hormonal levels following highly purified or recombinant follicle stimulating hormone administration in ovulatory women and WHO group II anovulatory infertile patients. J Ass Reprod Genet. 1998;15:552–559. doi: 10.1023/A:1022586221077.
    1. Daya S, Ledger W, Auray JP, Duru G, Silverberg K, Wikland M, Bouzayen R, Howles CM, Beresniak A. Cost-effectiveness modelling of recombinant FSH versus urinary FSH in assisted reproduction techniques in the UK. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2563–2569. doi: 10.1093/humrep/16.12.2563.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する