Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

hMG altamente purificada (hMG-HP) versus FSH + LH recombinantes en ciclos de fecundaciòn in vitro: estudio econòmico

  • Artículo de Investigación Original
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Spanish Research Articles

Resumen

El aumento de las parejas que necesitan tratamientos de reproducciòn asistida conlleva actualmente implicaciones en los sistemas de salud, y por lo tanto la necesidad de realizar estudios de coste-beneficio. Frente al desarrollo de las gonadotropinas recombinantes, los preparados de origen urinario ofrecen costes màs econòmicos. En el presente estudio se comparan los resultados en tèrminos de coste-efectividad por gestaciòn evolutiva de ciclos de fecundaciòn in vitro en los que se empleò hMG altamente purificada (hMG-HP) frente a una combinaciòn de FSH y LH recombinantes. Dicho anàlisis se ha realizado en ciclos con agonistas y con antagonistas de la GnRH.

Si bien los resultados en tèrminos de eficacia clìnica (gestaciòn evolutiva) son similares con ambos tipos de preparados, el coste por gestaciòn evolutiva es significativamente màs favorable a los ciclos en que se empleò hMG-HP, debido tanto al menor coste por UI como a la menor cantidad de dosis total requeridas. Estos hallazgos se repiten en ciclos con agonistas y con antagonistas de la GnRH.

Summary

The increase in the number of couples needing assisted reproduction techniques has currently implications on health systems, bringing the need of performing costbenefit studies. Since the development of recombinant gonadotrophins, urinary compounds offer a more economic choice. In the present study, outcome in terms of cost-benefit by ongoing pregnancy after In Vitro Fertilization in which highly purified HMG was employed versus a combination of recombinant FSH and LH is compared. Analysis was performed in GnRH agonist and antagonist protocols. Although outcome in terms of clinical efficiency (ongoing pregnancy) were similar with both kind of compounds, cost per ongoing pregnancy was significantly lower when HMG was used, due to the lower cost per International Unit and to the lower amount of total doses required. These findings are present in both GnRH agonist and antagonist cycles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Bibliografìa

  1. Steptoe PC, Edwards RG. Birth after implantation of a human embryo. Lancet 1978; 2: 366

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Damario DA, Davis OK, Rosenwaks Z. The endocrinology of assisted reproduction endocrinologies. Current opinion in endocrinology and diabetes 1995; 2: 493–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lunenfeld B, Menzi A, Volet B. Clinical effects of human postmenopausal gonadotropin. Rass Clin Ter Sci Affini 1960; 59: 213–7

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Jones HW, Jones GS, Andrews MC, et al. The program of in vitro fertilization at Norfolk. Fertil Steril 1982; 38: 14–21

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hughes EG, Fedorkow DM, Daya S, et al. The routine use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists prior to in vitro fertilization and gamete intrafallopian transfer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Fertil Steril 1992; 58: 888–96

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Balasch J, Fàbregues F. Is luteinizing hormone needed for optimal ovulation induction. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2002; 14: 265–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Al-Inany H, Aboulghar M. GnRH antagonist in assisted reproduction: a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 874–85

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Daya S, Ledger W, Auray JP, et al. A. Cost effectiveness modelling of recombinant FSH versus urinary FSH in assisted reproduction techniques in the UK. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 2563–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Mantovani L, Belisari A, Szucs T. Pharmaco-economic aspects of in Vitro fertilization in Italy. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 953–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Van Loon J, Lirapoulos L, Mousiama T. Economic evaluation of a recombinant follicle-stimulating hormona (Follitropin Beta Puregon®) in infertile women undergoing in vitro fertilisation in Greece. Clin Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 19: 201–11

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ludwig M, Rabe T, Bühler K, et al. Wirksamkeit von rekombinantem humanem FSH im Vergleich zu urinärem HMG nach Downregulation im lancen Protokoll- Eine Analyse von 24.764 ART-Zyklen in Deutchsland. J Reproduktionsmed Endokrinol 2004; 1: 284–8

    Google Scholar 

  12. Escudero E, Bosch E, Crespo J, et al. Comparison of two different starting multiple dose gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocols in a selected group of in vitro-fertilization- embryo transfers patients. Fertil Steril 2004; 81: 562–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Gil-Salom M, Minguez Y, Rubio C, et al. Efficacy of intracytoplasmic sperm injection using testicular spermatozoa. Hum Reprod 1995; 10: 3166–70

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Silverberg K, Daya S, Auray JP, et al. Analysis of the cost effectiveness of recombinant versus urinary follicle-stimulating hormone in in vito fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection programs in the United States. Fertil Steril 2002; 77: 107–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Romeu A, Balasch J, Ruiz Balda JA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of recombinant versus urinary follicle-stimulating hormona in assisted reproduction techniques in the Spanish public health care system. J Assist Reprod Genet 2003; 20: 294–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gerli S, Casini ML, Unfer V, et al. Recombinant versus urinary follicle-stimulating hormone in intrauterine insemination cycles: a prospective ranndomized analysis of cost-effectiveness. Fertil Steril 2004; 82: 573–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gerli S, Casini ML, Unfer V, et al. Ovarian induction with urinary FSH or recombinant FSH in polycystic ovary sìndrome patients: a prospective ranndomized analysis of cost-effectiveness. Reprod Biomed Online 2004; 9: 494–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Loumaye E, Engrand P, Howles CM, et al. Assessment of the role of serum luteinizing hormone and estradiol response to follicle-stimulating hormone on in vitro fertilization treatment outcome. Fertil Steril 1997; 67: 889–99

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Fleming R, Lloyd F, Herbert M, et al. Effects of profound suppression of luteinizing hormone during ovarian stimulation on follicular activity, oocyte and embryo function in cycles stimulated with purified follicle stimulating hormone. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 1778–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Westergaard LG, Laursen SB, Andersen CY. Increased risk of early pregnancy loss by profound suppression of luteinizing hormone during ovarian stimulation in normogonadotrophic women undergoing assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 1003–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Esposito MA, Barnhart KT, Coutifaris C, et al. Role of periovulatory luteinizing hormone concentrations during assisted reproductive technology cycles stimulated exclusively with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone. Fertil Steril 2001; 75: 519–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Humaidan P, Bungum L, Bungum M, et al. Ovarian response and pregnancy outcome related to mid- follicular LH levels in women undergoing assisted reproduction with GnRH agonist down-regulation and recombinant FSH stimulation. Hum Reprod 2002; 7: 2016–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tesarik J, Mendoza C. Effects of exogenous LH administration during ovarian stimulation of pituitary down-regulated young oocyte donors on oocyte yield and developmental competence. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 3129–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Balasch J, Vidal E, Peñarrubia J, et al. Suppression of LH during ovarian stimulation: analysing threshold values and effects on ovarian response and the outcome of assisted reproduction in down-regulated women stimulated with recombinant FSH. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 1636–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Peñarrubia J, Fàbregues F, Creus M, et al. LH serum levels during ovarian stimulation as predictors of ovarian response, and assisted reproduction outcome in down-regulated women stimulated with recombinant FSH. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 2689–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cèdrin-Durnerin I, Grange-Dujardin D, Laffy A, et al. Recombinant human LH supplementation during GnRH antagonist administration in IVF/ICSI cycles: a prospective randomized study. Hum Reprod 2004; 19: 1979–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Merivel P, Antoine JM, Mathieu E, et al. Luteinizing hormone concentrations after gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist administration do not influence pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization-embrio transfer. Fertil Steril 2004; 82: 119–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kolibianakis EM, Zikopoulos K, Schiettecatte J, et al. Profound LH suppression after GnRH antagonist administration is associated with a significantly higher ongoing pregnancy rate in IVF. Hum Reprod 2004; 19: 2490–96

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Bosch E, Escudero E, Crespo J, et al. Serum LH in ovarian stimulation with GnRH antagonists and recombinant FSH and its relationship with cycle outcome. Fertil Steril 2005 (en prensa)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto Valenciano de Infertilidad, Instituto Universitario IVI. Universidad de Valencia, España

    Ernesto Bosch & Antonio Pellicer

Authors
  1. Ernesto Bosch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antonio Pellicer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bosch, E., Pellicer, A. hMG altamente purificada (hMG-HP) versus FSH + LH recombinantes en ciclos de fecundaciòn in vitro: estudio econòmico. Pharmacoecon. Span. Res. Artic. 2, 93–99 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03320902

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03320902

Palabrasclave

Keywords

Search

Navigation