Effect of urinary versus recombinant FSH on clinical outcomes after frozen-thawed embryo transfers: a systematic review

Economic evaluation of highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin versus recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone in fresh and frozen in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm-injection cycles in Sweden

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone-analog type, fertilization method, and number of embryos available for cryopreservation should be incorporated into economic evaluations of highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (HP-hMG) and recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (r-hFSH), as they may affect treatment costs. We searched for randomized trials and meta-analyses comparing HP-hMG and r-hFSH. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in live births (odds ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66–1.01), but a greater number of oocytes with r-hFSH (mean difference [MD] 1.96, 95% CI 1.02–2.90). Using a cost-minimization model for Sweden, accounting for embryo availability, survival following thawing, and patient dropout, we simulated patients individually for up to three cycles. R-hFSH was found to be cost-saving, at 2,767 kr (95% CI 1,580–4,057) per patient (€315 or $411); baseline savings were 6.43% of the total HP-hMG cost. In fresh cycles only, the savings for r-hFSH were 1,752 kr (95% CI 48–3,658) per patient (€200 or $260). In univariate sensitivity analyses, savings were obtained until the price of r-hFSH increased by 30% or the dosage of HP-hMG decreased by 38%–62% of baseline value. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, r-hFSH was cost-saving in 100% of the simulated cohort per patient and in 85% per live birth; the respective percentages for fresh cycles only were 97.3% and 73.1%. In conclusion, a greater number of oocytes with r-hFSH allows for more frozen embryo transfers, thereby reducing overall treatment cost.

Success of frozen embryo transfer: Does the type of gonadotropin influence the outcome?

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether there is a difference in outcome between different ovulation-induced cycles after frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET).

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's trials register in May 2009, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2008), ISI Web of Knowledge (1985 to August 2009), and reference lists of articles. Relevant conference proceedings were hand-searched and researchers in the field were contacted. Randomized controlled trials and retrospective studies were included, comparing the various cycle regimens and different methods during FET in assisted reproductive technology, ie, in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

RESULTS

Using the agonist long protocol for downregulation, five trials provided extractable data for live-birth rates, ongoing pregnancy, and clinical pregnancy rates following FET. One trial provided extractable data for clinical pregnancy rate. There was no evidence of a significant difference in any outcome between the users of urinary gonadotropins versus recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone. Data on implantation and miscarriage rates following FET were not available for analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

It seems that clinical pregnancy rate after FET is not influenced by the type of gonadotropins used. Research should be directed towards improving freezing and thawing techniques.