[Use of GnRH antagonist for in vitro fertilization]

Patients' preferences for gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogs in in vitro fertilization

BACKGROUND

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists reduce ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) at the price of a small reduction in effectiveness compared to GnRH agonists. The aim of this study was to investigate patients' preferences on effectiveness, safety and burden of GnRH analogs.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a trade-off question were designed. Patients embarking on assisted reproductive technique treatment were asked to choose between two hypothetical medications which differed in effectiveness, safety and burden.

RESULTS

A total of 172 questionnaires were analyzed. All attributes of the DCE had a statistically significant impact on the preference of the respondents. Respondents were willing to trade off 0.87 and 0.81% effectiveness for a decrease in OHSS risk and for fewer side effects, respectively. Respondents were not willing to trade off effectiveness for 'importance of compliance' (trade-off 0.40%) or a shorter 'duration of treatment' (trade-off 0.26%). The trade-off questions showed that already at a 2.0% increase in pregnancy rate in favor of the agonists, the majority of the respondents changed their preference from antagonists to agonists (2.0%, 95% CI 1.7-2.1).

CONCLUSION

Safety and burden are important to patients, but are not important enough to make up for a small decrease in pregnancy rate.

Balancing selected medication costs with total number of daily injections: a preference analysis of GnRH-agonist and antagonist protocols by IVF patients

BACKGROUND

During in vitro fertilization (IVF), fertility patients are expected to self-administer many injections as part of this treatment. While newer medications have been developed to substantially reduce the number of these injections, such agents are typically much more expensive. Considering these differences in both cost and number of injections, this study compared patient preferences between GnRH-agonist and GnRH-antagonist based protocols in IVF.

METHODS

Data were collected by voluntary, anonymous questionnaire at first consultation appointment. Patient opinion concerning total number of s.c. injections as a function of non-reimbursed patient cost associated with GnRH-agonist [A] and GnRH-antagonist [B] protocols in IVF was studied.

RESULTS

Completed questionnaires (n = 71) revealed a mean +/- SD patient age of 34 +/- 4.1 yrs. Most (83.1%) had no prior IVF experience; 2.8% reported another medical condition requiring self-administration of subcutaneous medication(s). When out-of-pocket cost for [A] and [B] were identical, preference for [B] was registered by 50.7% patients. The tendency to favor protocol [B] was weaker among patients with a health occupation. Estimated patient costs for [A] and [B] were $259.82 +/- 11.75 and $654.55 +/- 106.34, respectively (p < 0.005). Measured patient preference for [B] diminished as the cost difference increased.

CONCLUSIONS

This investigation found consistently higher non-reimbursed direct medication costs for GnRH-antagonist IVF vs. GnRH-agonist IVF protocols. A conditional preference to minimize downregulation (using GnRH-antagonist) was noted among some, but not all, IVF patient sub-groups. Compared to IVF patients with a health occupation, the preference for GnRH-antagonist was weaker than for other patients. While reducing total number of injections by using GnRH-antagonist is a desirable goal, it appears this advantage is not perceived equally by all IVF patients and its utility is likely discounted heavily by patients when nonreimbursed medication costs reach a critical level.