ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024
A direct healthcare cost analysis of recombinant LH versus hMG supplementation on FSH during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in the GnRH-antagonist protocol.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of luteinizing hormone in the management of female infertility: A French Delphi consensus.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- FSH/LH co-stimulation in Advanced Maternal Age (AMA) and hypo-responder patients - Arabian gulf delphi consensus group.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe have previously published a retrospective matched-case control study comparing the effect of recombinant LH (r-hLH) versus highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) supplementation on the follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in the GnRH-antagonist protocol. The result from that study showed that the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) was significantly higher in the r-hLH group (53% vs. 64%, p = 0.02). In this study, we aim to do a cost analysis between these two groups based on our previous study.
methodsThe analysis consisted of 425 IVF and ICSI cycles in our previous study. There were 259 cycles in the r-hFSH + hMG group and 166 cycles in the r-hFSH + r-hLH group. The total cost related to the treatment of each patient was recorded. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) were performed and created.
resultsThe total treatment cost per patient was significantly higher in the r-hFSH + r-hLH group than in the r-hFSH + hMG group ($4550 ± 798.86 vs. $4290 ± 734.6, p = 0.003). However, the mean cost per live birth in the r-hFSH + hMG group was higher at $8052, vs. $7059 in the r-hFSH + r-hLH group. The CEAC showed that treatment with hFSH + r-hLH proved to be more cost-effective than treatment with r-hFSH + hMG. Willingness-to-pay was evident when considering a hypothetical threshold of $18,513, with the r-hFSH + r-hLH group exhibiting a 99% probability of being considered cost-effective.
conclusionThe cost analysis showed that recombinant LH is more cost-effective than hMG supplementation on r-hFSH during COH in the GnRH-antagonist protocol.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38099955What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.