OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical outcome and costs of CC + gonadotropins with GnRHa + gonadotropins during IVF/ICSI cycles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical outcome and expenses of 382 CC + gonadotropin and 964 GnRHa + gonadotropin cycles were compared. Medication costs were calculated on the basis of the mean number of ampoules and the proportion of various gonadotropins. Costs per clinical pregnancy were calculated on the basis of expenses and clinical pregnancy rates. RESULTS: Women in the CC + gonadotropin group were younger, and had fewer follicles, oocytes, embryos, and embryos transferred. Clinical pregnancy rates were higher in the GnRHa group (35.9 % vs 26.2%, p < 0.001). More ampoules of gonadotropins were used in the GnRHa group (24.0 +/- 0.3 vs 20.0 +/- 0.5, p < 0.001). Medication costs per cycle were higher in the GnRHa group (US dollars 357 vs 248). Expenses per pregnancy however were lower in the GnRHa group (USdollars 4197 vs 5335 with IVF; USdollars 5590 vs 7244 with ICSI). When different age subgroups with similar baseline characteristics and stimulation parameters were compared, pregnancy rates were significantly higher in the GnRHa groups. Medication cost per cycle was higher in the GnRHa subgroups, and the expense per pregnancy was lower with GnRHa protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Cost per cycle is higher with GnRHa + gonadotropin. However, because of the better performance of the GnRHa + gonadotropin stimulation, the cumulative costs are reduced by the time a clinical pregnancy is achieved.
OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical outcome and costs of CC + gonadotropins with GnRHa + gonadotropins during IVF/ICSI cycles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical outcome and expenses of 382 CC + gonadotropin and 964 GnRHa + gonadotropin cycles were compared. Medication costs were calculated on the basis of the mean number of ampoules and the proportion of various gonadotropins. Costs per clinical pregnancy were calculated on the basis of expenses and clinical pregnancy rates. RESULTS:Women in the CC + gonadotropin group were younger, and had fewer follicles, oocytes, embryos, and embryos transferred. Clinical pregnancy rates were higher in the GnRHa group (35.9 % vs 26.2%, p < 0.001). More ampoules of gonadotropins were used in the GnRHa group (24.0 +/- 0.3 vs 20.0 +/- 0.5, p < 0.001). Medication costs per cycle were higher in the GnRHa group (US dollars 357 vs 248). Expenses per pregnancy however were lower in the GnRHa group (USdollars 4197 vs 5335 with IVF; USdollars 5590 vs 7244 with ICSI). When different age subgroups with similar baseline characteristics and stimulation parameters were compared, pregnancy rates were significantly higher in the GnRHa groups. Medication cost per cycle was higher in the GnRHa subgroups, and the expense per pregnancy was lower with GnRHa protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Cost per cycle is higher with GnRHa + gonadotropin. However, because of the better performance of the GnRHa + gonadotropin stimulation, the cumulative costs are reduced by the time a clinical pregnancy is achieved.
Authors: K Diedrich; C Diedrich; E Santos; C Zoll; S al-Hasani; T Reissmann; D Krebs; D Klingmüller Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 1994-05 Impact factor: 6.918