Literature DB >> 24942802

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

Lotte van den Wijngaard1, Madelon van Wely, Eline A F Dancet, Nora M van Mello, Carolien A M Koks, Fulco van der Veen, Ben W J Mol, Monique H Mochtar.   

Abstract

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.
© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24942802     DOI: 10.1159/000362274

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Obstet Invest        ISSN: 0378-7346            Impact factor:   2.031


  5 in total

1.  What Features of Fertility Treatment do Patients Value? Price Elasticity and Willingness-to-Pay Values from a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Elena Keller; Willings Botha; Georgina M Chambers
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.

Authors:  Vikas Soekhai; Esther W de Bekker-Grob; Alan R Ellis; Caroline M Vass
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 3.  Continuous oral contraceptives versus long-term pituitary desensitization prior to IVF/ICSI in moderate to severe endometriosis: study protocol of a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  L E E van der Houwen; M C I Lier; A M F Schreurs; M van Wely; P G A Hompes; A E P Cantineau; R Schats; C B Lambalk; V Mijatovic
Journal:  Hum Reprod Open       Date:  2019-02-23

4.  The perspective of women with an increased risk of OHSS regarding the safety and burden of IVF: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  S C Braam; J P de Bruin; B W J Mol; M van Wely
Journal:  Hum Reprod Open       Date:  2020-02-24

5.  How Do People with Experience of Infertility Value Different Aspects of Assistive Reproductive Therapy? Results from a Multi-Country Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  Chris Skedgel; Eleanor Ralphs; Elaine Finn; Marie Markert; Carl Samuelsen; Jennifer A Whitty
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2021-12-23       Impact factor: 3.481

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.