• Peter Bo Poulsen, Astrid Højgaard, and Jens Piero Quartarolo.
• MUUSMANN Research & Consulting, Randers Centralsygehus, Kolding. pbpo@muusmann-as.dk
• Ugeskr. Laeg. 2007 Apr 2;169(14):1313-7.

IntroductionThere is a choice between two types of hormones for stimulation of the follicles in IVF treatment - recombinant FSH and the urine-derived menotrophin. A literature review by NICE (2004) in the United Kingdom documented that the two types of hormones were equally effective and safe, which is why it was recommended to use the cheaper urine-derived hormone. Based on the EISG study (European and Israeli Study Group), the aim was to analyse the health economic consequences of the choice between the two types of hormone in IVF treatment in Denmark.Materials And MethodsIn a prospective cost-effectiveness analysis (health care sector perspective), menotrophin and recombinant FSH (Gonal-F) were compared. Differences in costs were compared with differences in effects of the two alternatives.ResultsThe total costs for the average patient are lower when using menotrophin compared with recombinant FSH. Furthermore, the cost per clinical pregnancy was lower with menotrophin compared with recombinant FSH hormone. Menotrophin is therefore less expensive both for the patient as well as for the health care sector. The use of menotrophin instead of recombinant FSH can result in savings of up to DKK 16 million on the drug budget--savings that could finance 1,400 additional IVF cycles.ConclusionThe analysis shows that urine-derived menotrophin is a cost-effective alternative to recombinant FSH with a potential for considerable savings for patients as well as the public drug budget.

22 keywords...

hide…