Skip Navigation



Hum. Reprod. Advance Access published online on July 27, 2006

Human Reproduction, doi:10.1093/humrep/del273
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
21/11/2838    most recent
del273v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bedaiwy, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Casper, R. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bedaiwy, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Casper, R. F.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Received February 7, 2006
Revised June 5, 2006
Accepted June 13, 2006

Article

Cost-effectiveness of aromatase inhibitor co-treatment for controlled ovarian stimulation

Mohamed A. Bedaiwy 1, Rachel Forman 2, Noha A. Mousa 1, Hesham G. Al Inany 3, and Robert F. Casper 2 *

1 Division of Reproductive Sciences, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Assiut University, Assiut
2 Division of Reproductive Sciences, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
3 Cairo University, Giza, Egypt

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Robert F. Casper, E-mail: rfcasper{at}aol.com


   Abstract

BACKGROUND: To compare the clinical results and the cost-effectiveness of using the aromatase inhibitor, letro-zole, in conjunction with FSH and FSH alone for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in patients undergoing intra-uterine insemination (IUI) for a variety of indications. METHODS: Four hundred and thirty-two consecutive patients who underwent 872 IUI cycles were included. The study population was composed of two groups. Group I included 308 patients who underwent 589 IUI cycles with letrozole and FSH for the following indications: anovulation (143 cycles), male factor infertility (147 cycles), unexplained infertility (250 cycles), endometriosis (18 cycles) and combined indications (31 cycles). Group II included 124 patients who underwent 283 IUI cycles who received FSH only for the following indications: ovarian factor infertility (82 cycles), male factor infertility (66 cycles), unexplained infertility (114 cycles), endometriosis (13 cycles) and other indications (8 cycles). Main outcome measures included number of mature follicles >16 mm in diameter, dose of FSH used per cycle, clinical pregnancy rate and cost-effectiveness ratio per pregnancy. RESULTS: FSH dose required for ovarian stimulation was significantly lower when letrozole was used (P < 0.0001). Although a significantly higher number of follicles >16 mm and endometrial thickness at the day of hCG administration (P < 0.0001) were observed in Group II, pregnancy rate per started (14.4 versus 15.9%) and per completed cycles (15.77 versus 18.07%) was the same in Group I and Group II, respectively. IUI cancellation rate was significantly lower with letrozole treatment (P = 0.05%). The cost per cycle was significantly lower in Group I versus Group II (Can$468.93 ± 418.18 versus 1067.28 ± 921.43; P < 0.0001). The cost-effectiveness ratio was $3249.42 in the letrozole group and $6712.00 in the FSH-only group. CONCLUSION: A letrozole-FSH combination could be an effective ovarian stimulation protocol in IUI cycles. Such a protocol may be more cost-effective than FSH alone because of the difference of FSH dose and cost. A randomized controlled trial is needed to further substantiate this finding.

Keywords: aromatase inhibitors/cost-effectiveness/intrauterine insemination/letrozole/ovarian stimulation.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
A. Requena, J. Herrero, J. Landeras, E. Navarro, J. L. Neyro, C. Salvador, R. Tur, J. Callejo, M. A. Checa, M. Farre, et al.
Use of letrozole in assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Hum. Reprod. Update, November 1, 2008; 14(6): 571 - 582.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.Home page
M. A. Bedaiwy, N. A. Mousa, N. Esfandiari, R. Forman, and R. F. Casper
Follicular Phase Dynamics with Combined Aromatase Inhibitor and Follicle Stimulating Hormone Treatment
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., March 1, 2007; 92(3): 825 - 833.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.