Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation
Original Article
Patients' Preferences for Gonadotrophin-Releasing Hormone Analogs in in vitro Fertilizationvan den Wijngaard L.a · van Wely M.a · Dancet E.A.F.a · van Mello N.M.a · Koks C.A.M.b · van der Veen F.a · Mol B.W.J.c · Mochtar M.H.aaCenter for Reproductive Medicine, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, and bDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maxima Medical Center, Veldhoven, The Netherlands; cRobinson Research Institute, School of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, S.A., Australia
|
|
Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.
KAB
Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!
If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.
Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Article / Publication Details
Received: September 05, 2013
Accepted: March 18, 2014
Published online: June 14, 2014
Issue release date: July 2014
Number of Print Pages: 6
Number of Figures: 2
Number of Tables: 2
ISSN: 0378-7346 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-002X (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/GOI
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
Related Articles:
References
- Domar AD, Smith K, Conboy L, Iannone M, Alper M: A prospective investigation into the reasons why insured United States patients drop out of in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertil Steril 2010;94:1457-1459.
- Olivius C, Friden B, Borg G, Bergh C: Why do couples discontinue in vitro fertilization treatment? A cohort study. Fertil Steril 2004;81:258-261.
- Verberg MF, Eijkemans MJ, Heijnen EM, Broekmans FJ, de Klerk C, Fauser BC, et al: Why do couples drop-out from IVF treatment? A prospective cohort study. Hum Reprod 2008;23:2050-2055.
- Rombauts L, Talmor A: Corifollitropin alfa for female infertility. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2012;12:107-112.
- Hughes EG, Fedorkow DM, Daya S, Sagle MA, Van de Koppel P, Collins JA: The routine use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists prior to in vitro fertilization and gamete intrafallopian transfer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Fertil Steril 1992;58:888-896.
- Weissman A, Ravhon A, Steinfeld Z, Nahum H, Golan A, Levran D: Controlled ovarian stimulation using a long gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol: a proof of concept and feasibility study. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2013;76:113-118.
- Al-Inany HG, Youssef MA, Aboulghar M, Broekmans F, Sterrenburg M, Smit J, et al: Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;5: CD001750.
- Ekerhovd E: Use of GnRH antagonist for in vitro fertilization (in Norwegian). Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2011;131:1649-1652.
- Borm G, Mannaerts B: Treatment with the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist ganirelix in women undergoing ovarian stimulation with recombinant follicle stimulating hormone is effective, safe and convenient: results of a controlled, randomized, multicentre trial. The European Orgalutran Study Group. Hum Reprod 2000;15:1490-1498.
- van Empel IW, Dancet EA, Koolman XH, Nelen WL, Stolk EA, Sermeus W, et al: Physicians underestimate the importance of patient-centredness to patients: a discrete choice experiment in fertility care. Hum Reprod 2011;26:584-593.
- Ryan M, Farrar S: Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ 2000;320:1530-1533.
- Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen ER, Russell EM, et al: Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess 2001;5:1-186.
- Ryan M, Bate A, Eastmond CJ, Ludbrook A: Use of discrete choice experiments to elicit preferences. Qual Health Care 2001;10(suppl 1):i55-i60.
- Ryan M, Gerard K: Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003;2:55-64.
- Bosch E, Valencia I, Escudero E, Crespo J, Simon C, Remohi J, et al: Premature luteinization during gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cycles and its relationship with in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 2003;80:1444-1449.
- Ben-Rafael Z: Agonist or antagonist: what is preferable for in vitro fertilization? Gynecol Endocrinol 2012;28(suppl 1):18-21.
- Al-Inany HG, Youssef MA, Aboulghar M, Broekmans F, Sterrenburg M, Smit J, et al: GnRH antagonists are safer than agonists: an update of a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod Update 2011;17:435.
-
Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD: Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007.
- Ryan M, Hughes J: Using conjoint analysis to assess women's preferences for miscarriage management. Health Econ 1997;6:261-273.
- Musters AM, de Bekker-Grob EW, Mochtar MH, van der Veen F, van Mello NM: Women's perspectives regarding subcutaneous injections, costs and live birth rates in IVF. Hum Reprod 2011;26:2425-2431.
- Fiddelers AA, Nieman FH, Dumoulin JC, van Montfoort AP, Land JA, Evers JL, et al: During IVF treatment patient preference shifts from singletons towards twins but only a few patients show an actual reversal of preference. Hum Reprod 2011;26:2092-2100.
- Gyrd-Hansen D, Sogaard J: Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes. Health Econ 2001;10:617-634.
- Sculpher M, Bryan S, Fry P, de Winter P, Payne H, Emberton M: Patients' preferences for the management of non-metastatic prostate cancer: discrete choice experiment. BMJ 2004;328:382.
- Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Phillips KA, Marshall JK, Thabane L, Kulin NA: Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. Value Health 2007;10:415-430.
- Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Kulin NA, Ozdemir S, Walsh JM, Marshall JK, et al: How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated-choice survey. Health Econ 2009;18:1420-1439.
- de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K: Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ 2012;21:145-172.
- Sills ES, Collins GS, Salem SA, Jones CA, Peck AC, Salem RD: Balancing selected medication costs with total number of daily injections: a preference analysis of GnRH-agonist and antagonist protocols by IVF patients. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2012;10:67.
- Al-Inany HG, Abou-Setta AM, Aboulghar M: Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;3:CD001750.
Article / Publication Details
Received: September 05, 2013
Accepted: March 18, 2014
Published online: June 14, 2014
Issue release date: July 2014
Number of Print Pages: 6
Number of Figures: 2
Number of Tables: 2
ISSN: 0378-7346 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-002X (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/GOI
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
Get Permission
PubMed ID
