Comparison of Cumulative Live Birth Rates and Cost-Effectiveness Between GnRH Antagonist and Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocols Running title: Cost-effectiveness of GnRH-ant vs PPOS

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.
Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objective: This study compared the cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs) and cost-effectiveness of the GnRH antagonist (GnRH-ant) versus progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocols in controlled ovarian stimulation (COS). Methods: In this retrospective study, women who underwent COS with GnRH-ant or PPOS at Taichung Veterans General Hospital, from 2018 through 2022, were analyzed. After applying exclusion criteria, eligible participants were matched in a 3:1 ratio using propensity score matching based on age and anti-Müllerian hormone levels. Clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness were evaluated, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) conducted based on various willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. Results: A total of 225 patients who underwent COS with GnRH-ant and 85 patients with PPOS were included. GnRH-ant required significantly lower gonadotropin doses, a shorter stimulation duration, and yielded a higher MII oocyte rate. Pregnancy and live birth rates after the first embryo transfer were similar between the two protocols, while the GnRH-ant group had a numerically higher CLBR (56.08% vs 54.12%) and a significantly shorter time from stimulation to live birth (351.28 ± 138.59 vs. 394.42 ± 105.90 days, p < 0.001) per aspirated cycle compared to PPOS. Medical costs by procedure and in total were comparable, with an ICER of $2,067.14 per additional live birth for GnRH-ant. PSA indicated a 40% probability of cost-effectiveness at a $2,000 WTP threshold, with the probability increasing to 58.0% at $10,000 and 61.3% at $30,000. Conclusion: Both protocols yielded similar pregnancy and live birth outcomes, with GnRH-ant being a cost-effective option under more lenient WTP settings. Moreover, GnRH-ant was associated with a shorter time from stimulation to live birth, potentially benefiting women who seek to conceive sooner.

Article activity feed