OBJECTIVES: The choice is between two types of hormones used for follicle stimulation in IVF treatment - recom-binant FSH (rFSH) and the urine-derived menotrophin. A literature review by NICE in the United Kingdom carried out in 2004 documented that the two types of hormones were equally effective and safe consequently it was recommended to use the cheaper menotrophin. Based on findings by the European and Israeli Study Group (EIGS), the objective was to analyse the health economic consequences of this choice between the two types of hormone in IVF treatment in Denmark. METHODS: Based on the EISG study a prospective cost-effectiveness analysis, which compared menotrophin (Menopur®) and rFSH (Gonal-F®), was carried out. The analysis had a healthcare sector perspective with the inclusion of costs of hormone stimulation, visits, ultrasound, IVF, ICSI and inpatient stay at the hospital. Danish unit costs (2005) were applied. Differences in costs were compared with differences in effects to measure cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The total costs for the average patient are lower when using menotrophin (DKK 13,324; 95%CI: 12,583-14,282) compared with rFSH (DKK 15,852; 95%CI: 15,164-16,614). Furthermore, the cost per clinical pregnancy was lower with menotrophin (DKK 59,282; 95%CI: 50,207-72,056) compared with rFSH hormone (DKK 82,474; 95%CI: 68,389-102,867). Menotrophin is therefore less expensive both to the patient as well as to the health care sector. A result which was supported by a bootstrap analysis with 1,000 replications. Use of menotrophin can result in savings up to 16 million DKK on the drug budget per year. Savings that could finance 1,400 additional IVF cycles. CONCLUSION: The analysis has shown that menotrophin compared with rFSH is a cost-effective choice that is rational to the society and to the health care sector leading to savings to the patient and the drug budget.