Corifollitropin alfa versus follitropin beta: an economic analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial in women undergoing IVF/ICSI.
ICSI
IVF
corifollitropin alfa
cost-effectiveness
follitropin beta
Journal
Reproductive biomedicine & society online
ISSN: 2405-6618
Titre abrégé: Reprod Biomed Soc Online
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101700286
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2020
Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
24
09
2019
revised:
29
11
2019
accepted:
27
01
2020
entrez:
27
5
2020
pubmed:
27
5
2020
medline:
27
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the patient's perspective alongside a randomized controlled trial comparing corifollitropin alfa with follitropin beta for a single stimulation cycle. Only unit costs paid by patients are included in this analysis. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were also performed. Baseline characteristics (except for the number of follicles and frozen embryos), treatment outcomes and complications were similar in the two groups. The live birth rate was comparable between the two groups, but the mean total cost per patient was higher for the corifollitropin alfa strategy (€4293) compared with the follitropin beta strategy (€4086). Costs per live birth were €13,726 and €12,511, respectively. The difference in effect between corifollitropin alfa and collitropin beta was three fewer live births, and the difference in costs was €24,048. The probability of live birth after the first and second embryo transfers and the proportion of patients who had no more frozen embryos available after non-achievement of live birth in the first or second transfer influenced the comparative cost-effectiveness of the two strategies. PSA showed that a corifollitropin alfa strategy would be rejected in up to 27.4% of scenarios. Follitropin beta 300 IU/day was more cost-effective than corifollitropin alfa 150 μg in women aged 35-42 years weighing ≥ 50 kg undergoing in-vitro fertilzation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32455172
doi: 10.1016/j.rbms.2020.01.002
pii: S2405-6618(20)30005-8
pmc: PMC7235613
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
28-36Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors.
Références
Med Decis Making. 1990 Jul-Sep;10(3):212-4
pubmed: 2115096
Health Econ. 2001 Mar;10(2):179-84
pubmed: 11252048
Hum Reprod. 2018 Oct 1;33(10):1907-1914
pubmed: 30239784
Reprod Biomed Online. 2016 Jul;33(1):56-60
pubmed: 27178762
BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Jun 08;12:142
pubmed: 22682009
Fertil Steril. 2009 Jun;91(6):2281-94
pubmed: 19481642
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 07;11(3):e0149615
pubmed: 26950065
BMJ. 2015 Jan 09;350:g7843
pubmed: 25576321
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014 Jul 18;11(7):7304-18
pubmed: 25046630
Value Health. 2016 Sep - Oct;19(6):903-908
pubmed: 27712720
Reprod Biomed Online. 2010 Jul;21(1):66-76
pubmed: 20483664
Hum Reprod. 2008 Sep;23(9):2050-5
pubmed: 18544578
Hum Reprod. 2009 Dec;24(12):3063-72
pubmed: 19684043
Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2018 Feb 21;5:46-59
pubmed: 29774275
Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2012;4(2):102-9
pubmed: 24753897
Fertil Steril. 2015 Jul;104(1):94-103.e1
pubmed: 26003273
Hum Reprod Update. 2010 Nov-Dec;16(6):603-13
pubmed: 20530804
Hum Reprod Open. 2017 Nov 28;2017(3):hox023
pubmed: 30895237
Hum Reprod. 2008 Nov;23(11):2484-92
pubmed: 18684735