Cost-effectiveness modelling of recombinant FSH versus urinary FSH in assisted reproduction techniques in the UK
- PMID: 11726575
- DOI: 10.1093/humrep/16.12.2563
Cost-effectiveness modelling of recombinant FSH versus urinary FSH in assisted reproduction techniques in the UK
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to undertake an economic evaluation to compare the cost-effectiveness of recombinant (r)FSH with urinary (u)FSH for attaining clinical pregnancy with assisted reproduction.
Methods: Mathematical modelling was utilized incorporating a Markovian decision framework and a Monte Carlo simulation. Statistical representations of recurrent events over time were incorporated into a decision analysis involving fresh and frozen cycles in any sequence (after the first fresh embryo transfer cycle) over three successive assisted reproduction attempts. The mean values of transition probabilities were derived from randomized controlled clinical trials and published reports. The distributions of these transition probabilities were agreed upon by a panel of experts. Cost data for procedures and drugs were derived and validated according to the perspectives of the National Health Service and private clinics in the UK.
Results: The study involved 5000 Monte-Carlo simulations of treatment on a Markov cohort of 100 000 patients. The total number of pregnancies attained was significantly higher in the rFSH (40 575) compared with the uFSH (37 358) group. The cost per successful pregnancy was significantly lower for rFSH (5906 pounds sterling) compared with uFSH (6060 pounds sterling) and overall, fewer cycles of treatment were required with rFSH to achieve an ongoing pregnancy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is 4148 pounds sterling for each additional clinical pregnancy with rFSH.
Conclusions: In addition to the increased effectiveness of rFSH in ART, this study demonstrated that it is more cost-effective and more efficient than uFSH in attaining an ongoing pregnancy.
Comment in
-
Cost-effectiveness modelling.Hum Reprod. 2001 Dec;16(12):2479-80. doi: 10.1093/humrep/16.12.2479. Hum Reprod. 2001. PMID: 11726561 No abstract available.
-
Models of cost-effectiveness of recombinant FSH versus urinary FSH.Hum Reprod. 2002 Jun;17(6):1671-3; author reply 1673-4. doi: 10.1093/humrep/17.6.1671-b. Hum Reprod. 2002. PMID: 12042297 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
The cost-effectiveness of IVF in the UK: a comparison of three gonadotrophin treatments.Hum Reprod. 2001 Dec;16(12):2557-62. doi: 10.1093/humrep/16.12.2557. Hum Reprod. 2001. PMID: 11726574
-
Impact of urinary FSH price: a cost-effectiveness analysis of recombinant and urinary FSH in assisted reproduction techniques in the USA.Reprod Biomed Online. 2002 Nov-Dec;5(3):265-9. doi: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)61830-5. Reprod Biomed Online. 2002. PMID: 12470524
-
Recombinant or urinary follicle-stimulating hormone? A cost-effectiveness analysis derived by particularizing the number needed to treat from a published meta-analysis.Fertil Steril. 2001 Jun;75(6):1106-10. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(01)01808-8. Fertil Steril. 2001. PMID: 11384634
-
FSH: urinary and recombinant.Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004 Jul 1;115 Suppl 1:S30-3. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.01.023. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004. PMID: 15196713 Review.
-
The cost-effectiveness of a new statin (rosuvastatin) in the UK NHS.Int J Clin Pract. 2003 Nov;57(9):792-800. Int J Clin Pract. 2003. PMID: 14686571 Review.
Cited by
-
Valuing infertility treatment: Why QALYs are inadequate, and an alternative approach to cost-effectiveness thresholds.Front Med Technol. 2022 Dec 23;4:1053719. doi: 10.3389/fmedt.2022.1053719. eCollection 2022. Front Med Technol. 2022. PMID: 36619344 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
[Economic studies of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer].Zhejiang Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2019 Jul 25;48(5):580-585. doi: 10.3785/j.issn.1008-9292.2019.10.18. Zhejiang Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2019. PMID: 31901035 Free PMC article. Chinese.
-
Cost-effectiveness of recombinant versus urinary follicle-stimulating hormone in assisted reproduction techniques in the Spanish public health care system.J Assist Reprod Genet. 2003 Aug;20(8):294-300. doi: 10.1023/a:1024899806149. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2003. PMID: 12948090 Free PMC article.
-
Controlled ovarian stimulation protocols for assisted reproduction: a network meta-analysis.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Jul 1;7(7):CD012586. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012586.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025. PMID: 40590303 Review.
-
Recombinant versus highly-purified, urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (r-FSH vs. HP-uFSH) in ovulation induction: a prospective, randomized study with cost-minimization analysis.Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2006 Jul 18;4:38. doi: 10.1186/1477-7827-4-38. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2006. PMID: 16848893 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources