PharmacoEconomics - open · 2023
Highly Purified Human Menopausal Gonadotropin (HP-hMG) Versus Recombinant Follicle-Stimulating Hormone (rFSH) for Controlled Ovarian Stimulation in US Predicted High-Responder Patients: A Cost-Comparison Analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Khair Andrew, Brown Tray, Markert Marie, Barsøe Carsten Rødseth, Daftary Gaurang S, Heiser Patrick W
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Infertility imposes considerable clinical and economic burden, and the high costs of fertility care are a major barrier to payers. This study assessed the cost differences of highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (HP-hMG) versus recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocols in predicted high-responders from the US payer perspective.
METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was built to perform a cost-comparison analysis of HP-hMG versus rFSH in a cohort of predicted high-responders undergoing up to three embryo transfer cycles, informed by efficacy data from the MEGASET-HR trial. The model considered an event-based treatment pathway and transition probabilities were derived from MEGASET-HR. A variable time horizon was employed, and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses conducted.
RESULTS: Subjects undergoing COS with HP-hMG and rFSH demonstrated comparable live birth rates following three in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles, with 161 live births with HP-hMG and 152 live births with rFSH, per 310 high-responders. The total cost saving per live birth in subjects receiving HP-hMG versus rFSH was US$3024. These cost savings were largely driven by the need for fewer embryo transfers to achieve similar efficacy outcomes and a reduced rate of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Following deterministic sensitivity analysis, HP-hMG remained cost saving in all baseline parameter variations. No parameters led to rFSH providing cost savings when compared with HP-hMG.
CONCLUSION: Comparable clinical outcomes can be achieved at a lower cost when using HP-hMG versus rFSH based COS protocols in a cohort of predicted high-responders. Such cost savings may reduce the economic burden infertility currently presents to US healthcare providers and those seeking fertility care.
METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was built to perform a cost-comparison analysis of HP-hMG versus rFSH in a cohort of predicted high-responders undergoing up to three embryo transfer cycles, informed by efficacy data from the MEGASET-HR trial. The model considered an event-based treatment pathway and transition probabilities were derived from MEGASET-HR. A variable time horizon was employed, and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses conducted.
RESULTS: Subjects undergoing COS with HP-hMG and rFSH demonstrated comparable live birth rates following three in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles, with 161 live births with HP-hMG and 152 live births with rFSH, per 310 high-responders. The total cost saving per live birth in subjects receiving HP-hMG versus rFSH was US$3024. These cost savings were largely driven by the need for fewer embryo transfers to achieve similar efficacy outcomes and a reduced rate of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Following deterministic sensitivity analysis, HP-hMG remained cost saving in all baseline parameter variations. No parameters led to rFSH providing cost savings when compared with HP-hMG.
CONCLUSION: Comparable clinical outcomes can be achieved at a lower cost when using HP-hMG versus rFSH based COS protocols in a cohort of predicted high-responders. Such cost savings may reduce the economic burden infertility currently presents to US healthcare providers and those seeking fertility care.