A Markov model of the cost-effectiveness of human-derived follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) versus recombinant FSH using comparative clinical trial data

A detailed cost analysis of in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment

“…For reasons of comparison, we conducted a supplementary literature search for additional cost data published after the period studied by Collins (2). English language publications were identified through MEDLINE using the keywords IVF, ICSI, cost(s) and cost-effectiveness over the period of 2001 to May 2006, which resulted in 14 publications that described the costs of treatment with IVF and/or ICSI (Table 3) (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21).…”

Cost-saving treatment strategies in in vitro fertilization: a combined economic evaluation of two large randomized clinical trials comparing highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin and recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone alpha

“…This is in contrast to previous economic evaluations of gonadotropins that did not include any sensitivity analysis (20,23) and only addressed the use of one-way sensitivity analysis (19,21,25) or two-way sensitivity analysis (18). Furthermore, when efficacy input was varied in simulations, the costs were often kept at mean values (22,28,29), or no details on their variation were reported (24). Also in the study comparing HP-hMG and rFSH, uncertainty was addressed by bootstrapping, but not all parameters were varied (26).…”

“…Previous studies have explored the cost-effectiveness of ART using a variety of different clinical parameters and assumptions (17). Cost-effectiveness of recombinant and urinary FSH has been compared (18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24), and one study included urinary hMG as an additional comparator (21). Urinary hMG and its highly purified preparation were analyzed jointly in comparison with rFSH for ovulation induction (25).…”

“…HP-hMG alone was compared with rFSH, but the analysis combined IVF and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) patients (26). Of all identified economic studies involving HP-hMG, only one was based on patient-level data from a randomized trial (27), and in one, efficacy data were extracted from a meta-analysis (24). While many studies reported cost per clinical or ongoing pregnancy (18,19,(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)28), cost per live birth or per baby was addressed less frequently (29) and mainly in studies not involving comparison of gonadotropins (27).…”

Cost-effectiveness of different types of COH protocols for in vitro fertilization at national level

“…[8,9]. Other cost-effectiveness analyses have found that the cost of COH and IVF outcomes also depend on the clinical choice of medicines and GnRHagonist/GnRH-antagonist for ovarian stimulation and the duration of stimulation [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. For evaluation of the protocols in many of these studies, the clinical end-point of interest is the number of live-born children.…”