Clinical And Economic Analysis Of Two Surfactants For The Prevention And Treatment Of Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Abstract

A 3 4 7 -A 7 6 6 A403 drugs); monitoring costs (from screening to pregnancy determination, in accordance with the ESTHER protocol); procedure costs (including oocyte retrieval, fertilisation, embryo freezing, and embryo transfer), as well as costs related to ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and OHSS preventive measures. Results: The total average cost per IVF cycle ranges from £5,797 to £5,818 for Follitropin-delta and from £5,809 to £5,836 for Follitropin-alfa with a mean absolute total cost difference from £2 to £26. The cost benefits associated to Follitropin-delta are mainly due to its reduction in the proportion of women needing OHSS prevention (2.36% versus 4.67%) and in its reduction of OHSS incidence (3.46% versus 4.84%). ConClusions: This CMA and the sensitivity analyses performed demonstrate that Follitropin-delta is a cost neutral alternative versus Follitropin-alfa in women undergoing a first fresh IVF cycle in the UK.

Health Economic Studies of Surfactant Replacement Therapy in Neonates with Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Literature Review

“…Four of the studies in the SLR reporting on economic evaluations included a healthcare sector perspective [ 24 – 27 ]. The perspective taken by Krasnova et al was not reported [ 28 ]. The sources of clinical and cost data were derived from real-world settings [ 3 , 28 ], pharmacy information systems, electronic medical records [ 30 ], a prior clinical study, hospital data [ 24 , 29 ] and a meta-analysis [ 27 ].…”

“…Two studies from Russia [ 27 , 28 ] analysed beractant and poractant alfa for treatment of RDS by using decision-tree models. Yagudina et al reported that the cost-effectiveness ratios per life saved with beractant and poractant alfa were €5087 and €4585, respectively.…”

“…Yagudina et al reported that the cost-effectiveness ratios per life saved with beractant and poractant alfa were €5087 and €4585, respectively. Krasnova et al [ 28 ] compared the cost-effectiveness of poractant alfa 100 mg/kg versus poractant alfa 200 mg/kg or beractant 100 mg/kg for the treatment of RDS; the investigators used a cost-effectiveness ratio based on the ‘prevention of death’ of the number needed to treat. On the 28th day of treatment, the cost‑effectiveness ratios for poractant alfa 100 mg/kg and 200 mg/kg were $11,681 and $11,822, respectively, and the cost-effectiveness ratio was $12,197 for beractant 100 mg/kg (Table 5 ).…”

“…Additionally, evidence included in this SLR indicates that poractant alfa has a better cost‑effectiveness ratio compared with beractant [ 27 ]. Studies implementing decision-tree modelling to investigate the pharmacoeconomic impact of surfactant therapy in infants with RDS reported that poractant alfa was cost-effective and cost-saving compared with beractant at both the 100 mg/kg and 200 mg/kg doses [ 27 , 28 ]. While these studies were conducted in Russia and may not be generalizable to healthcare institutions worldwide, further global investigations exploring the impact of surfactant use on economic burden are needed to establish how infants with RDS may be treated safely and cost-effectively.…”