Literature DB >> 11285980

Reflections on the cost-effectiveness of recombinant FSH in assisted reproduction. The clinician's perspective.

J Balasch1, P N Barri.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To analyze the relative cost-effectiveness of recombinant FSH (rFSH) and urinary FSH (uFSH) in assisted reproduction techniques (ART).
METHODS: Calculation of the average cost-effectiveness ratio and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to compare costs and effects (pregnancy rates) of the two therapeutic options (rFSH and uFSH).
RESULTS: Assuming that the cost of the procedure per ART cycle is between 100,000 pesetas (601 euro) and 150,000 pesetas (901.52 euro), and pricing the GnRH analogues used for pituitary suppression at 35,000 pesetas (210.3 euro), the cost-effectiveness ratio is better for rFSH than for uFSH, implying that the cost per pregnancy is lower when the recombinant preparation is used.
CONCLUSIONS: In ART, the use of rFSH is more cost-effective than uFSH.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11285980      PMCID: PMC3455562          DOI: 10.1023/a:1026501821849

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet        ISSN: 1058-0468            Impact factor:   3.412


  26 in total

1.  Recombinant versus urinary follicle stimulating hormone for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction.

Authors:  S Daya; J Gunby
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 6.918

2.  Recombinant versus urinary FSH for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction.

Authors:  B Ola; M Afnan; N Hammadieh
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 6.918

3.  Evaluation of the relative cost-effectiveness of treatments for infertility in the UK.

Authors:  Z Philips; M Barraza-Llorens; J Posnett
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 6.918

4.  Recombinant follicle stimulating hormone stimulation in poor responders with normal basal concentrations of follicle stimulating hormone and oestradiol: improved reproductive outcome.

Authors:  F Raga; F Bonilla-Musoles; E M Casañ; F Bonilla
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 6.918

5.  Recombinant human FSH versus highly purified urinary FSH: a randomized study in intrauterine insemination with husbands' spermatozoa.

Authors:  R Matorras; V Recio; B Corcóstegui; F J Rodríguez-Escudero
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 6.918

6.  Recombinant follicle stimulating hormone is effective in poor responders to highly purified follicle stimulating hormone.

Authors:  G De Placido; C Alviggi; A Mollo; I Strina; M T Varricchio; M Molis
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 6.918

7.  Intrauterine insemination or in-vitro fertilisation in idiopathic subfertility and male subfertility: a randomised trial and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  A J Goverde; J McDonnell; J P Vermeiden; R Schats; F F Rutten; J Schoemaker
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2000-01-01       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Live-birth rates and multiple-birth risk using in vitro fertilization.

Authors:  L A Schieve; H B Peterson; S F Meikle; G Jeng; I Danel; N M Burnett; L S Wilcox
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-11-17       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Adverse local reaction to intramuscular injections of urinary-derived gonadotrophins.

Authors:  T C Li; J E Hindle
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  1993-11       Impact factor: 6.918

10.  Follicular development and hormonal levels following highly purified or recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone administration in ovulatory women undergoing ovarian stimulation after pituitary suppression for in vitro fertilization: implications for implantation potential.

Authors:  J Balasch; F Fábregues; M Creus; J Peñarrubia; E Vidal; F Carmona; B Puerto; J A Vanrell
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 3.412

View more
  3 in total

1.  Cost-effectiveness of recombinant versus urinary follicle-stimulating hormone in assisted reproduction techniques in the Spanish public health care system.

Authors:  Alberto Romeu; Juan Balasch; José A Ruiz Balda; Pedro N Barri; Salim Daya; Jean P Auray; Gerald Duru; Ariel Beresniak; José A Peinado
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 3.412

2.  Pharmaceutical costs of assisted reproduction in Spain.

Authors:  Maria-Reyes Lorente; Juana Hernández; Fernando Antoñanzas
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.859

3.  Comparative economic study of the use of corifollitropin alfa and daily rFSH for controlled ovarian stimulation in older patients: Cost-minimization analysis based on the PURSUE study.

Authors:  Gorka Barrenetxea; Juan Antonio García-Velasco; Belén Aragón; Jordi Osset; Max Brosa; Noemí López-Martínez; Buenaventura Coroleu
Journal:  Reprod Biomed Soc Online       Date:  2018-02-21
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.