Economic evaluation of highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin versus recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone in fresh and frozen in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm-injection cycles in Sweden

Abstract

Jaro Wex, Ahmed M Abou-Setta PharmArchitecture, London, UK Abstract: Gonadotropin-releasing hormone-analog type, fertilization method, and number of embryos available for cryopreservation should be incorporated into economic evaluations of highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (HP-hMG) and recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (r-hFSH), as they may affect treatment costs. We searched for randomized trials and meta-analyses comparing HP-hMG and r-hFSH. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in live births (odds ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66–1.01), but a greater number of oocytes with r-hFSH (mean difference [MD] 1.96, 95% CI 1.02–2.90). Using a cost-minimization model for Sweden, accounting for embryo availability, survival following thawing, and patient dropout, we simulated patients individually for up to three cycles. R-hFSH was found to be cost-saving, at 2,767 kr (95% CI 1,580–4,057) per patient (€315 or $411); baseline savings were 6.43% of the total HP-hMG cost. In fresh cycles only, the savings for r-hFSH were 1,752 kr (95% CI 48–3,658) per patient (€200 or $260). In univariate sensitivity analyses, savings were obtained until the price of r-hFSH increased by 30% or the dosage of HP-hMG decreased by 38%–62% of baseline value. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, r-hFSH was cost-saving in 100% of the simulated cohort per patient and in 85% per live birth; the respective percentages for fresh cycles only were 97.3% and 73.1%. In conclusion, a greater number of oocytes with r-hFSH allows for more frozen embryo transfers, thereby reducing overall treatment cost. Keywords: recombinant human FSH, highly purified menopausal gonadotropin, meta-analysis, economic analysis, in vitro fertilization, cryopreservation