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

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

Volumn 20, Issue 8, 2003, Pages 294-300

  Romeu, Alberto ^a   Balasch, Juan ^b   Ruiz Balda, José A ^c   Barri, Pedro N ^d   Daya, Salim ^e   Auray, Jean P ^f   Duru, Gerald ^f   Beresniak, Ariel ^g   Peinado, José A ^h  

^a HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO LA FE   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA   (Spain)

^c HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO 12 DE OCTUBRE   (Spain)

^d INSTITUT UNIVERSITARI DEXEUS   (Spain)

^e MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^f CNRS   (France)

^g Serono International SA   (Switzerland)

^h AUTONOMOUS UNIVERSITY OF MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; Markov modelling; Recombinant human FSH; Spain; Urinary FSH

Indexed keywords

FOLLITROPIN; NEO FERTINORM; RECOMBINANT FOLLITROPIN;

ARTICLE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG EFFICACY; HUMAN; INFERTILITY THERAPY; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MONTE CARLO METHOD; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; OVULATION INDUCTION; PREGNANCY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; RANDOMIZATION; SPAIN; VIRTUAL REALITY;

FEMALE; FOLLICLE STIMULATING HORMONE; HUMANS; MARKOV CHAINS; PREGNANCY; RECOMBINANT PROTEINS; REPRODUCTIVE TECHNIQUES, ASSISTED; SPAIN;

EID: 0041927801     PISSN: 10580468     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1024899806149     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Loumaye E, Campbell R, Salat-Baroux J: Human follicle-stimulating hormone produced by recombinant DNA technology: A review for clinicians. Hum Reprod Update 1995;1:188-199
2. Daya S, Gunby J: Recombinant versus urinary follicle stimulating hormone for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2207-2215
3. Briggs A, Sculpher M: An introduction to Markov modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 1998;13:397-409
4. Van Loon J, Liaropoulos L, Mousiama T: Economic evaluation of a recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (Follitropin Beta, Puregon®) in infertile women undergoing in vitro fertilisation in Greece. Clin Pharmacoecon 2000;19:201-211
5. Mantovani L, Belisari A, Szucs T: Pharmaco-economic aspects of in-vitro fertilisation in Italy. Hum Reprod 1999;14:953-958
6. Daya S, Ledger W, Auray JP, Duru G, Silverberg K, Wikland M, Bouzayen R, Howles C, Beresniak A: Cost-effectiveness modelling of recombinant-versus urinary-FSH in assisted reproduction techniques in the UK. Hum Repord 2001;16:2563-2569
7. Silverberg K, Daya S, Auray JP, Duru G, Ledger W, Wikland M, Bouzayen R, O'Brien M, Falk B, Beresniak A: Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of recombinant versus urinary follicle-stimulating hormone in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection programs in the United States. Fertil Steril 2002;77:107-113
8. FIVCAT: Registre de reproducció humana assistida a Catalunya. Generalitat de Catalunya. Barcelona, Department de Sanitat i Seguretat Social, 1999
9. Doubilet P, Begg CB, Weinstein MC, Braun P, McNeil BJ: Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. A practical approach. Med Decis Making 1985;5:157-177
10. Recombinant Human FSH Study Group: Clinical assessment of recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone in stimulating ovarian follicular development before in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1995;63:77-86
11. Fisch B, Avrech O, Pinkas H, Neri A, Rufas O, Ovadia J, Loumaye E: Superovulation before IVF by recombinant versus urinary human FSH (combined with a long GnRH analog protocol): A comparative study. J Assist Reprod Genet 1995;12:26-31
12. Bergh C, Howles C, Borg K, Hamberger L, Josefsson B, Nilsson L, Wikland M: Recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone (r-hFSH, Gonal-F) versus highly purified urinary FSH (Metrodin HP): Results of a randomized comparative study in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Hum Reprod 1997;12:2133-2139
13. Out H, Mannaerts B, Driessen S, Bennink HJ: A prospective, randomized assessor-blind, multicentre study comparing recombinant and urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (Puregon® versus Metrodin®) in in vitro fertilization. Hum Repord 1995;10:2534-2540
14. Frydman R, Howles C, Truong F: A double-blind, randomized study to compare recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (FSH: Gonal-F®) with highly purified urinary FSH (Metrodin HP) in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques including intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The French Multicentre Trialists. Hum Reprod 2000;15:520-525
15. Lenton E, Soltan A, Hewitt J: Induction of superovulation in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques: Recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone (follitropin alpha) versus highly purified urinary FSH (urofollitropin HP). Hum Reprod 2000;15:1021-1027
16. Balasch J, Fábregues F, Creus M, Peñarrubia J, Vidal E, Carmona F, Puerto B, Vanrell JA: 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. J Assist Reprod Genet 2000;17:20-27
17. Khalaf Y, Taylor A, Pettigrew R, Bradley E, Elkington N, Braude P: The relative clinical efficacy of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone and the highly purified urinary preparation (abstract). In 14th Annual Meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, Gothenburg, Sweden, June 21-24, 1998
18. Franco J, Baruffi R, Coehlo J, Mauri AL, Petersen C, Contart P, Ursolino G: A prospective and randomized study of ovarian stimulation for ICSI with recombinant FSH versus highly purified FSH (abstract). In 11th World Congress on In Vitro Fertilization and Human Reproduction Genetics, Sydney, NSW, Australia, May 9-14, 1999
19. Torgerson DJ, Byford S: Economic modelling before clinical trials. BMJ 2002;325:98
20. Expósito A, Castilla, JA, Suárez I, Mendoza N, Castaño JL, Fontes J, Martínez L: Aproximación a un análisis de costes por proceso y coste efectividad en la unidad de reproducción del H.U. "Virgen de las Nieves" de Granada. Revista Iberoamericana de Fertilidad 2000;17:267-276
21. Matorras R, Valladolid A, Rodríguez Escudero FJ: EI coste de las técnicas de reproducción asistida en el sistema público de salud. Experiencia en el Hospital de Cruces. Rev Iberoam Fertilidad 2001;18:149-153
22. Peinado JA, Peiró S: Analisis coste-efectividad de la reproducción asistida. Rev Admin Sanit 1997;1:659-678
23. Larizgoitia I, Estrada MD, García-Altés A: FSH-recombinante como adyuvante en la reproducción asistida. Datos sobre eficacia y eficiencia de la FSH recombinante en relación con la FSH de origen urinario. Barcelona, Agència d'Avaluació de Tecnologia Mèdica. Servei Catalá de la Salut. Department de Sanitat i Seguretat Social. Generalitat de Catalunya, 2000
24. Balasch J, Barri PN: Reflections on the cost-effectiveness of recombinant FSH in assisted reproduction. The clinician's perspective. J. Assist Reprod Genet 2001;18:45-55