促卵泡素α与促卵泡素β:在接受IVF/ICSI的妇女中随机对照试验的经济分析

Q1 Social Sciences
Le Dang Khoa , Vuong Thi Ngoc Lan , Nguyen Minh Tai Loc , Dang Quang Vinh , Quang Nhat Tran , Ho Manh Tuong
{"title":"促卵泡素α与促卵泡素β:在接受IVF/ICSI的妇女中随机对照试验的经济分析","authors":"Le Dang Khoa ,&nbsp;Vuong Thi Ngoc Lan ,&nbsp;Nguyen Minh Tai Loc ,&nbsp;Dang Quang Vinh ,&nbsp;Quang Nhat Tran ,&nbsp;Ho Manh Tuong","doi":"10.1016/j.rbms.2020.01.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the patient’s perspective alongside a randomized controlled trial comparing corifollitropin alfa with follitropin beta for a single stimulation cycle. Only unit costs paid by patients are included in this analysis. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were also performed. Baseline characteristics (except for the number of follicles and frozen embryos), treatment outcomes and complications were similar in the two groups. The live birth rate was comparable between the two groups, but the mean total cost per patient was higher for the corifollitropin alfa strategy (€4293) compared with the follitropin beta strategy (€4086). Costs per live birth were €13,726 and €12,511, respectively. The difference in effect between corifollitropin alfa and collitropin beta was three fewer live births, and the difference in costs was €24,048. The probability of live birth after the first and second embryo transfers and the proportion of patients who had no more frozen embryos available after non-achievement of live birth in the first or second transfer influenced the comparative cost-effectiveness of the two strategies. PSA showed that a corifollitropin alfa strategy would be rejected in up to 27.4% of scenarios. Follitropin beta 300 IU/day was more cost-effective than corifollitropin alfa 150 μg in women aged 35–42 years weighing ≥<!--> <!-->50 kg undergoing in-vitro fertilzation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37973,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.rbms.2020.01.002","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Corifollitropin alfa versus follitropin beta: an economic analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial in women undergoing IVF/ICSI\",\"authors\":\"Le Dang Khoa ,&nbsp;Vuong Thi Ngoc Lan ,&nbsp;Nguyen Minh Tai Loc ,&nbsp;Dang Quang Vinh ,&nbsp;Quang Nhat Tran ,&nbsp;Ho Manh Tuong\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.rbms.2020.01.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the patient’s perspective alongside a randomized controlled trial comparing corifollitropin alfa with follitropin beta for a single stimulation cycle. Only unit costs paid by patients are included in this analysis. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were also performed. Baseline characteristics (except for the number of follicles and frozen embryos), treatment outcomes and complications were similar in the two groups. The live birth rate was comparable between the two groups, but the mean total cost per patient was higher for the corifollitropin alfa strategy (€4293) compared with the follitropin beta strategy (€4086). Costs per live birth were €13,726 and €12,511, respectively. The difference in effect between corifollitropin alfa and collitropin beta was three fewer live births, and the difference in costs was €24,048. The probability of live birth after the first and second embryo transfers and the proportion of patients who had no more frozen embryos available after non-achievement of live birth in the first or second transfer influenced the comparative cost-effectiveness of the two strategies. PSA showed that a corifollitropin alfa strategy would be rejected in up to 27.4% of scenarios. Follitropin beta 300 IU/day was more cost-effective than corifollitropin alfa 150 μg in women aged 35–42 years weighing ≥<!--> <!-->50 kg undergoing in-vitro fertilzation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37973,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.rbms.2020.01.002\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405661820300058\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405661820300058","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

这项成本-效果分析是从患者的角度进行的,同时进行了一项随机对照试验,比较了单刺激周期的促卵泡素α和促卵泡素β。本分析仅包括患者支付的单位成本。计算增量成本-效果比。并进行了单向敏感性分析和概率敏感性分析(PSA)。两组的基线特征(除卵泡和冷冻胚胎数量外)、治疗结果和并发症相似。两组之间的活产率相当,但每位患者的平均总成本(4293欧元)高于α促卵泡素(4086欧元)。每名活产婴儿的成本分别为13726欧元和12511欧元。colifolitropin α和collitropin β的效果差异是少活产3个,成本差异为24,048欧元。第一次和第二次胚胎移植后活产的概率以及第一次或第二次胚胎移植未实现活产后没有更多冷冻胚胎的患者比例影响了两种策略的相对成本效益。PSA显示,在高达27.4%的情况下,corifollitoppin α策略将被拒绝。在35-42岁、体重≥50 kg接受体外受精/卵浆内单精子注射的女性中,卵泡素β 300 IU/天比卵泡素α 150 μg更具成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Corifollitropin alfa versus follitropin beta: an economic analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial in women undergoing IVF/ICSI

Corifollitropin alfa versus follitropin beta: an economic analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial in women undergoing IVF/ICSI

Corifollitropin alfa versus follitropin beta: an economic analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial in women undergoing IVF/ICSI

Corifollitropin alfa versus follitropin beta: an economic analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial in women undergoing IVF/ICSI

This cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the patient’s perspective alongside a randomized controlled trial comparing corifollitropin alfa with follitropin beta for a single stimulation cycle. Only unit costs paid by patients are included in this analysis. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were also performed. Baseline characteristics (except for the number of follicles and frozen embryos), treatment outcomes and complications were similar in the two groups. The live birth rate was comparable between the two groups, but the mean total cost per patient was higher for the corifollitropin alfa strategy (€4293) compared with the follitropin beta strategy (€4086). Costs per live birth were €13,726 and €12,511, respectively. The difference in effect between corifollitropin alfa and collitropin beta was three fewer live births, and the difference in costs was €24,048. The probability of live birth after the first and second embryo transfers and the proportion of patients who had no more frozen embryos available after non-achievement of live birth in the first or second transfer influenced the comparative cost-effectiveness of the two strategies. PSA showed that a corifollitropin alfa strategy would be rejected in up to 27.4% of scenarios. Follitropin beta 300 IU/day was more cost-effective than corifollitropin alfa 150 μg in women aged 35–42 years weighing ≥ 50 kg undergoing in-vitro fertilzation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online
Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online Social Sciences-Cultural Studies
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊介绍: RBMS is a new journal dedicated to interdisciplinary discussion and debate of the rapidly expanding field of reproductive biomedicine, particularly all of its many societal and cultural implications. It is intended to bring to attention new research in the social sciences, arts and humanities on human reproduction, new reproductive technologies, and related areas such as human embryonic stem cell derivation. Its audience comprises researchers, clinicians, practitioners, policy makers, academics and patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信