SpringerLink
Log in

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Gonadotropin Treatments HP-hMG and rFSH for Assisted Reproductive Technology in France: A Markov Model Analysis

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The objectives of this study were to assess (1) the expected cost of a live birth (LB) after in vitro fertilization with two different gonadotropin treatments [high purified human menopausal gonadotropin (HP-hMG) and recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH)] as the single cost variable, and (2) the cost effectiveness of HP-hMG relative to rFSH in the context of the routine practice of assisted reproductive technology (ART) in France.

Methods

A Markov model was developed to simulate the therapeutic management, the in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) courses, and the effects of complications in hypothetical cohorts of 30,000 patients undergoing IVF/ICSI with fresh embryo transfer (up to four attempts) using data from the MERIT and MEGASET clinical trials or from French routine ART practice.

Results

The cost per LB was estimated at €12,145 and at €14,247 with HP-hMG and rFSH, respectively, using efficacy data from published clinical trials. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was − €11,616 per LB. HP-hMG was less expensive by around €15.0 million and more effective by 1289 additional LBs. Using French clinical data, the cost per LB was €16,415 and €18,7531 with HP-hMG and rFSH, respectively. The ICER for HP-hMG versus rFSH was estimated at − €7,719 per LB with a saving of about €8.54 million and 1097 additional LBs. Deterministic sensitivity analyses showed that the main ICER drivers were the LB rate, followed by the total gonadotropin doses. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that HP-hMG was the dominant strategy in 71.2% of cases using the clinical trial data and in 50.2% of cases using the French data.

Conclusion

This analysis indicates that compared with rFSH, HP-hMG is less costly for IVF/ICSI management from the French healthcare payer’s viewpoint. The results of the present Markov model analysis are consistent with previous findings in other European countries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ESHRE ART fact sheet (October 2016). Available from: https://www.eshre.eu/Press-Room/Resources.aspx. Accessed 23 February 2017.

  2. Biomedicine Agency (2015). Available from: https://www.agence-biomedecine.fr/annexes/bilan2015/donnees/procreation/01-amp/synthese.htm. Accessed 25 February 2017.

  3. Biomedicine Agency (2017). Available from: https://www.procreation-medicale.fr. Accessed 23 February 2017.

  4. Advanced Fertility Center of Chicago (AFCC). Ovarian Stimulation IVF Protocols Medications and Drugs for In Vitro Fertilization. Available at: http://www.advancedfertility.com/ivfstim.htm. Accessed 23 February 2017.

  5. Service Public France. Assistance médicale à la procréation (AMP). Available at: https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F31462. Accessed 23 February 2017.

  6. Connolly MP, Hoorens S, Chambers GM. The costs and consequences of assisted reproductive technology: an economic perspective. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16:603–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wex-Wechowski J, Abou-Setta AM, Kildegaard Nielsen S, Kennedy R. HP-HMG versus rFSH in treatments combining fresh and frozen IVF cycles: success rates and economic evaluation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21:166–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Alviggi C, Cogningni GE, Morgante G, Cometti B, Ranieri A, Strina I, Fillicori M, De Leo V, De Placido GA. prospective randomized investigator-blind controlled, clinical study on the clinical efficacy and tolerability on two high purified hMG preparations administrated subcutaneously in women undergoing IVF. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2013;29:695–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Anderssen AN, Devroey P. Arce JC for the MERIT Group. Clinical outcome following stimulation with highly purified hMG or recombinant FSH in patients undergoing IVF: a randomized assessor-blind controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:3217–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ziebe S, Lundin K, Janssens R, Helmgaard L, Arce JC, MERIT (Menotrophin vs Recombinant FSH in vitro Fertilisation Trial) Group. Influence of ovarian stimulation with HP-hMG or recombinant FSH on embryo quality parameters in patients undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(9):2404–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Devroey P, Pellicer A, Andersen AN, Arce JC, Menopur in GnRH Antagonist Cycles with Single Embryo Transfer (MEGASET) Trial Group. A randomized assessor—blind trial comparing highly purified hMG and recombinant FSH in a GnRH antagonist cycle with compulsory single-blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril. 2012;3:561–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Troude P, Bailly E, Guibert J, Bouyer J, de La Rochebrochard E, DAIFI Group. Who does not participate in a follow-up postal study? A survey of infertile couples treated by in vitro fertilization. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;23:12–104.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Agence de la Biomédecine. Activité d’Assistance Médicale à la Procréation 2011. Available at: http://www.agence-biomedecine.fr/annexes/bilan2012/donnees/procreation/01-amp/pdf/amp.pdf. Accessed 10 September 2013.

  14. Van Wely M, Kwan I, Burt AL, et al. Recombinant versus urinary gonadotrophin for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;2:CD005354.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Weiss NS, Nahuis M, Bayram N, Mol BW, Van der Veen F, van Wely M. Gonadotrophins for ovulation induction in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;9:010290.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wechowski J, Connolly M, Schneider D, et al. Cost-saving treatment strategies in in vitro fertilization: a combined economic evaluation of two large randomized clinical trials comparing highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin and recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone alpha. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:1067–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Connolly M, De Vrieze K, Ombelet W, et al. A cost per live birth comparison of HMG and rFSH randomized trials. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17:756–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lloyd A, Kennedy R, Hutchinson J, Sawyer W. Economic evaluation of highly purified menotropin compared with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2003;80:1108–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Fragoulakis V, Pescott CP, Smeenk JM, van Santbrink EJ, Oosterhuis GJ, Broekmans FJ, Maniadakis N. economic evaluation of three frequently used gonadotrophins in assisted reproduction techniques in the management of infertility in the Netherlands. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14(6):719–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. De Mouzon J, Allavena E, Schmitt C, Frappe M. In vitro fertilization in France: economic aspects and influence of the gonadotropin choice (urinary vs. recombinant) on cost. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2004;32:508–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wex J, Abou-Setta AM. 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. Clinico Econ Outcomes Res. 2013;5:381–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the medical team at Ferring SAS France for their helpful discussion on the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University Hospital of Nantes, 38 Boulevard Jean Monnet, 44093, Nantes Cedex, France

    Paul Barriere

  2. Reproductive Medicine Institute (IMR), 345, Avenue du Prado, 13008, Marseille, France

    Géraldine Porcu-Buisson

  3. University Hospital of Montpellier - INSERM U1203, 371 Av. Du Doyen Gaston Giraud, 34295, Montpellier, France

    Samir Hamamah

Authors
  1. Paul Barriere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Géraldine Porcu-Buisson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Samir Hamamah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors contributed to the study design, modeling, data interpretation and review and editing of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samir Hamamah.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This study was funded by Ferring SAS France, the manufacturer of Menopur.

Conflict of interest

The authors Barriere P, Porcu-Buisson G and Hamamah S have received consulting fees or honoraria for the participation in the advisory board, data monitoring, writing or reviewing the manuscript and for lectures.

Data availability statement

All relevant information is in the article. The economic modelling (in French) in Excel format is confidential.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barriere, P., Porcu-Buisson, G. & Hamamah, S. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Gonadotropin Treatments HP-hMG and rFSH for Assisted Reproductive Technology in France: A Markov Model Analysis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 16, 65–77 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-017-0361-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-017-0361-7

Search

Navigation