Corifollitropin alfa versus follitropin beta: an economic analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial in women undergoing IVF/ICSI
Khoa, LD and Lan, VTN and Loc, NMT and Vinh, DQ and Tran, QN and Tuong, HM, Corifollitropin alfa versus follitropin beta: an economic analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial in women undergoing IVF/ICSI, Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online, 10 pp. 28-36. ISSN 2405-6618 (2020) [Refereed Article]
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.