Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cost-Effectiveness of Recombinant Versus Urinary Follicle-Stimulating Hormone in Assisted Reproduction Techniques in the Spanish Public Health Care System

  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose : To evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of recombinant and urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) in assisted reproduction techniques in the Spanish National Health Service.

Methods : Markov modelling was used to compare costs and outcomes of three complete treatment cycles using recombinant or urinary FSH for controlled ovarian stimulation. Cost and effectiveness estimates were obtained from the literature and from Spanish clinicians. A Monte Carlo technique was used to randomise the distribution of outcomes at each stage. The analysis was performed by passing a virtual population of 100,000 patients through the computer simulation in each of 5000 Monte Carlo simulations.

Results : The cost per pregnancy was €12,791 ± 1202 ($11,346 ± 1066) with recombinant and €13,007 ± 1319 ($11,537 ± 1170) with urinary FSH (p < 0.0001). The mean number of cycles per pregnancy was 4.69 and 5.21, respectively.

Conclusions : Recombinant FSH is more cost-effective than urinary FSH in the Spanish public health care system.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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

    Google Scholar 

  2. Daya S, Gunby J: Recombinant versus urinary follicle stimulating hormone for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2207-2215

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Briggs A, Sculpher M: An introduction to Markov modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 1998;13:397-409

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  5. Mantovani L, Belisari A, Szucs T: Pharmaco-economic aspects of in-vitro fertilisation in Italy. Hum Reprod 1999;14:953-958

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Balasch J, Fábregues F, Creus M, Penarrubia 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Expóosito 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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  22. Peinado JA, Peiró S: Analisis coste-efectividad de la reproducción asistida. Rev Admin Sanit 1997;1:659-678

    Google Scholar 

  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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynecology (Human Reproduction), Hospital Universitario La Fe, Valencia, Spain

    Alberto Romeu

  2. Institut Clinic of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Neonatology, Hospital Clinic, Institut d'Investigacions biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

    Juan Balasch

  3. Unidad de Reproducción, Hospital 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain

    José A. Ruiz Balda

  4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Institut Universitari Dexeus, Barcelona, Spain

    Pedro N. Barri

  5. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, 1200 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8N 3Z5

    Salim Daya

  6. National Center of Scientific Research (CNRS), Villeurbanne, Lyon, France

    Jean P. Auray & Gerald Duru

  7. Serono International S.A., Geneva, Switzerland

    Ariel Beresniak

  8. Medical Department of Reproductive Health, Laboratorios Serono, S.A., Madrid, Spain

    José A. Peinado

Authors
  1. Alberto Romeu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Juan Balasch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. José A. Ruiz Balda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pedro N. Barri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Salim Daya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jean P. Auray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gerald Duru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ariel Beresniak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. José A. Peinado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Romeu, A., Balasch, J., Balda, J.A.R. et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Recombinant Versus Urinary Follicle-Stimulating Hormone in Assisted Reproduction Techniques in the Spanish Public Health Care System. J Assist Reprod Genet 20, 294–300 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024899806149

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024899806149

Search

Navigation