The cost-effectiveness of IVF in the UK: A comparison of three gonadotrophin treatments

53Citations
Citations of this article
31Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of women undergoing IVF treatment with recombinant FSH (rFSH) in comparison with highly purified urinary FSH (uFSH-HP) and human menopausal gonadotrophins (HMG). Methods: A decision-analytic model was used to estimate cost-effectiveness ratios for 'the average cost per ongoing pregnancy' and 'incremental cost per additional pregnancy' for women entering into IVF treatment for a maximum of three cycles. The model was constructed based on a previously published large prospective randomized clinical trial comparing rFSH and uFSH-HP. Where necessary, these data were augmented with a combination of expert opinion, evidence from the literature and observational data relating to the management and cost of IVF treatment in the UK. The cost of rFSH, uFSH-HP and HMG were obtained from National Health Service list prices in the UK. Results: The model predicted a cumulative pregnancy rate after three cycles of 57.1% for rFSH and 44.4% for both uFSH-HP and HMG. The cost of IVF treatment was £5135 for rFSH, £4806 for uFSH-HP and £4202 for HMG. When assessed in association with outcomes, the average cost per ongoing pregnancy was more favourable with rFSH (£8992) than with either uFSH-HP (£10 834) or HMG (£9472). The incremental cost per additional pregnancy was £2583 using rFSH instead of uFSH-HP and £7321 using rFSH instead of HMG. These results were robust to changes in the baseline assumptions of the model. Conclusion: rFSH is a cost-effective treatment strategy in ovulation induction prior to IVF.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sykes, D., Out, H. J., Palmer, S. J., & Van Loon, J. (2001). The cost-effectiveness of IVF in the UK: A comparison of three gonadotrophin treatments. Human Reproduction, 16(12), 2557–2562. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/16.12.2557

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free