Human Reproduction, Vol. 16, No. 12, 2557-2562,
December 2001
© 2001 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
The cost-effectiveness of IVF in the UK: a comparison of three gonadotrophin treatments
1 Organon Laboratories, Cambridge Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge CB4 0FL, 2 Centre for Health Economics, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK and 3Quathos, Heemraadserf 32, 3 991 KA Houten, The Netherlands
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.
Key words: cost-effectiveness/HMG/IVF/rFSH/uFSH
4 To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: henk-jan.out{at}organon.co.uk
* At the time of the study, Dr David Sykes was Health Economist and Dr Henk J.Out was Medical Director, both with Organon Laboratories, Cambridge, UK.
Submitted on May 2, 2000; July 5, 2001
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  N. S. Macklon, R. L. Stouffer, L. C. Giudice, and B. C. J. M. Fauser The Science behind 25 Years of Ovarian Stimulation for in Vitro Fertilization Endocr. Rev., April 1, 2006; 27(2): 170 - 207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. Gleicher, M. Vietzke, and A. Vidali Bye-bye urinary gonadotrophins?: Recombinant FSH: A real progress in ovulation induction and IVF? Hum. Reprod., March 1, 2003; 18(3): 476 - 482. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Al-Inany, M. Aboulghar, R. Mansour, and G. Serour Meta-analysis of recombinant versus urinary-derived FSH: an update Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2003; 18(2): 305 - 313. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. De Sutter, J. Gerris, and M. Dhont A health-economic decision-analytic model comparing double with single embryo transfer in IVF/ICSI Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2002; 17(11): 2891 - 2896. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Errata Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2002; 17(7): 1929 - 1929. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D.H. Barlow Cost-effectiveness modelling Hum. Reprod., December 1, 2001; 16(12): 2479 - 2480. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|