IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v7y2023i5d10.1007_s41669-023-00429-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Highly Purified Human Menopausal Gonadotropin (HP-hMG) Versus Recombinant Follicle-Stimulating Hormone (rFSH) for Controlled Ovarian Stimulation in US Predicted High-Responder Patients: A Cost-Comparison Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Khair

    (Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc.)

  • Tray Brown

    (Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR) Ltd.)

  • Marie Markert

    (Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S)

  • Carsten Rødseth Barsøe

    (Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S)

  • Gaurang S. Daftary

    (Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S)

  • Patrick W. Heiser

    (Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc.)

Abstract

Objectives Infertility imposes considerable clinical and economic burden, and the high costs of fertility care are a major barrier to payers. This study assessed the cost differences of highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (HP-hMG) versus recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocols in predicted high-responders from the US payer perspective. Methods A discrete event simulation model was built to perform a cost-comparison analysis of HP-hMG versus rFSH in a cohort of predicted high-responders undergoing up to three embryo transfer cycles, informed by efficacy data from the MEGASET-HR trial. The model considered an event-based treatment pathway and transition probabilities were derived from MEGASET-HR. A variable time horizon was employed, and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses conducted. Results Subjects undergoing COS with HP-hMG and rFSH demonstrated comparable live birth rates following three in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles, with 161 live births with HP-hMG and 152 live births with rFSH, per 310 high-responders. The total cost saving per live birth in subjects receiving HP-hMG versus rFSH was US$3024. These cost savings were largely driven by the need for fewer embryo transfers to achieve similar efficacy outcomes and a reduced rate of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Following deterministic sensitivity analysis, HP-hMG remained cost saving in all baseline parameter variations. No parameters led to rFSH providing cost savings when compared with HP-hMG. Conclusion Comparable clinical outcomes can be achieved at a lower cost when using HP-hMG versus rFSH based COS protocols in a cohort of predicted high-responders. Such cost savings may reduce the economic burden infertility currently presents to US healthcare providers and those seeking fertility care.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Khair & Tray Brown & Marie Markert & Carsten Rødseth Barsøe & Gaurang S. Daftary & Patrick W. Heiser, 2023. "Highly Purified Human Menopausal Gonadotropin (HP-hMG) Versus Recombinant Follicle-Stimulating Hormone (rFSH) for Controlled Ovarian Stimulation in US Predicted High-Responder Patients: A Cost-Compari," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 7(5), pages 851-860, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:7:y:2023:i:5:d:10.1007_s41669-023-00429-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-023-00429-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-023-00429-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-023-00429-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:7:y:2023:i:5:d:10.1007_s41669-023-00429-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.