Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
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 pounds sterling for rFSH, 4806 pounds sterling for uFSH-HP and 4202 pounds sterling for HMG. When assessed in association with outcomes, the average cost per ongoing pregnancy was more favourable with rFSH (8992 pounds sterling) than with either uFSH-HP (10 834 pounds sterling) or HMG (9472 pounds sterling). The incremental cost per additional pregnancy was 2583 pounds sterling using rFSH instead of uFSH-HP and 7321 pounds sterling 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.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/16.12.2557 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!