Cost-effectiveness analysis of recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone alfa(r-hFSH) and urinary highly purified menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) based on data from a large German registry.

This was a retrospective real-world evidence analysis of the costs per live birth for reference recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone alfa (r-hFSH-alfa) versus highly purified urinary human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG-HP), based on data from a German in vitro fertilization registry (RecDate). Pregnancy and live birth rates from the RecDate real-world evidence study over three complete assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles using the same gonadotropin drug were used as clinical inputs. Costs related to ART treatment and to drugs were obtained from public sources. Treatment with r-hFSH-alfa resulted in higher adjusted cumulative live birth rates versus hMG-HP after one (25.3% vs. 22.3%), two (30.9% vs. 27.5%), and three (31.9% vs. 28.6%) ART cycles. Costs per live birth were lower with r-hFSH-alfa versus hMG-HP after one (€17,938 vs. €20,054), two (€18,251 vs. €20,437), and three (€18,473 vs. €20,680) ART cycles. r-hFSH-alfa was found to be a cost-effective strategy compared with hMG-HP over three cycles.

A cost-effectiveness modeling evaluation comparing a biosimilar follitropin alfa preparation with its reference product for live birth outcome in Germany, Italy and Spain.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Although biosimilar drugs may be cheaper to purchase than reference biological products, they may not be the most cost-effective treatment to achieve a desired outcome. The analysis reported here compared the overall costs to achieve live birth using the reference follitropin alfa (GONAL-f) or a biosimilar (Ovaleap) in Spain, Italy and Germany. METHODS: Patient and treatment data was obtained from published sources; assisted-reproductive technology, gonadotropin, follow-up and adverse-event-related costs were calculated from tariffs and reimbursement frameworks for each country. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from the difference in costs between reference and biosimilar in each country, divided by the difference in live-birth rates. Mean cost per live birth was calculated as total costs divided by the live-birth rate. RESULTS: The published live birth rates were 32.2% (reference) and 26.8% (biosimilar). Drug costs per patient were higher for the reference recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone in all three countries, with larger cost differences in Germany (€157.38) and Italy (€141.50) than in Spain (€22.41). The ICER for the reference product compared with the biosimilar was €2917.47 in Germany, €415.43 in Spain and €2623.09 in Italy. However, the overall cost per live birth was higher for the biosimilar in all three countries (Germany €8135.04 vs. €9185.34; Italy €8545.22 vs. €9733.37; Spain €14,859.53 vs. €17,767.19). Uncertainty in efficacy, mean gonadotropin dose and costs did not have a strong effect on the ICERs. CONCLUSIONS: When considering live birth outcomes, treatment with the reference follitropin alfa was more cost effective than treatment with the biosimilar follitropin alfa.

Economic Evaluation of Three Frequently Used Gonadotrophins in Assisted Reproduction Techniques in the Management of Infertility in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Subfertility represents a multidimensional problem associated with significant distress and impaired social well-being. In the Netherlands, an estimated 50,000 couples visit their general practitioner and 30,000 couples seek medical specialist care for subfertility. We conducted an economic evaluation comparing recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (follitropin alfa, r-hFSH, Gonal-F®) with two classes of urinary gonadotrophins-highly purified human menopausal gonadotrophin (hp-HMG, Menopur®) and urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (uFSH, Fostimon®)-for ovarian stimulation in women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment in the Netherlands. METHODS: A pharmacoeconomic model was developed, simulating each step in the IVF protocol from the start of therapy until either a live birth, a new IVF treatment cycle or cessation of IVF, following a long down-regulation protocol. A decision tree combined with a Markov model details progress through each health state, including ovum pickup, fresh embryo transfer, up to two subsequent cryo-preserved embryo transfers, and (ongoing) pregnancy or miscarriage. A health insurer perspective was chosen, and the time horizon was set at a maximum of three consecutive treatment cycles, in accordance with Dutch reimbursement policy. Transition probabilities and costing data were derived from a real-world observational outcomes database (from Germany) and official tariff lists (from the Netherlands). Adverse events were considered equal among the comparators and were therefore excluded from the economic analysis. A Monte Carlo simulation of 5000 iterations was undertaken for each strategy to explore uncertainty and to construct uncertainty intervals (UIs). All cost data were valued in 2013 Euros. The model's structure, parameters and assumptions were assessed and confirmed by an external clinician with experience in health economics modelling, to inform on the appropriateness of the outcomes and the applicability of the model in the chosen setting. RESULTS: The mean total treatment costs were estimated as €5664 for follitropin alfa (95 % UI €5167-6151), €5990 for hp-HMG (95 % UI €5498-6488) and €5760 for uFSH (95 % UI €5256-6246). The probability of a live birth was estimated at 36.1 % (95 % UI 27.4-44.3 %), 33.9 % (95 % UI 26.2-41.5 %) and 34.1 % (95 % UI 25.9-41.8 %) for follitropin alfa, hp-HMG and uFSH, respectively. The costs per live birth estimates were €15,674 for follitropin alfa, €17,636 for hp-HMG and €16,878 for uFSH. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a probability of 72.5 % that follitropin alfa is cost effective at a willingness to pay of €20,000 per live birth. The probabilistic results remained constant under several analyses. CONCLUSION: The present analysis shows that follitropin alfa may represent a cost-effective option in comparison with uFSH and hp-HMG for IVF treatment in the Netherlands healthcare system.

[Can we transfer the mechanisms of the generics market to biosimilars?]

Personalized medicines such as biologics and their generic equivalents, biosimilars, are pouring onto the pharmaceutical markets. Data of 16 private health insurance companies were used to describe the market shares of selected biosimilars available in 2014 and 2015. The purpose of this study focuses on the question of whether market access of biosimilars will lead to a price competition of the expense of innovation competition. The results show that prescriptions of biosimilars made up 37% of total prescriptions in 2015 compared to 35% in 2014, and that their share of prescription costs went up from 21% to 23% in the same period. Price competition similar to that found in the generic markets has been established for erythropoietin and filgrastim. The same has not been observed for follitropin alfa and somatropin due to the limited number of competitors and products available at this stage. No definitive conclusions can be drown from the results at this stage. Time will tell whether it will be possible for physicians and individuals with private health insurance to fully leverage the savings potential of biosimilars while safeguarding patient safety.

Human recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) compared to urinary human menopausal gonadotropin (HMG) for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction: a literature review and cost evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Gonadotropins are protein hormones which are central to the complex endocrine system that regulates normal growth, sexual development, and reproductive function. There is still a lively debate on which type of gonadotropin medication should be used, either human menopausal gonadotropin or recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone. The objective of the study was to perform a systematic review of the recent literature to compare recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone to human menopausal gonadotropin with the aim to assess any differences in terms of efficacy and to provide a cost evaluation based on findings of this systematic review. METHODS: The review was conducted selecting prospective, randomized, controlled trials comparing the two gonadotropin medications from a literature search of several databases. The outcome measure used to evaluate efficacy was the number of oocytes retrieved per cycle. In addition, a cost evaluation was performed based on retrieved efficacy data. RESULTS: The number of oocytes retrieved appeared to be higher for human menopausal gonadotropin in only 2 studies while 10 out of 13 studies showed a higher mean number of oocytes retrieved per cycle for recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone. The results of the cost evaluation provided a similar cost per oocyte for both hormones. CONCLUSIONS: Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone treatment resulted in a higher oocytes yield per cycle than human menopausal gonadotropin at similar cost per oocyte.

Clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of HP-human FSH (Fostimon®) versus rFSH (Gonal-F®) in IVF-ICSI cycles: a meta-analysis.

Clinical efficacy of human-derived follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) versus recombinant FSH (rFSH) in IVF-ICSI cycles has long been compared, but no clear evidence of the superiority of a preparation over the other has been found. Human gonadotropins have been often grouped together, but a different glycosylation may be present in each preparation, therefore influencing the specific bioactivity. To exclude confounding factors, a meta-analysis and a cost-effectiveness analysis were designed to compare effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a specific highly purified human FSH (HP-hFSH) (Fostimon®) versus rFSH (Gonal-F®) in IVF/ICSI cycles. Research methodology filters were applied in MEDLINE, Current Contents and Web of Science from 1980 to February 2012. Eight randomized trials met selection criteria. The meta-analysis showed no significant differences between rFSH and HP-hFSH treatment in live-birth rate (odds ratio [OR] 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-1.11), clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68-1.07), number of oocytes retrieved, number of mature oocytes and days of stimulation. The cost-effectiveness ratio was € 7174 in the rFSH group and € 2056 in the HP-hFSH group. HP-hFSH is as effective as rFSH in ovarian stimulation for IVF-ICSI cycles, but the human preparation is more cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) versus human FSH in intrauterine insemination cycles: a statistical model-derived analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Recently we proposed a randomized trial specifically designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two different protocols of stimulation in intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles. Computer-simulated clinical models have been developed to perform pharmacoeconomic studies, creating a decision tree in which the complex procedure is performed and repeated. The present study was designed to compare the cost-effectiveness of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) and human-derived FSH (hFSH) in ovarian stimulation and to indicate which protocol should be used in IUI cycles. STUDY DESIGN: Two computer-generated decision tree models were constructed to compare the clinical effects and costs of rFSH versus hFSH in IUI cycles. A first decision tree model was built according to the trial previously published. In a second model, 10 000 hypothetical infertile patients were entered in a computer-generated simulation and were stimulated with two different protocols for IUI. IUI was hypothetically performed in both groups of patients with a known pregnancy, cancellation, miscarriage and abandonment rate. The two protocols were compared using a cost-effective analysis: cost-effectiveness ratios (CE) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) was constructed. RESULTS: The overall estimated costs with each ovarian stimulation strategy in the first model demonstrated that rFSH was a less cost-effective strategy, with an ICER of euro 13,727. The CEAC showed that at a level of euro 0 of willingness to pay, hFSH was cost-effective in 73% of the samples while rFSH was cost-effective in 27% only. Recombinant FSH would be more cost-effective than hFSH at an effectiveness threshold of 0.170 and at a cost per cycle of euro 235. This finding was also confirmed by the acceptability curve obtained with 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, in which hFSH was cost-effective in about 96-98% of samples at any threshold of willingness to pay. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the first statistical model developed with a computer-generated clinical simulation with the intent to elaborate a pharmacoeconomic comparison between rFSH and hFSH in ovarian stimulation for IUI cycles. Results demonstrated that hFSH is more cost-effective than rFSH.

Recombinant versus highly-purified, urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (r-FSH vs. HP-uFSH) in ovulation induction: a prospective, randomized study with cost-minimization analysis.

BACKGROUND: Both recombinant FSH (r-FSH) and highly-purified, urinary FSH (HP-uFSH) are frequently used in ovulation induction associated with timed sexual intercourse. Their effectiveness is reported to be similar, and therefore the costs of treatment represent a major issue to be considered. Although several studies about costs in IVF have been published, data obtained in low-technology infertility treatments are still scarce. METHODS: Two hundred and sixty infertile women (184 with unexplained infertility, 76 with CC-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome) at their first treatment cycle were randomized and included in the study. Ovulation induction was accomplished by daily administration of rFSH or HP-uFSH according to a low-dose, step-up regimen aimed to obtain a monofollicular ovulation. A bi- or tri-follicular ovulation was anyway accepted, whereas hCG was withdrawn and the cycle cancelled when more than three follicles greater than or equal to 18 mm diameter were seen at ultrasound. The primary outcome measure was the cost of therapy per delivered baby, estimated according to a cost-minimization analysis. Secondary outcomes were the following: monofollicular ovulation rate, total FSH dose, cycle cancellation rate, length of the follicular phase, number of developing follicles (>12 mm diameter), endometrial thickness at hCG, incidence of twinning and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, delivery rate. RESULTS: The overall FSH dose needed to achieve ovulation was significantly lower with r-FSH, whereas all the other studied variables did not significantly differ with either treatments. However, a trend toward a higher delivery rate with r-FSH was observed in the whole group and also when results were considered subgrouping patients according to the indication to treatment. CONCLUSION: Considering the significantly lower number of vials/patient and the slight (although non-significant) increase in the delivery rate with r-FSH, the cost-minimization analysis showed a 9.4% reduction in the overall therapy cost per born baby in favor of r-FSH.

The importance of consistent FSH delivery in infertility treatment.

The use of gonadotrophins for the treatment of infertility began in the 1930s following early work on the pituitary-ovarian axis and the discovery of FSH and LH. The technological development of pharmaceutical gonadotrophins over the last 60 years has shown improvements in specific activity, purity, degradation and detection of impurities. Throughout these pharmaceutical developments the gonadotrophin content of both urinary and recombinant preparations has been assessed using an animal in-vivo bioassay. This paper reviews the manufacturing history of recombinant human FSH (r-FSH) and follitropin-alfa filled-by-mass (FbM), and evaluates the impact of introducing a pharmaceutical product that is formulated and assayed by a physicochemical method for r-FSH protein content. This consistent gonadotrophin preparation offers the opportunity to reconsider protocols of induction in a new light, deciding the daily amount of r-FSH in relation to specific clinical parameters such as the mean ovarian volume (MOV), basal FSH concentration and body mass index (BMI). Preliminary data on the application of the formula 'basal FSH x BMI/MOV x (5.5/75)' gave interesting results as a new method to standardize the induction therapy. A formula is proposed for deciding the first 5 days of drug administration.

Economic evaluation of the administration of follitropin-beta with a pen device.

Previous studies suggest that administration of follitropin-beta with a pen device (Puregon Pen(R)) is more convenient, less painful and 16-18% more efficient. The aim of this study was to perform an economic evaluation of the administration of follitropin-beta by this pen device against follitropin-alpha by multidose and highly purified (HP) HMG by conventional syringe in IVF treatment by comparing the process utilities and the costs for the Dutch setting. Conjoint analysis assessed the process utilities for the three administration modes on a scale from 0 to 1. A decision analytic model estimated the costs of an average IVF cycle from a societal perspective. Patients estimated the process utility at 0.96 for the pen, 0.53 for the multidose and 0.36 for the conventional syringe. Additional costs were estimated at 0 Euros and 194 Euros, comparing the pen with multidose or conventional methods respectively. Assuming a 16% efficiency gain of the pen, costs ranged from Euros-135 (savings) to 60 Euros (extra costs). In conclusion, patients perceive sufficient benefits to the pen device to choose it over other dosing methods. Dominance of the pen device over the multidose method was shown. Compared with the conventional administration method, the added value of the pen device was 2.7 (0.96/0.36) times higher.

Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone: gold standard or not?

Recombinant follicle stimulating hormone has been available now for almost 10 years and many couples have benefited from its use. Its clinical efficacy, purity and safety profile have been extensively documented in numerous publications. Because of growing public concerns on the safety of gonadotrophins extracted from human urine, the future will lie in the recombinant technology, which will also enable the design of more convenient tailor-made gonadotrophins.