Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29774275›Full record

ArticleReproductive biomedicine & society online2018

Comparative economic study of the use of corifollitropin alfa and daily rFSH for controlled ovarian stimulation in older patients: Cost-minimization analysis based on the PURSUE study.

Gorka Barrenetxea, Juan Antonio García-Velasco, Belén Aragón, Jordi Osset, Max Brosa, Noemí López-Martínez, Buenaventura Coroleu

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Reproductive biomedicine & society online, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Corifollitropin Alfa for Controlled Ovarian Stimulation in Assisted Reproductive Technologies: State of the Art.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Gorka BarrenetxeaUniversidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, Reproducción Bilbao, Bilbao, Spain.
Juan Antonio García-VelascoIVI Madrid, Rey Juan Carlos University, Madrid, Spain.
Belén AragónMerck Sharp & Dohme de España S.A., Madrid, Spain.
Jordi OssetMerck Sharp & Dohme de España S.A., Madrid, Spain.
Max BrosaOblikue Consulting S.L., Barcelona, Spain.
Noemí López-MartínezOblikue Consulting S.L., Barcelona, Spain.
Buenaventura CoroleuService of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproduction, Hospital Universitario Dexeus, Barcelona, Spain.
MSD (Spain) · ESOblikue Consulting (Spain) · ESHospital Universitario Dexeus · ESUniversidad Rey Juan Carlos · ESUniversity of the Basque Country · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study presents an economic assessment of controlled ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology procedures in Spain, comparing the use of corifollitropin alfa and various forms of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) in women of advanced maternal age. A cost-minimization analysis (CMA) was performed to assess the cost per cycle of controlled controlled ovarian stimulation, including only direct costs associated with the stimulation phase. The CMA was based on the population characteristics, the protocol, and the results obtained from the PURSUE study, taking into account 9 days of controlled controlled ovarian stimulation and 300 IU rFSH/day. The primary analysis included pharmacological costs alone. Different scenarios were evaluated including various doses and possible additional days (0-5) for rFSH. For the alternative analyses, the total costs (direct pharmacological costs, costs of visits and follow-up tests, and any additional pharmacological costs) were considered in both the private and public sectors. Treatment with corifollitropin alfa resulted in a lower pharmacological cost compared with rFSH (€757.25 and €950.30, respectively), creating a saving of approximately -20%. The results of the scenario analyses showed that corifollitropin alfa reduced the pharmacological cost of controlled ovarian stimulation in comparison with daily administration of doses ≥ 250 IU rFSH (considering same daily dose for all days), regardless of the additional days required (7-12 days) (average -€223; range -€488 to -€44). In conclusion, in addition to the efficacy shown in the PURSUE study, the use of corifollitropin alfa results in a decrease in the direct costs associated with controlled ovarian stimulation in older women in Spain.

Indexed as

controlled ovarian stimulationcorifollitropin alfacost-minimization analysisrecombinant follicle-stimulating hormone

Identifiers

PMID29774275
PMCPMC5952674
OpenAlexW2789966528

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.