ArticleReproductive biomedicine & society online2020
Corifollitropin alfa versus follitropin beta: an economic analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial in women undergoing IVF/ICSI.
Article in Reproductive biomedicine & society online, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Follitropin Alpha versus Follitropin Beta in IVF/ICSI Cycle: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Drug design, development and therapy · 2024Article
- 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 · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the patient's perspective alongside a randomized controlled trial comparing corifollitropin alfa with follitropin beta for a single stimulation cycle. Only unit costs paid by patients are included in this analysis. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were also performed. Baseline characteristics (except for the number of follicles and frozen embryos), treatment outcomes and complications were similar in the two groups. The live birth rate was comparable between the two groups, but the mean total cost per patient was higher for the corifollitropin alfa strategy (€4293) compared with the follitropin beta strategy (€4086). Costs per live birth were €13,726 and €12,511, respectively. The difference in effect between corifollitropin alfa and collitropin beta was three fewer live births, and the difference in costs was €24,048. The probability of live birth after the first and second embryo transfers and the proportion of patients who had no more frozen embryos available after non-achievement of live birth in the first or second transfer influenced the comparative cost-effectiveness of the two strategies. PSA showed that a corifollitropin alfa strategy would be rejected in up to 27.4% of scenarios. Follitropin beta 300 IU/day was more cost-effective than corifollitropin alfa 150 μg in women aged 35-42 years weighing ≥ 50 kg undergoing in-vitro fertilzation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.