ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2023
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.
Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02554279 (A Randomized, Assessor-blind Trial Comparing MENOPUR®), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
A Randomized, Assessor-blind Trial Comparing MENOPUR® (Menotropins for Injection) and Recombinant FSH (Follicle Stimulating Hormone) in a GnRH Antagonist Cycle With Single-Blastocyst Transfer in a High Responder Subject Population
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative determination of trace principal components with high specific activity in menotropins.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
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 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesInfertility 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsSubjects 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.
conclusionComparable 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.
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.