ArticleFrontiers in reproductive health2026
Corifollitropin alfa versus daily recombinant FSH for ovarian stimulation in women of advanced maternal age: a cost-minimization analysis in an out-of-pocket setting.
Article in Frontiers in reproductive health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In many countries, Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) remains funded predominantly out-of-pocket, with no private insurance reimbursement and only limited public provision. For many individuals, the cost of a single ART cycle may exceed monthly income, rendering treatment financially inaccessible. Therefore, even modest differences in medication costs can meaningfully influence treatment initiation and cycle completion. Aim: Given the limited regional evidence and the need for context-specific economic evaluations in Latin America, the present study aims to evaluate the economic impact of using Corifollitropin Alfa (CFA), a long-acting gonadotropin, compared with daily recombinant FSH for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in ART treatments in Brazilian women, under the assumption of equivalent clinical effectiveness. Method: A cost-minimization analysis was conducted from a Brazilian private-sector, out-of-pocket patient perspective, following national and international guidelines for healthcare economic evaluations. Medication reference prices, including taxes, were obtained from the official Brazilian regulatory database as of May 2025. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate different gonadotropin dosing strategies in standardized COS protocols for women aged 35-42 years. Results: Across all scenarios tested, CFA was consistently associated with substantial cost reductions compared with daily rFSH. Assuming the equipotency between a single injection of CFA 150 µg and rFSH 300 IU/day for the first 7 days of COS, CFA plus follitropin alfa versus follitropin alfa alone reduced the pharmacological cost by approximately 52.1%. Similarly, CFA plus follitropin beta showed a reduction of approximately 56.3% in medication costs when compared to follitropin beta alone. These findings remained robust across all sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: CFA was associated with substantial pharmacological cost savings of more than 50% when compared to follitropin alfa or follitropin beta, assuming that a single injection of CFA 150 µg is equipotent to daily injections of rFSH 300 IU for the first 7 days of COS. Although further real-world studies are needed to validate and expand on these findings, this analysis provides meaningful evidence to support patient-centered decision-making and healthcare planning in resource-constrained settings.
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.