![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
Abstract
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.