IN VITRO FERTILISATION IN PORTUGAL: COST- EFFECTIVENESS STUDY

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Silva, Vladimiro
Data de Publicação: 2011
Outros Autores: Pita Barros, Pedro, Lourenço, Óscar, Batel Marques, Francisco
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: https://doi.org/10.25756/rpf.v3i3.83
Resumo: Objectives: To perform an economic evaluation comparing urinary and recombinant gonadotropins in ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) in the National Health Service perspective. Pituitary suppression was achieved through the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists in a long protocol. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of one alternative versus the other were calculated for three different age groups. Effectiveness was measured in deliveries.Methods: Effectiveness data came from the combination of results provided by two large, international, multicentric randomized controlled trials and the Portuguese Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) National Registry. Medication costs and reimbursement rates were obtained from official sources. Medication usage levels were the most efficient to achieve reported consumption levels. Considered ART treatment costs were obtained from government published prices.Results: Urinary gonadotropins are the dominant treatment strategy, with higher effectiveness and lower costs. Cost differences ranged from 95,83€ to 159,90€ in the analysed age groups. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios obtained were -2886,21€ (≤34 years old), -3386,89€ (35-39 years old) and -21575,52€ (≥40 years old) per delivery. Sensitivity analysis showed that the main results did not change substantially after key parameters in the model were varied.Conclusions: Urinary gonadotropins are the most cost-effective alternative in IVF treatments after long protocol with GnRH agonist. The cost-savings achieved using urinary gonadotropins would allow for the delivery of an additional IVF cycle for every 20 cycles.
id RCAP_0b85742b5f6f8940b9dad13a8172fa5b
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.farmacoterapia.pt:article/83
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling IN VITRO FERTILISATION IN PORTUGAL: COST- EFFECTIVENESS STUDYFECUNDAÇÃO IN VITRO EM PORTUGAL: UM ESTUDO DE CUSTO-EFECTIVIDADEObjectives: To perform an economic evaluation comparing urinary and recombinant gonadotropins in ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) in the National Health Service perspective. Pituitary suppression was achieved through the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists in a long protocol. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of one alternative versus the other were calculated for three different age groups. Effectiveness was measured in deliveries.Methods: Effectiveness data came from the combination of results provided by two large, international, multicentric randomized controlled trials and the Portuguese Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) National Registry. Medication costs and reimbursement rates were obtained from official sources. Medication usage levels were the most efficient to achieve reported consumption levels. Considered ART treatment costs were obtained from government published prices.Results: Urinary gonadotropins are the dominant treatment strategy, with higher effectiveness and lower costs. Cost differences ranged from 95,83€ to 159,90€ in the analysed age groups. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios obtained were -2886,21€ (≤34 years old), -3386,89€ (35-39 years old) and -21575,52€ (≥40 years old) per delivery. Sensitivity analysis showed that the main results did not change substantially after key parameters in the model were varied.Conclusions: Urinary gonadotropins are the most cost-effective alternative in IVF treatments after long protocol with GnRH agonist. The cost-savings achieved using urinary gonadotropins would allow for the delivery of an additional IVF cycle for every 20 cycles.Objectivos: Este estudo apresenta os resultados de uma avaliação económica realizada com o objectivo de comparar a utilização de gonadotrofinas urinárias e recombinantes em protocolos de estimulação ovárica para fecundaçãoin vitro (FIV), na perspectiva do Serviço Nacional de Saúde. Foi calculado, para três grupos etários, o custo-efectividade incremental de uma alternativa terapêutica face à outra, no contexto de protocolos longos em que a supressão da hipófise é assegurada por agonistas da hormona libertadora das gonadotrofinas (GnRH). A medida de efectividade considerada foi o parto.Métodos: Foi desenvolvida uma árvore de decisão para modelar um ciclo de FIV. Os dados de efectividade considerados foram obtidos a partir da combinação de dados provenientes da reanálise de dois estudos internacionais de grande dimensão, aleatorizados e controlados, com os dados constantes do Registo Nacional de Procriação Medicamente Assistida (PMA). Os custos da medicação, e respectivas percentagens de comparticipação, e os custos dos tratamentos de PMA provêm de fontes oficiais e são os que se encontravam em vigor à data do respectivo cálculo. Os níveis de consumo de medicamentos considerados foram os mais eficientes para atingir os consumos obtidos a partir das fontes citadas.Resultados: A utilização de gonadotrofinas urinárias revelou-se dominante em relação à alternativa das recombinantes, com uma diferença de custos que variou entre € 95,82 e € 159,90 nos escalões etários analisados e uma efectividade superior. O rácio de custo-efectividade incremental obtido foi de € -2886,21 (≤34 anos), € -3386,89 (35-39 anos) e € -21 575,52 (≥40 anos) por parto. A análise de sensibilidade demonstrou que estes resultados não sofreram alterações substanciais após a introdução de variações em parâmetros críticos do modelo.Conclusões: As gonadotrofinas urinárias são a opção de tratamento mais custo-efectiva no caso dos tratamentos de FIV em protocolo longo com agonista da GnRH. A sua utilização preferencial permitiria a realização de mais um ciclo de FIV por cada 20 realizados.Formifarma2011-09-25info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://doi.org/10.25756/rpf.v3i3.83https://doi.org/10.25756/rpf.v3i3.83Revista Portuguesa de Farmacoterapia / Portuguese Journal of Pharmacotherapy; Vol 3 No 3 (2011): Julho; 4-18Revista Portuguesa de Farmacoterapia; v. 3 n. 3 (2011): Julho; 4-182183-73411647-354Xreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPporhttp://revista.farmacoterapia.pt/index.php/rpf/article/view/83http://revista.farmacoterapia.pt/index.php/rpf/article/view/83/66Direitos de Autor (c) 2017 Revista Portuguesa de Farmacoterapiahttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSilva, VladimiroPita Barros, PedroLourenço, ÓscarBatel Marques, Francisco2023-09-01T04:33:21Zoai:ojs.farmacoterapia.pt:article/83Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T15:11:33.282168Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv IN VITRO FERTILISATION IN PORTUGAL: COST- EFFECTIVENESS STUDY
FECUNDAÇÃO IN VITRO EM PORTUGAL: UM ESTUDO DE CUSTO-EFECTIVIDADE
title IN VITRO FERTILISATION IN PORTUGAL: COST- EFFECTIVENESS STUDY
spellingShingle IN VITRO FERTILISATION IN PORTUGAL: COST- EFFECTIVENESS STUDY
Silva, Vladimiro
title_short IN VITRO FERTILISATION IN PORTUGAL: COST- EFFECTIVENESS STUDY
title_full IN VITRO FERTILISATION IN PORTUGAL: COST- EFFECTIVENESS STUDY
title_fullStr IN VITRO FERTILISATION IN PORTUGAL: COST- EFFECTIVENESS STUDY
title_full_unstemmed IN VITRO FERTILISATION IN PORTUGAL: COST- EFFECTIVENESS STUDY
title_sort IN VITRO FERTILISATION IN PORTUGAL: COST- EFFECTIVENESS STUDY
author Silva, Vladimiro
author_facet Silva, Vladimiro
Pita Barros, Pedro
Lourenço, Óscar
Batel Marques, Francisco
author_role author
author2 Pita Barros, Pedro
Lourenço, Óscar
Batel Marques, Francisco
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Silva, Vladimiro
Pita Barros, Pedro
Lourenço, Óscar
Batel Marques, Francisco
description Objectives: To perform an economic evaluation comparing urinary and recombinant gonadotropins in ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) in the National Health Service perspective. Pituitary suppression was achieved through the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists in a long protocol. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of one alternative versus the other were calculated for three different age groups. Effectiveness was measured in deliveries.Methods: Effectiveness data came from the combination of results provided by two large, international, multicentric randomized controlled trials and the Portuguese Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) National Registry. Medication costs and reimbursement rates were obtained from official sources. Medication usage levels were the most efficient to achieve reported consumption levels. Considered ART treatment costs were obtained from government published prices.Results: Urinary gonadotropins are the dominant treatment strategy, with higher effectiveness and lower costs. Cost differences ranged from 95,83€ to 159,90€ in the analysed age groups. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios obtained were -2886,21€ (≤34 years old), -3386,89€ (35-39 years old) and -21575,52€ (≥40 years old) per delivery. Sensitivity analysis showed that the main results did not change substantially after key parameters in the model were varied.Conclusions: Urinary gonadotropins are the most cost-effective alternative in IVF treatments after long protocol with GnRH agonist. The cost-savings achieved using urinary gonadotropins would allow for the delivery of an additional IVF cycle for every 20 cycles.
publishDate 2011
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2011-09-25
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://doi.org/10.25756/rpf.v3i3.83
https://doi.org/10.25756/rpf.v3i3.83
url https://doi.org/10.25756/rpf.v3i3.83
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv http://revista.farmacoterapia.pt/index.php/rpf/article/view/83
http://revista.farmacoterapia.pt/index.php/rpf/article/view/83/66
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Direitos de Autor (c) 2017 Revista Portuguesa de Farmacoterapia
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Direitos de Autor (c) 2017 Revista Portuguesa de Farmacoterapia
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Formifarma
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Formifarma
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Revista Portuguesa de Farmacoterapia / Portuguese Journal of Pharmacotherapy; Vol 3 No 3 (2011): Julho; 4-18
Revista Portuguesa de Farmacoterapia; v. 3 n. 3 (2011): Julho; 4-18
2183-7341
1647-354X
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799129986132606976