IN VITRO FERTILISATION IN PORTUGAL: COST- EFFECTIVENESS STUDY
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2011 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
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 |