Determining the cost-effectiveness of follitropin alfa biosimilar compared to follitropin alfa originator in women undergoing fertility treatment in France

Matthieu Lehmann , Elisangela Arbo , Jean-Luc Pouly , Paul Barrière , Lauren Amy Boland , Samuel George Bean , Julian Jenkins
{"title":"Determining the cost-effectiveness of follitropin alfa biosimilar compared to follitropin alfa originator in women undergoing fertility treatment in France","authors":"Matthieu Lehmann ,&nbsp;Elisangela Arbo ,&nbsp;Jean-Luc Pouly ,&nbsp;Paul Barrière ,&nbsp;Lauren Amy Boland ,&nbsp;Samuel George Bean ,&nbsp;Julian Jenkins","doi":"10.1016/j.eurox.2024.100311","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The study assessed cost-effectiveness of follitropin alfa biosimilar versus the originator in terms of cost per cumulative live-birth (CLB) for the French healthcare system based on real-world evidence. Follitropin alfa biosimilars have been shown to have comparable clinical outcomes to the originator, in both clinical studies and real-world settings, in terms of oocyte retrieval and cumulative live-birth rate (CLBR). Previous health economic studies comparing the cost-effectiveness of follitropin alfa biosimilars against the originator utilised clinical trial data, leaving ambiguity over cost-effectiveness in real-world settings. Additionally, previous cost-effectiveness analysis has been performed for live-births following only fresh embryo transfers, whereas, fresh and frozen transfers are common in clinical practice. This study investigates the cost per CLB, which more closely models clinical practice.</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>A decision-tree cost-effectiveness model was developed based on the total costs and CLBR per ovarian stimulation (OS) for a follitropin alfa biosimilar (Bemfola®, Gedeon Richter Plc, Budapest, Hungary) and the originator (Gonal-f®, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany). A time horizon of one year from oocyte retrieval to embryo transfer was used but costs from resulting transfers were also included. Clinical inputs were taken from the REOLA real-world study or clinician insights, while acquisition costs were taken from French public databases. The output was cost per CLB following one OS. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the largest model drivers.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Cost per CLB was €18,147 with follitropin alfa biosimilar and €18,834 with the originator, saving €687 per CLB following OS with the biosimilar. When wastage estimates were considered the biosimilar cost saving is estimated to be between €796 and €1155 per CLB further increasing cost savings. Irrespective of wastage, if used ubiquitously throughout France for ART, the biosimilar could save the French health system €13,994,190 or lead to 771 more births when compared to its higher-cost originator. Sensitivity analysis showed that the originator’s relative CLBR had the greatest impact on the model.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This analysis demonstrates that the follitropin alfa biosimilar, Bemfola®, is a more cost-effective option for OS compared with the originator from a French healthcare payer perspective, in terms of cost per CLB.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37085,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology: X","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590161324000310/pdfft?md5=711cbb1f39bdcf1ceadafda15a6e8e55&pid=1-s2.0-S2590161324000310-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology: X","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590161324000310","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

The study assessed cost-effectiveness of follitropin alfa biosimilar versus the originator in terms of cost per cumulative live-birth (CLB) for the French healthcare system based on real-world evidence. Follitropin alfa biosimilars have been shown to have comparable clinical outcomes to the originator, in both clinical studies and real-world settings, in terms of oocyte retrieval and cumulative live-birth rate (CLBR). Previous health economic studies comparing the cost-effectiveness of follitropin alfa biosimilars against the originator utilised clinical trial data, leaving ambiguity over cost-effectiveness in real-world settings. Additionally, previous cost-effectiveness analysis has been performed for live-births following only fresh embryo transfers, whereas, fresh and frozen transfers are common in clinical practice. This study investigates the cost per CLB, which more closely models clinical practice.

Study design

A decision-tree cost-effectiveness model was developed based on the total costs and CLBR per ovarian stimulation (OS) for a follitropin alfa biosimilar (Bemfola®, Gedeon Richter Plc, Budapest, Hungary) and the originator (Gonal-f®, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany). A time horizon of one year from oocyte retrieval to embryo transfer was used but costs from resulting transfers were also included. Clinical inputs were taken from the REOLA real-world study or clinician insights, while acquisition costs were taken from French public databases. The output was cost per CLB following one OS. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the largest model drivers.

Results

Cost per CLB was €18,147 with follitropin alfa biosimilar and €18,834 with the originator, saving €687 per CLB following OS with the biosimilar. When wastage estimates were considered the biosimilar cost saving is estimated to be between €796 and €1155 per CLB further increasing cost savings. Irrespective of wastage, if used ubiquitously throughout France for ART, the biosimilar could save the French health system €13,994,190 or lead to 771 more births when compared to its higher-cost originator. Sensitivity analysis showed that the originator’s relative CLBR had the greatest impact on the model.

Conclusion

This analysis demonstrates that the follitropin alfa biosimilar, Bemfola®, is a more cost-effective option for OS compared with the originator from a French healthcare payer perspective, in terms of cost per CLB.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
确定在法国接受生育治疗的妇女中,与促性腺激素α原研药相比,促性腺激素α生物仿制药的成本效益
目的该研究基于现实世界的证据,从每个累积活产婴儿(CLB)的成本角度评估了法国医疗保健系统使用follitropin alfa生物仿制药与原研药的成本效益。在临床研究和实际环境中,无论是卵母细胞检索还是累积活产率 (CLBR),都已证明绒促性素 alfa 生物仿制药与原研药具有可比的临床效果。以往的健康经济学研究利用临床试验数据比较了follitropin alfa生物仿制药与原研药的成本效益,但在实际环境中的成本效益却不明确。此外,以往的成本效益分析只针对新鲜胚胎移植后的活产,而在临床实践中,新鲜胚胎移植和冷冻胚胎移植都很常见。研究设计根据卵泡刺激素α生物仿制药(Bemfola®,Gedeon Richter Plc,匈牙利布达佩斯)和原研药(Gonal-f®,默克公司,德国达姆施塔特)的总成本和每次卵巢刺激(OS)的CLBR,建立了决策树成本效益模型。从取卵到胚胎移植的时间跨度为一年,但由此产生的移植成本也包括在内。临床投入来自 REOLA 真实世界研究或临床医生的见解,而获取成本则来自法国公共数据库。输出结果为一次操作系统后每 CLB 的成本。结果使用follitropin alfa生物仿制药的每CLB成本为18,147欧元,使用原研药的每CLB成本为18,834欧元,使用生物仿制药在OS后每CLB可节省687欧元。如果考虑到损耗估算,生物仿制药的成本节约估计为每 CLB 796 欧元至 1155 欧元,进一步增加了成本节约。无论流失情况如何,如果在法国各地普遍使用生物仿制药进行抗逆转录病毒疗法,与成本较高的原研药相比,生物仿制药可为法国卫生系统节省 13,994,190 欧元,或增加 771 例新生儿。敏感性分析表明,原研药的相对CLBR对模型的影响最大。结论该分析表明,从法国医疗支付方的角度来看,就每CLB成本而言,与原研药相比,卵泡刺激素α生物仿制药Bemfola®是一种更具成本效益的OS选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
58 days
期刊最新文献
Pentaerithrityl tetranitrate (PETN) for prevention of fetal growth restriction in pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis Recurrent pain after laparoscopic surgery for ovarian endometrioma: Clinical features and long-term follow up The Association and diagnostic value between Maternal Serum Placental Markers and Placenta Previa Cervical cerclage vs cervical pessary in women with cervical insufficiency: A multicentric, open-label, randomised, controlled pilot trial [the CEPEIC trial] Vegetarian diet and pregnancy outcome
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1