COST-CONSEQUENCE MODEL COMPARING ORIGINATOR R-HFSH-ALFA TO OTHER R-FSH-ALFA OPTIONS IN UP TO THREE COMPLETE OVARIAN STIMULATION CYCLES IN ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY IN CHINA
Author(s)
Haining Luo, MD1, Kemal Uca, MBA2, Juan Enrique Schwarze, MSc, MD2, Claudia Roeder, PhD2, Roberta Longo, PhD3, Cristina Masseria, PhD4, Ani Qin, MSc5, Weidong Zhang, PhD5, Ziyang Li, MSc5, Lin Zhu, MSc5;
1Tianjin Central Hospital of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tianjin, China, 2Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, 3AESARA Europe, Corsano, Italy, 4AESARA Europe, Madrid, Spain, 5Merck Serono Co., Ltd., Beijing, China, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Beijing, China
1Tianjin Central Hospital of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tianjin, China, 2Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, 3AESARA Europe, Corsano, Italy, 4AESARA Europe, Madrid, Spain, 5Merck Serono Co., Ltd., Beijing, China, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Beijing, China
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of originator recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone alfa (r-hFSH-alfa [O]) versus other r-FSH-alfa products: A (recombinant human follitropin for injection [Jinsaiheng®]), B (recombinant human follitropin for injection [Anxinbao®]), and C (recombinant human follitropin prefilled syringe [Follitrope®]) during assisted reproductive technology (ART) across up to three complete ovarian stimulation (OS) cycles.
METHODS: A decision-tree model was developed in Microsoft Excel to simulate treatment pathways for women with infertility undergoing ART using O/alternative products. Outcomes measured were cumulative live birth rate (CLBR), time to live birth (TTLB), cost/CLB, and drug cost proportion. The model utilized clinical data from published international and Chinese studies. Treatment began with either O/alternatives, and women proceeded with frozen embryo transfer (FET) if there was no live birth (LB) after fresh embryo transfer (ET). For two unsuccessful FETs without LB, a new OS cycle was initiated. All costs are in local currency.
RESULTS: In a single OS cycle, CLBR for O was 68.1% versus 59.8% for A, 53.6% (O) versus 46.3% for B, and 62.6% (O) versus 54.6% for C. In up to three OS cycles, CLBR and TTLB for O versus A were 94.5% and 552.4 days versus 90.3% and 609.2 days, respectively. The % of costs attributed to the O in relation to overall ART costs was between 15.2-17.7 % only. The difference in cost/CLB was - ¥7,226 (O vs. A), - ¥10,193 (O vs. B), and - ¥8,046 (O vs. C) in a single OS cycle, and - ¥8,313 (O vs. A), - ¥11,743 (O vs. B), and - ¥9,255 (O vs. C) for up to three cycles.
CONCLUSIONS: The originator r-hFSH-alfa demonstrated higher CLBR and lower cost/CLB, saving costs between ¥7,000-12,000/LB, while shortening TTLB by approximately 1.5-2 months, making it a cost-effective option for ART.
METHODS: A decision-tree model was developed in Microsoft Excel to simulate treatment pathways for women with infertility undergoing ART using O/alternative products. Outcomes measured were cumulative live birth rate (CLBR), time to live birth (TTLB), cost/CLB, and drug cost proportion. The model utilized clinical data from published international and Chinese studies. Treatment began with either O/alternatives, and women proceeded with frozen embryo transfer (FET) if there was no live birth (LB) after fresh embryo transfer (ET). For two unsuccessful FETs without LB, a new OS cycle was initiated. All costs are in local currency.
RESULTS: In a single OS cycle, CLBR for O was 68.1% versus 59.8% for A, 53.6% (O) versus 46.3% for B, and 62.6% (O) versus 54.6% for C. In up to three OS cycles, CLBR and TTLB for O versus A were 94.5% and 552.4 days versus 90.3% and 609.2 days, respectively. The % of costs attributed to the O in relation to overall ART costs was between 15.2-17.7 % only. The difference in cost/CLB was - ¥7,226 (O vs. A), - ¥10,193 (O vs. B), and - ¥8,046 (O vs. C) in a single OS cycle, and - ¥8,313 (O vs. A), - ¥11,743 (O vs. B), and - ¥9,255 (O vs. C) for up to three cycles.
CONCLUSIONS: The originator r-hFSH-alfa demonstrated higher CLBR and lower cost/CLB, saving costs between ¥7,000-12,000/LB, while shortening TTLB by approximately 1.5-2 months, making it a cost-effective option for ART.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-05, ISPOR 2026, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue S6
Code
EE492
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Value of Information
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, SDC: Reproductive & Sexual Health