A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the originator follitropin alfa to its biosimilars in patients undergoing a medically assisted reproduction program from a French perspective

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

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.

A direct healthcare cost analysis of recombinant LH versus hMG supplementation on FSH during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in the GnRH-antagonist protocol

PURPOSE

We have previously published a retrospective matched-case control study comparing the effect of recombinant LH (r-hLH) versus highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) supplementation on the follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in the GnRH-antagonist protocol. The result from that study showed that the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) was significantly higher in the r-hLH group (53% vs. 64%, p = 0.02). In this study, we aim to do a cost analysis between these two groups based on our previous study.

METHODS

The analysis consisted of 425 IVF and ICSI cycles in our previous study. There were 259 cycles in the r-hFSH + hMG group and 166 cycles in the r-hFSH + r-hLH group. The total cost related to the treatment of each patient was recorded. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) were performed and created.

RESULTS

The total treatment cost per patient was significantly higher in the r-hFSH + r-hLH group than in the r-hFSH + hMG group ($4550 ± 798.86 vs. $4290 ± 734.6, p = 0.003). However, the mean cost per live birth in the r-hFSH + hMG group was higher at $8052, vs. $7059 in the r-hFSH + r-hLH group. The CEAC showed that treatment with hFSH + r-hLH proved to be more cost-effective than treatment with r-hFSH + hMG. Willingness-to-pay was evident when considering a hypothetical threshold of $18,513, with the r-hFSH + r-hLH group exhibiting a 99% probability of being considered cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

The cost analysis showed that recombinant LH is more cost-effective than hMG supplementation on r-hFSH during COH in the GnRH-antagonist protocol.

Economic Evaluation of Medically Assisted Reproduction: A Methodological Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Medically assisted reproduction (MAR) is a challenging application area for health economic evaluations, entailing a broad range of costs and outcomes, stretching out long-term and accruing to several parties.

PURPOSE

To systematically review which costs and outcomes are included in published economic evaluations of MAR and to compare these with health technology assessment (HTA) prescriptions about which cost and outcomes should be considered for different evaluation objectives.

DATA SOURCES

HTA guidelines and systematic searches of PubMed Central, Embase, WOS CC, CINAHL, Cochrane (CENTRAL), HTA, and NHS EED.

STUDY SELECTION

All economic evaluations of MAR published from 2010 to 2022.

DATA EXTRACTION

A predetermined data collection form summarized study characteristics. Essential costs and outcomes of MAR were listed based on HTA and treatment guidelines for different evaluation objectives. For each study, included costs and outcomes were reviewed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The review identified 93 cost-effectiveness estimates, of which 57% were expressed as cost-per-(healthy)-live-birth, 19% as cost-per-pregnancy, and 47% adopted a clinic perspective. Few adopted societal perspectives and only 2% used quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Broader evaluations omitted various relevant costs and outcomes related to MAR. There are several cost and outcome categories for which available HTA guidelines do not provide conclusive directions regarding inclusion or exclusion.

LIMITATIONS

Studies published before 2010 and of interventions not clearly labeled as MAR were excluded. We focus on methods rather than which MAR treatments are cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic evaluations of MAR typically calculate a short-term cost-per-live-birth from a clinic perspective. Broader analyses, using cost-per-QALY or BCRs from societal perspectives, considering the full scope of reproduction-related costs and outcomes, are scarce and often incomplete. We provide a summary of costs and outcomes for future research guidance and identify areas requiring HTA methodological development.

HIGHLIGHTS

The cost-effectiveness of MAR procedures can be exceptionally complex to estimate as there is a broad range of costs and outcomes involved, in principle stretching out over multiple generations and over many stakeholders.We list 21 key areas of costs and outcomes of MAR. Which of these needs to be accounted for alters for different evaluation objectives (determined by the type of economic evaluation, time horizon considered, and perspective).Published studies mostly investigate cost-effectiveness in the very short-term, from a clinic perspective, expressed as cost-per-live-birth. There is a lack of comprehensive economic evaluations that adopt a broader perspective with a longer time horizon. The broader the evaluation objective, the more relevant costs and outcomes were excluded.For several costs and outcomes, particularly those relevant for broader, societal evaluations of MAR, the inclusion or exclusion is theoretically ambiguous, and HTA guidelines do not offer sufficient guidance.

Clinical Outcomes in Patients Receiving Originator Follitropin Alfa and Follitropin Alfa Biosimilars in Real-world Clinical Practice: A Retrospective Study

Background

Biosimilar drugs have broadened the treatment options in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Real-world data comparing clinical outcomes of originator follitropin alfa (Gonal-f®) with its biosimilars are required to enrich the body of evidence for clinical decision-making on choice of drug.

Aims

To compare the ART outcomes in patients receiving originator follitropin (Gonal-f®) and its biosimilars in clinical setting.

Settings and Design

Medical records of 364 infertile women who underwent ART between 2016 and 2020 at Akanksha Hospital and Research Institute, Gujrat, India, were retrospectively analysed.

Materials and Methods

Participants were divided into two cohorts based on treatment (Gonal-f® cohort; N = 174 and biosimilar cohort; N = 190), each cohort further subdivided into group A (age <35 years) and group B (age ≥35 years). Fresh or frozen embryo transfer was performed as per the standard procedures of the clinic. Pregnancy rates and live birth rate (LBR) were the primary main outcome measures in this study.

Statistical Analysis Used

Descriptive statistics and Chi-square test were used for analysis.

Results

The number of oocytes retrieved from Gonal-f® and biosimilar cohorts were comparable (13.3 vs. 14.4). Compared to biosimilars, Gonal-f® treatment resulted in higher yield of cleavage stage and blastocyst stage embryos, and the proportion of women with good quality embryos was higher in the Gonal-f® cohort than the biosimilar cohort (83.3% vs. 69.5%). Patients receiving Gonal-f® reported higher pregnancy rates (59.2% vs. 39.7%) and LBR (43% vs. 17.7%) compared to those receiving biosimilars.

Conclusions

Gonal-f® (originator follitropin) treatment could result in higher pregnancy rates and LBR in comparison to biosimilars in real-world setting.

The pharmacoeconomic impact of follitropin alpha biosimilars in IVF therapy in Europe: a report of the literature

Introduction: To study the impact of biosimilars in assisted reproductive treatments, we performed a review of the literature. Biosimilars are a bioequivalent chemical drug referred to the original. Their production is strongly requested in order to reduce drug cost and reduce health economic impact on national health system. In assisted reproductive treatments different gonadotropin biosimilars are being produced.Areas covered: For this reason, we performed a review of the literature on follitropin alfa Gonal-F biosimilar, Ovaleap and Bemfola, to assess their cost efficacy in national health system. Cost effective (CE) analysis and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were used as parameters for biosimilar impact evaluation in the national health system economy. In particular, they had only slight impact on cost reduction of recombinant follitropin alfa products in Europe.Expert opinion: considering cost-effective analysis, Gonal-F remains the first choice for national health systems. However, well-designed powered methods are strongly needed to assess biosimilars cost-effectiveness.

Human Recombinant FSH and Its Biosimilars: Clinical Efficacy, Safety, and Cost-Effectiveness in Controlled Ovarian Stimulation for In Vitro Fertilization

Exogenous human follicle-stimulating hormone (hFSH), either derived from extraction and purification from the urine or obtained by recombinant technology in the form of follitropin α, β and δ (rFSH), has been used for decades in the treatment of infertility. The main applications of FSH treatment in the woman have been, and still are, ovulation induction in oligo-anovulatory subjects, and stimulation of the development of a cohort of follicles in patients undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for in vitro fertilization (IVF). In the last years, two biosimilars of follitropin alfa, rFSH compounds structurally and functionally similar to the originator, have been approved and marketed for clinical use in Europe. Moreover, some other rFSH biosimilars are currently under investigation. The objective of this article is to review the available evidences comparing the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of rFSH follitropin alpha originator with its biosimilars, discussing the clinical trials that allowed biosimilars to get registration and marketing authorization.

A cost-effectiveness evaluation of the originator follitropin alpha compared to the biosimilars for assisted reproduction in Germany

Background and objectives: Demand for assisted reproduction technology (ART) in Germany is high, with 100,844 treatment cycles during 2016. Many ART procedures involve ovarian stimulation with follicle stimulating hormone (FSH). Recently, biosimilar FSH products have become available. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the recombinant FSH Gonal-f^® (Originator) in comparison to biosimilar follitropin alfa, Bemfola^® (Biosimilar 1) and Ovaleap^® (Biosimilar 2), from a German payer perspective in terms of cost per live birth.

Methods: A decision tree model was developed, based on one cycle of assisted reproduction, to compare the original product to biosimilars. Clinical inputs, including live birth rates and adverse event rates were obtained from published randomized trials. Cost inputs were obtained from publicly available German sources. Clinical inputs, model structure and methodology were based on previous publications and validated by a clinical expert.

Results: Results indicated that the live birth rate is higher for the Originator compared to Biosimilar 1 (40.7% vs 32.1% respectively), and Biosimilar 2 (32.2% vs 26.8%). The average cost per live birth for women treated with the Originator was estimated to be lower than those who were treated with biosimilars: Originator vs Biosimilar 1 (€10,510 vs €12,192), Originator vs Biosimilar 2 (€12,590 vs €13,606). The analysis also found that the Originator is associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness of €4,168 and €7,540 per additional live birth versus Biosimilar 1 and Biosimilar 2 respectively. Sensitivity analysis indicated probabilities of pregnancy, embryo transfer and live birth, were key drivers of model costs. Scenario analysis confirmed the robustness of the model outcomes.

Conclusion: This study suggests that treatment with the Originator could result in a lower cost per live birth in comparison to biosimilars. Further analysis using real-world data, when available, is recommended to validate the results of the present study.