ArticleBMJ open2024
Economic evaluation of GnRH-agonist long protocol and GnRH-antagonist protocol in IVT/ICSI among the Chinese population: using pharmacoeconomic models.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis paper uses health economics methods to discuss the cost-effectiveness value of long protocol and antagonist protocol for in vitro fertilisation and embryo transfer (ET) in the Chinese population.
designHealth economic evaluation study.
settingThe data needed to construct the model for this study were derived from published studies and other secondary sources in China.
participantsNo patients participated in the study. MEASURES: The main outcomes were live birth rate (LBR) and cost. From the societal perspective, we considered the direct and indirect costs over the course of the treatment cycles. A cost-effectiveness was measured using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and the probability that a protocol has higher net monetary benefit. Sensitivity analysis was carried out to verify the reliability of the simulation results.
resultsFor the Chinese population, the long protocol resulted in a higher LBR than the antagonist protocol (29.33% vs 20.39%), but at the same time, it was more expensive (￥29 146.26 (US$4333.17) vs ￥23 343.70 (US$3470.51)), in the case of considering only one fresh ET cycle. It was the same when considering subsequent frozen ET (FET) cycles (51.78% vs 42.81%; ￥30 703.02 (US$4564.62) vs ￥24 740.95 (US$3678.24)). The results of most subgroups were consistent with the results of the basic analysis. However, for certain populations, the long protocol was the inferior protocol (less effective and more expensive).
conclusionFor the Chinese population, when the monetary value per live birth was greater than ￥65 420 (US$9726) and ￥66 400 (US$9872), respectively, considering only one fresh cycle and considering subsequent frozen cycles, the long protocol is the preferred protocol. This threshold also varies for women of different ages and ovarian response capacities. For women in POSEIDON (Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number) group 2, group 3 and group 4, antagonist protocol is recommended as the preferred protocol. The results of this study need to be verified by further large-scale randomised controlled trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.