ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2026
Cost-Effectiveness of Follitropin Delta Compared with Follitropins Alfa and Beta in Controlled Ovarian Stimulation for Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) in France.
Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
A Randomised, Controlled, Assessor-blind, Parallel Groups, Multicentre, Multinational Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of FE 999049 With Follitropin Alfa (GONAL-F) in Controlled Ovarian Stimulation in Women Undergoing an Assisted Reproductive Technology Programme
A Randomised, Controlled, Assessor-blind, Parallel Groups, Multicentre Trial Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of FE 999049 in Controlled Ovarian Stimulation in Japanese Women Undergoing an Assisted Reproductive Technology Programme
A Randomised, Controlled, Assessor-blind, Parallel Groups, Multicentre, Pan-Asian Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of FE 999049 With Follitropin Alfa (GONAL-F) in Controlled Ovarian Stimulation in Women Undergoing Assisted Reproductive Technology Programme
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFollitropin delta, using a personalized dosing regimen, is an effective treatment option for women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).
objectiveThe aim of this study was to develop a model to determine cost effectiveness of follitropin delta compared with follitropins alfa and beta for women undergoing IVF/ICSI in France.
methodsA decision-tree model was developed comparing the outcomes of treatment with follitropin delta versus other follitropins through ongoing pregnancy (OP) and live birth (LB) rates in fresh cycles. Pooled data from the pivotal clinical trials ESTHER (EU + rest of world; NCT01956110), GRAPE (Pan-Asia; NCT03296527), and STORK (Japan; NCT03228680) was used for the economic model. The analyses were stratified by age and ovarian reserve profile and reflected a single COS cycle. Costs were estimated from the healthcare perspective in France, and uncertainty was assessed through sensitivity analyses.
resultsIn women with an elevated anti-Müllerian hormone level (≥15 pmol/L), follitropin delta achieved a higher rate of LB (31.4% vs 25.8%, p = 0.01) and a numerically higher rate of OP (35.7% vs 31.6%) compared with follitropins alfa/beta. Additionally, treatment with follitropin delta was associated with numerically fewer miscarriages (4.3% vs 5.8%) and lower ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) incidence (8.2% vs 11.5%). Total treatment cycle cost with/without delivery cost was €5479/€4099 for follitropin delta, €5335/€4191 for follitropin alfa, and €5387/€4243 for follitropin beta. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €2579/LB for follitropin delta versus follitropin alfa. Follitropin beta was shown to be less efficient, and more costly (i.e. dominated). Excluding the delivery cost, follitropin delta was more efficient and less costly (i.e. dominant) versus other follitropins. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses supported the deterministic results, showing > 76% probability of follitropin delta being dominant when assessing cost per additional OP. Similar results were observed in the overall population of women.
conclusionsFollitropin delta provides an effective alternative to follitropin alfa and beta with a potential cost-savings opportunity, excluding the delivery cost, due to higher OP and LB rates in the fresh cycle transfers.
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.