Analysis of the cost effectiveness of recombinant versus urinary follicle-stimulating hormone in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection programs in the United States Kaylen Silverberg, M.D., Salim Daya, M.B., M.Sc., Jean Paul Auray, Ph.D., Gerald Duru, Ph.D., William Ledger, Matts Wikland, M.D., Ph.D., Renda Bouzayen, M.D., Mark O’Brien, M.D., Barri Falk, M.S., Ariel Beresniak, M.D., Ph.D. Fertility and Sterility Volume 77, Issue 1, Pages 107-113 (January 2002) DOI: 10.1016/S0015-0282(01)02945-4
FIGURE 1 Simplified representation of the Markov model, illustrating all possible complete treatment and frozen ET cycles that can occur during a three-cycle treatment program using recombinant human FSH. An identical representation is used for treatment with urinary FSH. Silverberg. Cost effectiveness of recombinant human FSH vs. urinary FSH. Fertil Steril 2002. Fertility and Sterility 2002 77, 107-113DOI: (10.1016/S0015-0282(01)02945-4)
FIGURE 2 Markov model illustrating all possible stages of a single cycle of a three-cycle treatment program using recombinant human FSH with fresh embryos. Silverberg. Cost effectiveness of recombinant human FSH vs. urinary FSH. Fertil Steril 2002. Fertility and Sterility 2002 77, 107-113DOI: (10.1016/S0015-0282(01)02945-4)
FIGURE 3 Markov model illustrating all possible stages of a single cycle of a three-cycle treatment program using recombinant human FSH with frozen/thawed embryos. Silverberg. Cost effectiveness of recombinant human FSH vs. urinary FSH. Fertil Steril 2002. Fertility and Sterility 2002 77, 107-113DOI: (10.1016/S0015-0282(01)02945-4)