Paul De Sutter1, Jan Gerris, Marc Dhont. 1. Infertility Centre, University Hospital Gent, Middelheim Hospital, Antwerpen, Belgium. paul.desutter@rug.ac.be
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Single embryo transfer (SET) is the sole strategy with which to reduce the incidence of twins following assisted reproductive technology (ART), but SET may increase the number of ART cycles needed per live-born child. Its cost-effectiveness compared with double embryo transfer (DET) is therefore unknown. METHODS: A decision-analytic model comparing SET with DET was developed. Estimates were obtained from literature, national pregnancy registers and local hospital records. A sensitivity analysis was performed, using pregnancy rates from four published studies. The outcome measure was the cost per child born, calculated from IVF procedure-related, pregnancy-related and neonatal care costs. Neonatal mortality and long-term morbidity costs were not taken into account. RESULTS: Independently of the pregnancy rates used, the SET cost per child born was in all instances the same as with DET, varying from EURO= 9520 (SET) versus EURO= 9511 (DET) to EURO= 12254 (SET) versus EURO= 12934 (DET). CONCLUSIONS: More ART cycles are required to obtain the same numbers of children born following SET compared with DET. Because SET allows the avoidance of twins and thus diminishes pregnancy-related and neonatal care costs, there is no difference in the cost per child born between SET and DET. The real advantage of SET is the avoidance of the very high long-term costs resulting from the increased morbidity of twins after birth.
BACKGROUND: Single embryo transfer (SET) is the sole strategy with which to reduce the incidence of twins following assisted reproductive technology (ART), but SET may increase the number of ART cycles needed per live-born child. Its cost-effectiveness compared with double embryo transfer (DET) is therefore unknown. METHODS: A decision-analytic model comparing SET with DET was developed. Estimates were obtained from literature, national pregnancy registers and local hospital records. A sensitivity analysis was performed, using pregnancy rates from four published studies. The outcome measure was the cost per child born, calculated from IVF procedure-related, pregnancy-related and neonatal care costs. Neonatal mortality and long-term morbidity costs were not taken into account. RESULTS: Independently of the pregnancy rates used, the SET cost per child born was in all instances the same as with DET, varying from EURO= 9520 (SET) versus EURO= 9511 (DET) to EURO= 12254 (SET) versus EURO= 12934 (DET). CONCLUSIONS: More ART cycles are required to obtain the same numbers of children born following SET compared with DET. Because SET allows the avoidance of twins and thus diminishes pregnancy-related and neonatal care costs, there is no difference in the cost per child born between SET and DET. The real advantage of SET is the avoidance of the very high long-term costs resulting from the increased morbidity of twins after birth.
Authors: Ma Luisa López Regalado; Ana Clavero; M Carmen Gonzalvo; María Serrano; Luis Martínez; Juan Mozas; Fernando Rodríguez-Serrano; Juan Fontes; Bárbara Romero; Jose A Castilla Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2014-09-30 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Matthew D VerMilyea; Lei Tan; Joshua T Anthony; Joe Conaghan; Kristen Ivani; Marina Gvakharia; Robert Boostanfar; Valerie L Baker; Vaishali Suraj; Alice A Chen; Monica Mainigi; Christos Coutifaris; Shehua Shen Journal: Reprod Biomed Online Date: 2014-09-21 Impact factor: 3.828