R Lee1, P S Li, M Goldstein, C Tanrikut, G Schattman, P N Schlegel. 1. James Buchanan Brady Foundation, Department of Urology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 525 E. 68th St., Starr 900, New York, NY 10021, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatments for post-vasectomy obstructive azoospermia include vasectomy reversal, microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration (MESA) or percutaneous testicular sperm extraction (TESE) with IVF/ICSI. We examined the cost-effectiveness of these treatments. METHODS: A decision analytic model was created to simulate treatment. Outcome probabilities were derived from peer-reviewed literature and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies database. Procedural costs were derived from a sampling of high-volume IVF centers and the Medicare Resource Based Relative Value Scale. Indirect costs of complications, lost productivity and multiple gestation pregnancies were considered. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Vasectomy reversal was more cost-effective than either MESA or TESE under all probability conditions. In 1999, vasectomy reversal demonstrated superior cost-effectiveness to TESE and MESA ($19,633 versus $45,637 and $48,055, respectively, equivalent to $25,321 versus $58,858 and $61,977 in 2005 dollars). In 2005, vasectomy reversal ($20,903) remained the most cost-effective treatment over TESE ($54,797) and MESA ($56,861). The cost-effectiveness of all treatments improved over projections by inflation. The relative cost-effectiveness of the therapies was unchanged over time. CONCLUSIONS: Vasectomy reversal appears more cost-effective than percutaneous TESE and MESA for treatment of obstructive azoospermia when the impact of indirect costs is considered. The absolute cost-effectiveness of all therapies improved over time. These results may be tailored with institution-specific data to allow more individualized results.
BACKGROUND: Treatments for post-vasectomy obstructive azoospermia include vasectomy reversal, microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration (MESA) or percutaneous testicular sperm extraction (TESE) with IVF/ICSI. We examined the cost-effectiveness of these treatments. METHODS: A decision analytic model was created to simulate treatment. Outcome probabilities were derived from peer-reviewed literature and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies database. Procedural costs were derived from a sampling of high-volume IVF centers and the Medicare Resource Based Relative Value Scale. Indirect costs of complications, lost productivity and multiple gestation pregnancies were considered. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Vasectomy reversal was more cost-effective than either MESA or TESE under all probability conditions. In 1999, vasectomy reversal demonstrated superior cost-effectiveness to TESE and MESA ($19,633 versus $45,637 and $48,055, respectively, equivalent to $25,321 versus $58,858 and $61,977 in 2005 dollars). In 2005, vasectomy reversal ($20,903) remained the most cost-effective treatment over TESE ($54,797) and MESA ($56,861). The cost-effectiveness of all treatments improved over projections by inflation. The relative cost-effectiveness of the therapies was unchanged over time. CONCLUSIONS: Vasectomy reversal appears more cost-effective than percutaneous TESE and MESA for treatment of obstructive azoospermia when the impact of indirect costs is considered. The absolute cost-effectiveness of all therapies improved over time. These results may be tailored with institution-specific data to allow more individualized results.