Gayathree Murugappan1, Mika S Ohno2, Ruth B Lathi2. 1. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, California. Electronic address: gm807@stanford.edu. 2. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, California.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening (IVF/PGS) is cost effective compared with expectant management in achieving live birth for patients with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). DESIGN: Decision analytic model comparing costs and clinical outcomes. SETTING: Academic recurrent pregnancy loss programs. PATIENT(S): Women with unexplained RPL. INTERVENTION(S): IVF/PGS with 24-chromosome screening and expectant management. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE(S): Cost per live birth. RESULT(S): The IVF/PGS strategy had a live-birth rate of 53% and a clinical miscarriage rate of 7%. Expectant management had a live-birth rate of 67% and clinical miscarriage rate of 24%. The IVF/PGS strategy was 100-fold more expensive, costing $45,300 per live birth compared with $418 per live birth with expectant management. CONCLUSION(S): In this model, IVF/PGS was not a cost-effective strategy for increasing live birth. Furthermore, the live-birth rate with IVF/PGS needs to be 91% to be cost effective compared with expectant management.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening (IVF/PGS) is cost effective compared with expectant management in achieving live birth for patients with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). DESIGN: Decision analytic model comparing costs and clinical outcomes. SETTING: Academic recurrent pregnancy loss programs. PATIENT(S): Women with unexplained RPL. INTERVENTION(S): IVF/PGS with 24-chromosome screening and expectant management. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE(S): Cost per live birth. RESULT(S): The IVF/PGS strategy had a live-birth rate of 53% and a clinical miscarriage rate of 7%. Expectant management had a live-birth rate of 67% and clinical miscarriage rate of 24%. The IVF/PGS strategy was 100-fold more expensive, costing $45,300 per live birth compared with $418 per live birth with expectant management. CONCLUSION(S): In this model, IVF/PGS was not a cost-effective strategy for increasing live birth. Furthermore, the live-birth rate with IVF/PGS needs to be 91% to be cost effective compared with expectant management.
Authors: Randi H Goldman; Catherine Racowsky; Leslie V Farland; Janis H Fox; Santiago Munné; Lia Ribustello; Elizabeth S Ginsburg Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Maria Facadio Antero; Bhuchitra Singh; Apoorva Pradhan; Megan Gornet; William G Kearns; Valerie Baker; Mindy S Christianson Journal: F S Rep Date: 2020-12-09
Authors: Jared C Robins; Andrew F Khair; Eric A Widra; Michael M Alper; Winnie W Nelson; Eric D Foster; Anshul Sinha; Masakazu Ando; Patrick W Heiser; Gaurang S Daftary Journal: F S Rep Date: 2020-11-10