Literature DB >> 26604068

Costs of achieving live birth from assisted reproductive technology: a comparison of sequential single and double embryo transfer approaches.

Sara Crawford1, Sheree L Boulet2, Allison S Mneimneh2, Kiran M Perkins2, Denise J Jamieson2, Yujia Zhang2, Dmitry M Kissin2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess treatment and pregnancy/infant-associated medical costs and birth outcomes for assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles in a subset of patients using elective double embryo (ET) and to project the difference in costs and outcomes had the cycles instead been sequential single ETs (fresh followed by frozen if the fresh ET did not result in live birth).
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using 2012 and 2013 data from the National ART Surveillance System.
SETTING: Infertility treatment centers. PATIENT(S): Fresh, autologous double ETs performed in 2012 among ART patients younger than 35 years of age with no prior ART use who cryopreserved at least one embryo. INTERVENTION(S): Sequential single and double ETs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Actual live birth rates and estimated ART treatment and pregnancy/infant-associated medical costs for double ET cycles started in 2012 and projected ART treatment and pregnancy/infant-associated medical costs if the double ET cycles had been performed as sequential single ETs. RESULT(S): The estimated total ART treatment and pregnancy/infant-associated medical costs were $580.9 million for 10,001 double ETs started in 2012. If performed as sequential single ETs, estimated costs would have decreased by $195.0 million to $386.0 million, and live birth rates would have increased from 57.7%-68.0%. CONCLUSION(S): Sequential single ETs, when clinically appropriate, can reduce total ART treatment and pregnancy/infant-associated medical costs by reducing multiple births without lowering live birth rates. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Sequential single embryo transfer (SET); assisted reproductive technology (ART); double embryo transfer (DET); infertility; in vitro fertilization (IVF)

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26604068      PMCID: PMC5125029          DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.10.032

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fertil Steril        ISSN: 0015-0282            Impact factor:   7.329


  27 in total

1.  Insurance coverage and outcomes of in vitro fertilization.

Authors:  Tarun Jain; Bernard L Harlow; Mark D Hornstein
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-08-29       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Elective single embryo transfer following in vitro fertilization.

Authors:  Jason K Min; Ed Hughes; David Young
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Can       Date:  2010-04

3.  Embryo transfer practices and multiple births resulting from assisted reproductive technology: an opportunity for prevention.

Authors:  Dmitry M Kissin; Aniket D Kulkarni; Allison Mneimneh; Lee Warner; Sheree L Boulet; Sara Crawford; Denise J Jamieson
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2015-01-27       Impact factor: 7.329

4.  Randomized single versus double embryo transfer: obstetric and paediatric outcome and a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Ann Thurin Kjellberg; Per Carlsson; Christina Bergh
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2005-09-19       Impact factor: 6.918

5.  Three decades of twin births in the United States, 1980-2009.

Authors:  Joyce A Martin; Brady E Hamilton; Michelle J K Osterman
Journal:  NCHS Data Brief       Date:  2012-01

6.  The impact of consumer affordability on access to assisted reproductive technologies and embryo transfer practices: an international analysis.

Authors:  Georgina M Chambers; Van Phuong Hoang; Elizabeth A Sullivan; Michael G Chapman; Osamu Ishihara; Fernando Zegers-Hochschild; Karl G Nygren; G David Adamson
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2013-10-21       Impact factor: 7.329

7.  Elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization.

Authors:  Ann Thurin; Jon Hausken; Torbjörn Hillensjö; Barbara Jablonowska; Anja Pinborg; Annika Strandell; Christina Bergh
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-12-02       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Insurance mandates and trends in infertility treatments.

Authors:  Melinda B Henne; M Kate Bundorf
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2007-05-07       Impact factor: 7.329

9.  Healthcare expenses associated with multiple vs singleton pregnancies in the United States.

Authors:  Elkin V Lemos; Dongmu Zhang; Bradley J Van Voorhis; X Henry Hu
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-11-13       Impact factor: 8.661

10.  Universal coverage of IVF pays off.

Authors:  M P Vélez; M P Connolly; I-J Kadoch; S Phillips; F Bissonnette
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2014-04-04       Impact factor: 6.918

View more
  13 in total

1.  Guidance for elective single-embryo transfer should be applied to frozen embryo transfer cycles.

Authors:  Melanie R Freeman; M Shaun Hinds; Kay G Howard; Julie M Howard; George A Hill
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-03-11       Impact factor: 3.412

2.  Fertility desires and preferences for safer conception strategies among people receiving care for HIV at a publicly-funded clinic in Seattle, WA.

Authors:  Kerry A Thomson; Shireesha Dhanireddy; Michele Andrasik; Kerry Hancuch; Lindsay Legg; Jacob Keane-Candib; Renee Heffron
Journal:  AIDS Care       Date:  2017-10-25

3.  Effectiveness and Safety of Two Consecutive Cycles of Single Embryo Transfer Compared With One Cycle of Double Embryo Transfer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Yangqin Peng; Shujuan Ma; Liang Hu; Xiaojuan Wang; Yiquan Xiong; Minghong Yao; Jing Tan; Fei Gong
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-06-30       Impact factor: 6.055

Review 4.  Public Health Implications of Very Preterm Birth.

Authors:  Wanda D Barfield
Journal:  Clin Perinatol       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 3.430

Review 5.  Is a Blanket Elective Single Embryo Transfer Policy Defensible?

Authors:  Eli Y Adashi; Norbert Gleicher
Journal:  Rambam Maimonides Med J       Date:  2017-04-28

6.  Efficacy of Follicle-Stimulating Hormone (FSH) Alone, FSH + Luteinizing Hormone, Human Menopausal Gonadotropin or FSH + Human Chorionic Gonadotropin on Assisted Reproductive Technology Outcomes in the "Personalized" Medicine Era: A Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Daniele Santi; Livio Casarini; Carlo Alviggi; Manuela Simoni
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 5.555

7.  Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance - United States, 2015.

Authors:  Saswati Sunderam; Dmitry M Kissin; Sara B Crawford; Suzanne G Folger; Sheree L Boulet; Lee Warner; Wanda D Barfield
Journal:  MMWR Surveill Summ       Date:  2018-02-16

8.  Live birth after Laser Assisted Viability Assessment (LAVA) to detect pentoxifylline resistant ejaculated immotile spermatozoa during ICSI in a couple with male Kartagener's syndrome.

Authors:  Sinan Ozkavukcu; Ciler Celik-Ozenci; Esma Konuk; Cem Atabekoglu
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 5.211

9.  Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance - United States, 2014.

Authors:  Saswati Sunderam; Dmitry M Kissin; Sara B Crawford; Suzanne G Folger; Denise J Jamieson; Lee Warner; Wanda D Barfield
Journal:  MMWR Surveill Summ       Date:  2017-02-10

10.  Toxic elements in follicular fluid adversely influence the likelihood of pregnancy and live birth in women undergoing IVF.

Authors:  Celeste D Butts; Michael S Bloom; Alexandra McGough; Nikolaus Lenhart; Rebecca Wong; Evelyn Mok-Lin; Patrick J Parsons; Aubrey L Galusha; Richard W Browne; Recai M Yucel; Beth J Feingold; Victor Y Fujimoto
Journal:  Hum Reprod Open       Date:  2021-07-29
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.