Florencia Petracchi1, Cecilia Paez1, Laura Igarzabal1. 1. Centro de Educación Médica en Investigaciones Clínicas (CEMIC), Instituto Universitario - Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Genetic Unit, Galvan 4102, Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires 1425, Argentina.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of performing chorionic villus sampling (CVS) of products of conception (POC) in the evaluation of recurrent miscarriage versus standard evidence-based work-up (EBW) of the couple. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A decision-analytic model was performed in couples with a third miscarriage. Three strategies were considered: (1) the standard EBW of all the patients, comprising parental karyotype, uterine cavity assessment and antiphospholipid antibodies; (2) performing a CVS of POC and a standard karyotype, and if euploid, follow with EBW; and (3) performing a CVS of POC and an arrayCGH and, if normal, follow with EBW. Estimated cost and diagnostic yield of each strategy was analysed. Sensitivity analysis and threshold cost were considered. RESULTS: The expected cost-effectiveness of CVS and karyotype of POC in recurrent miscarriage was: $US769.79 versus $US 1361.8 for the standard EBW of the couple. When stratified by maternal age the results remained cost-effective for this strategy. The arrayCGH strategy has a higher diagnostic yield, but still expensive in our setting to be considered cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Chorionic villus sampling and karyotype analysis of products of conception in a third miscarriage proved a more cost-effective strategy than standard EBW of the couple.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of performing chorionic villus sampling (CVS) of products of conception (POC) in the evaluation of recurrent miscarriage versus standard evidence-based work-up (EBW) of the couple. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A decision-analytic model was performed in couples with a third miscarriage. Three strategies were considered: (1) the standard EBW of all the patients, comprising parental karyotype, uterine cavity assessment and antiphospholipid antibodies; (2) performing a CVS of POC and a standard karyotype, and if euploid, follow with EBW; and (3) performing a CVS of POC and an arrayCGH and, if normal, follow with EBW. Estimated cost and diagnostic yield of each strategy was analysed. Sensitivity analysis and threshold cost were considered. RESULTS: The expected cost-effectiveness of CVS and karyotype of POC in recurrent miscarriage was: $US769.79 versus $US 1361.8 for the standard EBW of the couple. When stratified by maternal age the results remained cost-effective for this strategy. The arrayCGH strategy has a higher diagnostic yield, but still expensive in our setting to be considered cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Chorionic villus sampling and karyotype analysis of products of conception in a third miscarriage proved a more cost-effective strategy than standard EBW of the couple.