Stephen C Collins1, Xiao Xu1, Winifred Mak2. 1. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Yale School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, PO Box 208063, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA. 2. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Yale School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, PO Box 208063, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA. Winifred.mak@yale.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Adding preimplantation genetic screening to in vitro fertilization has been shown to increase live birth rate in women older than 37. However, preimplantation genetic screening is an expensive procedure. Information on the cost-effectiveness of preimplantation genetic screening can help inform clinical decision making. METHODS: We constructed a decision analytic model for a hypothetical fresh, autologous in vitro fertilization cycle (with versus without preimplantation genetic screening) for women older than age 37 who had a successful oocyte retrieval and development of at least one blastocyst. The model incorporated probability and cost estimates of relevant clinical events based on data from published literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the impact of changes in model input parameters. RESULTS: In base-case analysis, IVF-PGS offered a 4.2 percentage point increase in live birth rate for an additional cost of $4509, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $105,489 per additional live birth. This ICER was below the expected cost of $145,063 for achieving one live birth with IVF (assuming an average LBR of 13.4% and $19,415 per cycle for this patient population). Sensitivity analysis suggested that ICER improved substantially with decreases in PGS cost and increases in PGS effectiveness. Monte Carlo simulation showed PGS to be cost-effective in 93.9% of iterations at an acceptability cutoff of $145,063. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the expected cost of achieving one live birth with IVF, PGS is a cost-effective strategy for women older than 37 undergoing IVF. Additional research on patients' willingness-to-pay per live birth would further inform our understanding regarding the cost-effectiveness of PGS.
PURPOSE: Adding preimplantation genetic screening to in vitro fertilization has been shown to increase live birth rate in women older than 37. However, preimplantation genetic screening is an expensive procedure. Information on the cost-effectiveness of preimplantation genetic screening can help inform clinical decision making. METHODS: We constructed a decision analytic model for a hypothetical fresh, autologous in vitro fertilization cycle (with versus without preimplantation genetic screening) for women older than age 37 who had a successful oocyte retrieval and development of at least one blastocyst. The model incorporated probability and cost estimates of relevant clinical events based on data from published literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the impact of changes in model input parameters. RESULTS: In base-case analysis, IVF-PGS offered a 4.2 percentage point increase in live birth rate for an additional cost of $4509, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $105,489 per additional live birth. This ICER was below the expected cost of $145,063 for achieving one live birth with IVF (assuming an average LBR of 13.4% and $19,415 per cycle for this patient population). Sensitivity analysis suggested that ICER improved substantially with decreases in PGS cost and increases in PGS effectiveness. Monte Carlo simulation showed PGS to be cost-effective in 93.9% of iterations at an acceptability cutoff of $145,063. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the expected cost of achieving one live birth with IVF, PGS is a cost-effective strategy for women older than 37 undergoing IVF. Additional research on patients' willingness-to-pay per live birth would further inform our understanding regarding the cost-effectiveness of PGS.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cost-effectiveness; In vitro fertilization; Preimplantation genetic screening; Willingness-to-pay
Authors: Meredith P Provost; Kelly S Acharya; Chaitanya R Acharya; Jason S Yeh; Ryan G Steward; Jennifer L Eaton; James M Goldfarb; Suheil J Muasher Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2015-11-25 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Carmen Rubio; José Bellver; Lorena Rodrigo; Gema Castillón; Alfredo Guillén; Carmina Vidal; Juan Giles; Marcos Ferrando; Sergio Cabanillas; José Remohí; Antonio Pellicer; Carlos Simón Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2017-04-19 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Vanessa K Dalton; Angela Liang; David W Hutton; Melissa K Zochowski; A Mark Fendrick Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-08-28 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Karen Sermon; Antonio Capalbo; Jacques Cohen; Edith Coonen; Martine De Rycke; Anick De Vos; Joy Delhanty; Francesco Fiorentino; Norbert Gleicher; Georg Griesinger; Jamie Grifo; Alan Handyside; Joyce Harper; Georgia Kokkali; Sebastiaan Mastenbroek; David Meldrum; Marcos Meseguer; Markus Montag; Santiago Munné; Laura Rienzi; Carmen Rubio; Katherine Scott; Richard Scott; Carlos Simon; Jason Swain; Nathan Treff; Filippo Ubaldi; Rita Vassena; Joris Robert Vermeesch; Willem Verpoest; Dagan Wells; Joep Geraedts Journal: Mol Hum Reprod Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 4.025
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