Literature DB >> 31106861

A cost-effectiveness analysis of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) for up to three complete assisted reproductive technology cycles in women of advanced maternal age.

Evelyn Lee1, Michael F Costello2, Willings C Botha3, Peter Illingworth4, Georgina M Chambers3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current evidence suggests that preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) used during assisted reproductive technology improves per-cycle live-birth rates but cumulative live-birth rate (CLBR) was similar to a strategy of morphological assessment (MA) of embryos. No study has assessed the cost-effectiveness of repeated cycles with PGT-A using longitudinal patient-level data. AIM: To assess the cost-effectiveness of repeated cycles with PGT-A compared to MA of embryos in older women.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Micro-costing methods were used to value direct resource consumption of 2093 assisted reproductive technology-naïve women aged ≥37 years undergoing up to three 'complete assisted reproductive technology cycles' (fresh plus cryopreserved embryos) with either PGT-A or MA in an Australian clinic between 2011 and 2014. Incremental cost-effective ratios were calculated from healthcare and patient perspectives with uncertainty assessed using non-parametric bootstrap methods. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were constructed to evaluate the probability of PGT-A being cost-effective over a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds.
RESULTS: The CLBR and mean healthcare costs per patient were 30.90% and $22 962 for the PGT-A group, and 26.77% and $21 801 for the MA group, yielding an incremental cost-effective ratio of $28 103 for an additional live birth with PGT-A. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 and above, there is more than an 80% probability of PGT-A being cost-effective from the healthcare perspective and a 50% likelihood from a patient perspective.
CONCLUSION: This is the first study to use real-world patient-level data to assess the cost-effectiveness of PGT-A in older women from the healthcare and patient perspectives. The findings contribute to the ongoing debate on the role of PGT-A in clinical practice.
© 2019 The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

Entities:  

Keywords:  aneuploidy; assisted reproductive technology; cost-effectiveness analysis; cumulative live-birth rate; preimplantation genetic diagnosis

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31106861     DOI: 10.1111/ajo.12988

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol        ISSN: 0004-8666            Impact factor:   2.100


  4 in total

1.  A tale of two studies: now is no longer the best of times for preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A).

Authors:  Paul N Scriven
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-02-05       Impact factor: 3.412

2.  Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for retinoblastoma survivors: a cost-effectiveness study.

Authors:  D Schofield; M J B Zeppel; S Staffieri; R N Shrestha; D Jelovic; E Lee; R V Jamieson
Journal:  Reprod Biomed Soc Online       Date:  2020-05-11

3.  Good practice recommendations for the use of time-lapse technology.

Authors:  Susanna Apter; Thomas Ebner; Thomas Freour; Yves Guns; Borut Kovacic; Nathalie Le Clef; Monica Marques; Marcos Meseguer; Debbie Montjean; Ioannis Sfontouris; Roger Sturmey; Giovanni Coticchio
Journal:  Hum Reprod Open       Date:  2020-03-19

4.  Pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: motivations, concerns, and perceptions in a UK population.

Authors:  Benjamin P Jones; Timothy Bracewell-Milnes; Lorraine Kasaven; Ariadne L'Heveder; Megan Spearman; Diana Marcus; Maria Jalmbrant; Joy Green; Rabi Odia; Srdjan Saso; Paul Serhal; Jara Ben Nagi
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-03-11       Impact factor: 3.412

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.