Cost-effectiveness of Preimplantation Genetic Screening for Women Older Than 37 Undergoing in Vitro Fertilization

Overview

Journal J Assist Reprod Genet

Publisher Springer

Specialties Genetics
Reproductive Medicine

Date 2017 Jul 28

PMID 28748493

Citations 11

Authors

Stephen C Collins

Xiao Xu

Winifred Mak

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

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.

Citing Articles

Beliefs negatively mediate adolescents' and adults' knowledge about sickle cell disease prevention and relationship choices; a one-center exploratory study in Central Region, Ghana.

Laar G, Mwinbeku J, Pappoe E, Obike E, Ankomah E, Baidoo B Arch Public Health. 2024; 82(1):138.

PMID: 39192367 PMC: 11348774. DOI: 10.1186/s13690-024-01379-1.

Advancements and Applications of Preimplantation Genetic Testing in In Vitro Fertilization: A Comprehensive Review.

Gudapati S, Chaudhari K, Shrivastava D, Yelne S Cureus. 2024; 16(3):e57357.

PMID: 38694414 PMC: 11061269. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.57357.

Economic evaluations of assisted reproductive technologies in high-income countries: a systematic review.

Olive E, Bull C, Gordon A, Davies-Tuck M, Wang R, Callander E Hum Reprod. 2024; 39(5):981-991.

PMID: 38438132 PMC: 11063548. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deae039.

Sickle Cell Disease Knowledge and Reproductive Decisions: A Saudi Cross-Sectional Study.

Alsalman M, Alhamoud H, Alabdullah Z, Alsleem R, Almarzooq Z, Alsalem F Patient Prefer Adherence. 2023; 17:761-767.

PMID: 36974077 PMC: 10039637. DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S404811.

Valuing infertility treatment: Why QALYs are inadequate, and an alternative approach to cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Keller E, Chambers G Front Med Technol. 2023; 4:1053719.

PMID: 36619344 PMC: 9822722. DOI: 10.3389/fmedt.2022.1053719.

References

Mathews T, Hamilton B . Mean Age of Mothers is on the Rise: United States, 2000-2014. NCHS Data Brief. 2016; (232):1-8. View

Cedars M . Fresh versus frozen: initial transfer or cumulative cycle results: how do we interpret results and design studies?. Fertil Steril. 2016; 106(2):251-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.06.001. View

Provost M, Acharya K, Acharya C, Yeh J, Steward R, Eaton J . Pregnancy outcomes decline with increasing body mass index: analysis of 239,127 fresh autologous in vitro fertilization cycles from the 2008-2010 Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology registry. Fertil Steril. 2015; 105(3):663-669. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.11.008. View

Rubio C, Bellver J, Rodrigo L, Castillon G, Guillen A, Vidal C . In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidies in advanced maternal age: a randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril. 2017; 107(5):1122-1129. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.03.011. View

Munne S, Grifo J, Wells D . Mosaicism: "survival of the fittest" versus "no embryo left behind". Fertil Steril. 2016; 105(5):1146-1149. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.01.016. View

Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Spath K, Wells D . Morphological and cytogenetic assessment of cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos. Mol Hum Reprod. 2013; 20(2):117-26. DOI: 10.1093/molehr/gat073. View

Dalton V, Liang A, Hutton D, Zochowski M, Fendrick A . Beyond usual care: the economic consequences of expanding treatment options in early pregnancy loss. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 212(2):177.e1-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.08.031. View

. Female age-related fertility decline. Committee Opinion No. 589. Fertil Steril. 2014; 101(3):633-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.12.032. View

Sermon K, Capalbo A, Cohen J, Coonen E, De Rycke M, De Vos A . The why, the how and the when of PGS 2.0: current practices and expert opinions of fertility specialists, molecular biologists, and embryologists. Mol Hum Reprod. 2016; 22(8):845-57. PMC: 4986417. DOI: 10.1093/molehr/gaw034. View

10.

Kang H, Melnick A, Stewart J, Xu K, Rosenwaks Z . Preimplantation genetic screening: who benefits?. Fertil Steril. 2016; 106(3):597-602. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.04.027. View

11.

Greco E, Minasi M, Fiorentino F . Healthy Babies after Intrauterine Transfer of Mosaic Aneuploid Blastocysts. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373(21):2089-90. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc1500421. View

12.

Evans M, Sonek J, Hallahan T, Krantz D . Cell-free fetal DNA screening in the USA: a cost analysis of screening strategies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 45(1):74-83. DOI: 10.1002/uog.14693. View

13.

Lee H, McCulloh D, Hodes-Wertz B, Adler A, McCaffrey C, Grifo J . In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening improves implantation and live birth in women age 40 through 43. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015; 32(3):435-44. PMC: 4363234. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-014-0417-7. View

14.

Kung A, Munne S, Bankowski B, Coates A, Wells D . Validation of next-generation sequencing for comprehensive chromosome screening of embryos. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015; 31(6):760-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.09.002. View

15.

Neumann P, Cohen J, Weinstein M . Updating cost-effectiveness--the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371(9):796-7. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1405158. View

16.

Ubaldi F, Capalbo A, Colamaria S, Ferrero S, Maggiulli R, Vajta G . Reduction of multiple pregnancies in the advanced maternal age population after implementation of an elective single embryo transfer policy coupled with enhanced embryo selection: pre- and post-intervention study. Hum Reprod. 2015; 30(9):2097-106. PMC: 4542718. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dev159. View

17.

Demko Z, Simon A, McCoy R, Petrov D, Rabinowitz M . Effects of maternal age on euploidy rates in a large cohort of embryos analyzed with 24-chromosome single-nucleotide polymorphism-based preimplantation genetic screening. Fertil Steril. 2016; 105(5):1307-1313. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.01.025. View

18.

Coates A, Kung A, Mounts E, Hesla J, Bankowski B, Barbieri E . Optimal euploid embryo transfer strategy, fresh versus frozen, after preimplantation genetic screening with next generation sequencing: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2017; 107(3):723-730.e3. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.12.022. View

19.

Gebhart M, Hines R, Penman A, Holland A . How do patient perceived determinants influence the decision-making process to accept or decline preimplantation genetic screening?. Fertil Steril. 2015; 105(1):188-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.09.022. View

20.

Murugappan G, Ohno M, Lathi R . Cost-effectiveness analysis of preimplantation genetic screening and in vitro fertilization versus expectant management in patients with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss. Fertil Steril. 2015; 103(5):1215-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.02.012. View