Which Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Treatment Strategy is the Most Clinically and Cost-effective for Women of Advanced Maternal Age: a Markov Model

Objective: To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, social freezing, donor and autologous assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment strategies for women aged 35-45 following 6-12 months of infertility.

Methods: Four Markov decision-analytic models comprising: (i) Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A); (ii) autologous ART from age 40 using oocytes cryopreserved at age 32 (social freezing); (iii) ART using donated oocytes (donor ART); (iv) standard autologous ART treatment (standard care) were developed for a hypothetical cohort of 35 to 45 years old ART naïve women with 6-12 months of infertility. Input probabilities for key parameters including live birth rates were obtained from the available literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to address uncertainty in estimating the parameters and around the model's assumptions. Cost effectiveness was assessed from both societal and patient perspectives .

Result(s): For infertile women at age 40 and above, social freezing is the most cost-saving strategy with the highest chance of a cumulative live birth at a lowest cost from a societal perspective. PGT-A and donor ART were associated with higher treatment costs and cumulative live-birth rates compared with the autologous ART. Among the four ART strategies, standard autologous ART has the lowest cumulative live birth rate of 45% at age 35 and decreasing to 1.6% by age 45 years. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of Australian dollars (A$)50,000, our model shows all alternative treatment strategies -PGT-A, social freezing and donor ART have a higher probability of being cost-effective compared to the standard autologous ART treatment. However, higher out-of-pocket expenditure may impede their access to these alternate strategies.

Conclusion: Given current evidence, all alternate strategies have a higher probability of being cost-effective compared to the standard autologous ART treatment. Whether this represents value for money depends on societal and individual's willingness-to-pay for children conceived with ART treatment.