» Articles » PMID: 36175208

A SART Data Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Planned Oocyte Cryopreservation Versus In vitro Fertilization with Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy Considering Ideal Family Size

Overview
Journal Fertil Steril
Date 2022 Sep 29
PMID 36175208
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of planned oocyte cryopreservation (OC) as a strategy for delayed childbearing to achieve 1 or 2 live births (LB) compared with in vitro fertilization (IVF) and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) at advanced reproductive age.

Design: Decision tree model with sensitivity analyses using data from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinical Outcome Reporting System and other clinical sources.

Setting: Not applicable.

Patient(s): A data-driven simulated cohort of patients desiring delayed childbearing with an ideal family size of 1 or 2 LB.

Intervention(s): Not applicable.

Main Outcome Measure(s): Probability of achieving ≥1 or 2 LB, average and maximum cost per patient, cost per percentage point increase in chance of LB, and population-level cost/LB.

Result(s): For those desiring 1 LB, planned OC at age 33 with warming at age 43 decreased the average total cost per patient from $62,308 to $30,333 and increased the likelihood of LB from 50% to 73% when compared with no OC with up to 3 cycles of IVF/PGT-A at age 43. For those desiring 2 LB, 2 cycles of OC at age 33 and warming at age 40 yielded the lowest cost per patient and highest likelihood of achieving 2 LB ($51,250 and 77%, respectively) when compared withpursuing only 1 cycle of OC ($75,373 and 61%, respectively), no OC and IVF/PGT-A with embryo banking ($79,728 and 48%, respectively), or no OC and IVF/PGT-A without embryo banking ($79,057 and 19%, respectively). Sensitivity analyses showed that OC remained cost-effective across a wide range of ages at cryopreservation. For 1 LB, OC achieved the highest likelihood of success when pursued before age 32 and remained more effective than IVF/PGT-A when pursued before age 39, and for 2 LB, 2 cycles of OC achieved the highest likelihood of success when pursued before age 31 and remained more effective than IVF/PGT-A when pursued before age 39.

Conclusion(s): Among patients planning to postpone childbearing, OC is cost-effective and increases the odds of achieving 1 or 2 LB when compared with IVF/PGT-A at a more advanced reproductive age.

Citing Articles

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in patients of different age: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Adamyan L, Pivazyan L, Obosyan L, Krylova E, Isaeva S Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2024; 67(4):356-379.

PMID: 38803301 PMC: 11266849. DOI: 10.5468/ogs.24028.


Is there a preferred time interval between gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist trigger and oocyte retrieval in GnRH antagonist cycles? A retrospective cohort of planned fertility preservation cycles.

Ranit H, Shmuel H, Ahlad A, Shirley G, Meny H, Tal I J Assist Reprod Genet. 2024; 41(6):1531-1538.

PMID: 38492156 PMC: 11224053. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-024-03083-z.


Examining reasons that patients discard cryopreserved oocytes.

Namath A, Jahandideh S, Devine K, Kallen C, OBrien J J Assist Reprod Genet. 2023; 40(12):2865-2870.

PMID: 37796420 PMC: 10656384. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-023-02962-1.


Preimplantation genetic testing for sickle cell disease: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Combs J, Dougherty M, Yamasaki M, DeCherney A, Devine K, Hill M F S Rep. 2023; 4(3):300-307.

PMID: 37719105 PMC: 10504548. DOI: 10.1016/j.xfre.2023.06.001.


Childbearing, Infertility, and Career Trajectories Among Women in Medicine.

Bakkensen J, Smith K, Cheung E, Moreno P, Goldman K, Lawson A JAMA Netw Open. 2023; 6(7):e2326192.

PMID: 37498595 PMC: 10375303. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.26192.


References
1.
Magnus M, Wilcox A, Morken N, Weinberg C, Haberg S . Role of maternal age and pregnancy history in risk of miscarriage: prospective register based study. BMJ. 2019; 364:l869. PMC: 6425455. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l869. View

2.
Mesen T, Mersereau J, Kane J, Steiner A . Optimal timing for elective egg freezing. Fertil Steril. 2015; 103(6):1551-6.e1-4. PMC: 4457646. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.03.002. View

3.
Franasiak J, Forman E, Hong K, Werner M, Upham K, Treff N . The nature of aneuploidy with increasing age of the female partner: a review of 15,169 consecutive trophectoderm biopsies evaluated with comprehensive chromosomal screening. Fertil Steril. 2013; 101(3):656-663.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.11.004. View

4.
Milman L, Senapati S, Sammel M, Cameron K, Gracia C . Assessing reproductive choices of women and the likelihood of oocyte cryopreservation in the era of elective oocyte freezing. Fertil Steril. 2017; 107(5):1214-1222.e3. PMC: 5523852. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.03.010. View

5.
Kawwass J, Crawford S, Hipp H . Frozen eggs: national autologous oocyte thaw outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2021; 116(4):1077-1084. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.05.080. View