Single versus double embryo transfer: cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized clinical trial

被引:52
作者
Fiddelers, Audrey A. A.
van Montfoort, Aafke P. A.
Dirksen, Carmen D.
Dumoulin, John C. M.
land, Joe A. Land
Dunselman, Gerard A. J.
Janssen, J. Marij
Severens, Johan L.
Evers, Johannes L. H.
机构
[1] Univ Maastricht, Dept Clin Epidemiol & Med Technol Assessment, NL-6202 AZ Maastricht, Netherlands
[2] Univ Maastricht, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Acad Hosp Maastricht, NL-6202 AZ Maastricht, Netherlands
[3] Univ Maastricht, Dept Hlth Org Policy & Econ, NL-6202 AZ Maastricht, Netherlands
关键词
cost-effectiveness; randomized clinical trial; single embryo transfer;
D O I
10.1093/humrep/del112
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: Twin pregnancies after IVF are still frequent and are considered high-risk pregnancies leading to high costs. Transferring one embryo can reduce the twin pregnancy rate. We compared cost-effectiveness of one fresh cycle elective single embryo transfer (eSET) versus one fresh cycle double embryo transfer (DET) in an unselected patient population. METHODS: Patients starting their first IVF cycle were randomized between eSET and DET. Societal costs per couple were determined empirically, from hormonal stimulation up to 42 weeks after embryo transfer. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, representing additional costs per successful pregnancy. RESULTS: Successful pregnancy rates were 20.8% for eSET and 39.6% for DET. Societal costs per couple were significantly lower after eSET (e 7334) compared with DET (e10 924). The ICER of DET compared with eSET was e19 096, meaning that each additional successful pregnancy in the DET group will cost e19 096 extra. CONCLUSIONS: One cycle eSET was less expensive, but also less effective compared to one cycle DET. It depends on the society's willingness to pay for one extra successful pregnancy, whether one cycle DET is preferred from a cost-effectiveness point of view.
引用
收藏
页码:2090 / 2097
页数:8
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]   Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2001. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE [J].
Andersen, AN ;
Gianaroli, L ;
Felberbaum, R ;
de Mouzon, J ;
Nygren, KG .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2005, 20 (05) :1158-1176
[2]  
Briggs A, 1998, HEALTH ECON, V7, P723, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199812)7:8<723::AID-HEC392>3.3.CO
[3]  
2-F
[4]  
Briggs AH, 1997, HEALTH ECON, V6, P327, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199707)6:4<327::AID-HEC282>3.0.CO
[5]  
2-W
[6]   The friction-cost method - Replacement for nothing and leisure for free? [J].
Brouwer, WBF ;
Koopmanschap, MA .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2005, 23 (02) :105-111
[7]  
Crosignani PG, 2000, HUM REPROD, V15, P1856
[8]   A health-economic decision-analytic model comparing double with single embryo transfer in IVF/ICSI [J].
De Sutter, P ;
Gerris, J ;
Dhont, M .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2002, 17 (11) :2891-2896
[9]  
DRUMMOND M, 2005, METHODS EC HLTH CARE
[10]  
Efron B., 1994, INTRO BOOTSTRAP, DOI DOI 10.1201/9780429246593