A health-economic decision-analytic model comparing double with single embryo transfer in IVF/ICSI

被引:81
作者
De Sutter, P
Gerris, J
Dhont, M
机构
[1] State Univ Ghent Hosp, Infertil Ctr, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
[2] Middelheim Hosp, Ctr Reprod Med, Antwerp, Belgium
关键词
cost-effectiveness; decision-analytic model; health-economics; IVF-ICSI; single embryo transfer;
D O I
10.1093/humrep/17.11.2891
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: Single embryo transfer (SET) is the sole strategy with which to reduce the incidence of twins following assisted reproductive technology (ART), but SET may increase the number of ART cycles needed per live-born child. Its cost-effectiveness compared with double embryo transfer (DET) is therefore unknown. METHODS: A decision-analytic model comparing SET with DET was developed. Estimates were obtained from literature, national pregnancy registers and local hospital records. A sensitivity analysis was performed, using pregnancy rates from four published studies. The outcome measure was the cost per child born, calculated from IVF procedure-related, pregnancy-related and neonatal care costs. Neonatal mortality and long-term morbidity costs were not taken into account. RESULTS: Independently of the pregnancy rates used, the SET cost per child born was in all instances the same as with DET, varying from G 9 520 (SET) versus is not an element of9 511 (DET) to is not an element of12 254 (SET) versus is not an element of12 934 (DET). CONCLUSIONS: More ART cycles are required to obtain the same numbers of children born following SET compared with DET. Because SET allows the avoidance of twins and thus diminishes pregnancy-related and neonatal care costs, there is no difference in the cost per child born between SET and DET. The real advantage of SET is the avoidance of the very high long-term costs resulting from the increased morbidity of twins after birth.
引用
收藏
页码:2891 / 2896
页数:6
相关论文
共 39 条
[1]  
BEKAERT, 2000, STUDIECENTRUM PERINA
[2]   Twin pregnancies conceived by assisted reproductive techniques: Maternal and neonatal outcomes [J].
Bernasko, J ;
Lynch, L ;
Lapinski, R ;
Berkowitz, RL .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1997, 89 (03) :368-372
[3]   An introduction to Markov modelling for economic evaluation [J].
Briggs, A ;
Sculpher, M .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 1998, 13 (04) :397-409
[4]   THE ECONOMIC-IMPACT OF MULTIPLE-GESTATION PREGNANCIES AND THE CONTRIBUTION OF ASSISTED-REPRODUCTION TECHNIQUES TO THEIR INCIDENCE [J].
CALLAHAN, TL ;
HALL, JE ;
ETTNER, SL ;
CHRISTIANSEN, CL ;
GREENE, MF ;
CROWLEY, WF .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1994, 331 (04) :244-249
[5]   Avoiding multiple pregnancies in in-vitro fertilization: who's afraid of single embryo transfer? [J].
Coetsier, T ;
Dhont, M .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 1998, 13 (10) :2663-2664
[6]  
Coetsier T, 2001, HUM REPROD, V16, P790
[7]   Cost-effectiveness of in vitro fertilization [J].
Collins, J .
SEMINARS IN REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE, 2001, 19 (03) :279-289
[8]  
Crosignani PG, 2000, HUM REPROD, V15, P1856
[9]   Predictive value of the results of a first in-vitro fertilization cycle on the outcome of subsequent cycles [J].
Croucher, CA ;
Lass, A ;
Margara, R ;
Winston, RM .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 1998, 13 (02) :403-408
[10]   Analysis of 104 twin pregnancies conceived with assisted reproductive technologies and 193 spontaneously conceived twin pregnancies [J].
Daniel, Y ;
Ochshorn, Y ;
Fait, G ;
Geva, E ;
Bar-Am, A ;
Lessing, JB .
FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2000, 74 (04) :683-689