Objective: To evaluate the economical benefit of preimplantation genetic testing of aneuploidies (PGT-A) when applied in an extended culture and stringent elective single ET framework.Design: Theoretical cost-effectiveness study.Setting: Not applicable.Patients/Animal(s): None.Intervention(s): Comparison of the cost-effectiveness between two IVF treatment strategies: serial transfer of all available blastocysts without genetic testing (first fresh transfer and subsequent frozen-thawed transfer); and systematic use of genetic testing (trophectoderm biopsy, freeze-all, and frozen-thawed transfers of euploid blastocysts). The costs considered for this analysis are based on regional public health system provider.Main Outcome Measure(s): Costs per live birth.Result(s): Cost-effectiveness profile of PGT-A improves with female age and number of available blastocysts. Sensitivity analyses varying the costs of ET, the costs of genetic analyses, the magnitude of the detrimental impact of PGT-A on live birth rate, and the crude live birth rates change to some extent the thresholds for effectiveness but generally confirm the notion that PGT-A can be economically advantageous in some specific subgroups.Conclusion(s): PGT-A can be cost-effective in specific clinical settings and population groups. Economic considerations deserve attention in the debate regarding the clinical utility of PGT-A. ((C) 2019 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)
Cost-effectiveness of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies
Vigano, Paola;Capalbo, Antonio
2019-01-01
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the economical benefit of preimplantation genetic testing of aneuploidies (PGT-A) when applied in an extended culture and stringent elective single ET framework.Design: Theoretical cost-effectiveness study.Setting: Not applicable.Patients/Animal(s): None.Intervention(s): Comparison of the cost-effectiveness between two IVF treatment strategies: serial transfer of all available blastocysts without genetic testing (first fresh transfer and subsequent frozen-thawed transfer); and systematic use of genetic testing (trophectoderm biopsy, freeze-all, and frozen-thawed transfers of euploid blastocysts). The costs considered for this analysis are based on regional public health system provider.Main Outcome Measure(s): Costs per live birth.Result(s): Cost-effectiveness profile of PGT-A improves with female age and number of available blastocysts. Sensitivity analyses varying the costs of ET, the costs of genetic analyses, the magnitude of the detrimental impact of PGT-A on live birth rate, and the crude live birth rates change to some extent the thresholds for effectiveness but generally confirm the notion that PGT-A can be economically advantageous in some specific subgroups.Conclusion(s): PGT-A can be cost-effective in specific clinical settings and population groups. Economic considerations deserve attention in the debate regarding the clinical utility of PGT-A. ((C) 2019 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
