Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on April 13, 2006
Human Reproduction 2006 21(8):2090-2097; doi:10.1093/humrep/del112
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Single versus double embryo transfer: cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized clinical trial
1 Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment 2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Hospital Maastricht and 3 Department of Health Organisation, Policy, and Economics, University Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands
4 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands. E-mail: afi{at}kemta.azm.nl
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 (
7334) compared with DET (10 924). The ICER of DET compared with eSET was 19 096, meaning that each additional successful pregnancy in the DET group will cost 19 096 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.
Key words: cost-effectiveness/randomized clinical trial/single embryo transfer
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  N. Ledee, R. Lombroso, L. Lombardelli, J. Selva, S. Dubanchet, G. Chaouat, F. Frankenne, J.M. Foidart, E. Maggi, S. Romagnani, et al. Cytokines and chemokines in follicular fluids and potential of the corresponding embryo: the role of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor Hum. Reprod., September 1, 2008; 23(9): 2001 - 2009. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Polinder, E.M.E.W. Heijnen, N.S. Macklon, J.D.F. Habbema, B.J.C.M. Fauser, and M.J.C. Eijkemans Cost-effectiveness of a mild compared with a standard strategy for IVF: a randomized comparison using cumulative term live birth as the primary endpoint Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2008; 23(2): 316 - 323. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. J. Stillman A 47-Year-Old Woman With Fertility Problems Who Desires a Multiple Pregnancy JAMA, February 28, 2007; 297(8): 858 - 867. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A.A.A. Fiddelers, J.L. Severens, C.D. Dirksen, J.C.M. Dumoulin, J.A. Land, and J.L.H. Evers Economic evaluations of single- versus double-embryo transfer in IVF Hum. Reprod. Update, January 1, 2007; 13(1): 5 - 13. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|