Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on June 13, 2008
Human Reproduction 2008 23(9):2043-2049; doi:10.1093/humrep/den200
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A decision analysis of treatments for obstructive azoospermia
1 James Buchanan Brady Foundation, Department of Urology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 525 E. 68th St., Starr 900, New York, NY 10021, USA 2 Population Council, Center for Biomedical Research, 1230 York Ave., New York, NY 10021, USA 3 Cornell Institute for Reproductive Medicine, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 525 E. 68th St., Starr 900, New York, NY 10021, USA
4 Correspondence address. E-mail: pnschleg{at}med.cornell.edu
BACKGROUND: Treatments for post-vasectomy obstructive azoospermia include vasectomy reversal, microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration (MESA) or percutaneous testicular sperm extraction (TESE) with IVF/ICSI. We examined the cost-effectiveness of these treatments.
METHODS: A decision analytic model was created to simulate treatment. Outcome probabilities were derived from peer-reviewed literature and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies database. Procedural costs were derived from a sampling of high-volume IVF centers and the Medicare Resource Based Relative Value Scale. Indirect costs of complications, lost productivity and multiple gestation pregnancies were considered. Sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: Vasectomy reversal was more cost-effective than either MESA or TESE under all probability conditions. In 1999, vasectomy reversal demonstrated superior cost-effectiveness to TESE and MESA ($19 633 versus $45 637 and $48 055, respectively, equivalent to $25 321 versus $58 858 and $61 977 in 2005 dollars). In 2005, vasectomy reversal ($20 903) remained the most cost-effective treatment over TESE ($54 797) and MESA ($56 861). The cost-effectiveness of all treatments improved over projections by inflation. The relative cost-effectiveness of the therapies was unchanged over time.
CONCLUSIONS: Vasectomy reversal appears more cost-effective than percutaneous TESE and MESA for treatment of obstructive azoospermia when the impact of indirect costs is considered. The absolute cost-effectiveness of all therapies improved over time. These results may be tailored with institution-specific data to allow more individualized results.
Key words: infertility, male/azoospermia/decision support techniques/reproductive techniques, assisted/cost–benefit analysis
Submitted on December 28, 2007; resubmitted on April 24, 2008; accepted on May 1, 2008.