Economic evaluation of elective single-embryo transfer with subsequent single frozen embryo transfer in an in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection program
Metadata
Show full item recordAuthor
Hernandez-Torres, E; Navarro Espigares, José Luis; Clavero, A; Lopez-Regalado, ML; Camacho Ballesta, José Antonio; Onieva-Garcia, MA; Martinez, L; Castilla Alcalá, José AntonioEditorial
Elsevier
Materia
Economic evaluation probabilistic sensitivity analysis assisted reproduction, single-embryo transfer
Date
2015Referencia bibliográfica
Hernandez Torres E, Navarro-Espigares JL, Clavero A, López-Regalado M, Camacho-Ballesta JA, Onieva-García M, Martínez L, Castilla JA. Economic evaluation of elective single-embryo transfer with subsequent single frozen embryo transfer in an in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection program. Fertil Steril. 2015 Mar;103(3):699-706.
Abstract
To analyze the cost-effectiveness of IVF-ICSI cycles with elective single-embryo transfer (eSET), plus elective single frozen embryo transfer (eSFET) if pregnancy is not achieved, compared with double-embryo transfer (DET).
Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis.
Setting: Public hospital.
Patient(s): A population of 121 women (<38 years old), undergoing their first or second IVF cycles.
Intervention(s): We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using the results of a prospective clinical trial. The women in group 1 received eSET plus eSFET, and those in group 2 received DET. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed.
Main outcome measure(s): Live birth delivery rate.
Result(s): The cumulative live birth delivery rate was 38.60% in the eSET+eSFET group versus 42.19% in the DET group. The mean costs per patient were €5,614.11 in the eSET+eSFET group and €5,562.29 in the DET group. These differences were not statistically significant. The rate of multiple gestation was significantly lower in the eSET group than in the DET group (0 vs. 25.9%).
Conclusion(s): This study does not show that eSET is superior to DET in terms of effectiveness or of costs. The lack of superiority of the results for the eSET+eSFET and the DET groups corroborates that the choice of strategy to be adopted should be determined by the context of the health care system and the individual prognosis.