Cost effectiveness analysis of preimplantation genetic screening and in vitro fertilization versus expectant management in patients with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss
In vitro fertilization/preimplantation genetic screening is not cost effective in achieving live birth compared with expectant management in patients with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss.
Gayathree Murugappan, M.D., Mika S. Ohno, M.D., Ruth B. Lathi, M.D.
Volume 103, Issue 5, Pages 1215-1220
To determine whether in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening (IVF/PGS) is cost effective compared with expectant management in achieving live birth for patients with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL).
Decision analytic model comparing costs and clinical outcomes.
Academic recurrent pregnancy loss programs.
Women with unexplained RPL.
IVF/PGS with 24-chromosome screening and expectant management.
Main Outcomes Measure(s):
Cost per live birth.
The IVF/PGS strategy had a live-birth rate of 53% and a clinical miscarriage rate of 7%. Expectant management had a live-birth rate of 67% and clinical miscarriage rate of 24%. The IVF/PGS strategy was 100-fold more expensive, costing $45,300 per live birth compared with $418 per live birth with expectant management.
In this model, IVF/PGS was not a cost-effective strategy for increasing live birth. Furthermore, the live-birth rate with IVF/PGS needs to be 91% to be cost effective compared with expectant management.