We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Cost-effectiveness of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies.
Fertility and Sterility 2019 June
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.
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.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app