Fertility and sterility · 2025
Cost-effectiveness analysis of uterus transplantation vs. gestational carrier for treatment of absolute uterine factor infertility in the United States.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Walter Jessica R, Richards Elliott G, Johannesson Liza, Falcone Tommaso, Jungheim Emily, Testa Giuliano, O'Neill Kathleen E, Harvie Heidi S
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of treatment for patients with absolute uterine factor infertility to achieve one or two singleton births by gestational carrier vs. uterus transplant.
DESIGN: Decision analysis from the US healthcare sector perspective, with time horizons to achieve one or two singleton births.
SUBJECTS: Patients with uterine factor infertility desiring family building.
EXPOSURE: Gestational carrier or uterus transplant.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, comparing the costs (2020 US Dollars) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs] and live births) to achieve one or two births by gestational carrier vs. uterus transplant.
RESULTS: In the base case of one singleton birth, the overall cost using a gestational carrier was $97,712.90 ($56,985.20-$153,084.20) compared with $116,137.20 ($67,142.88-$182,290.86) after uterus transplant. Quality-adjusted life years were higher in the gestational carrier arm (0.93) compared with the uterus transplant (0.90) and overall rates of live birth were also higher in the gestational carrier arm (94%) compared with the uterus transplant arm (77%). Costs of the gestational carrier and uterus transplant recipient were the most significant cost variables in the model. Monte Carlo simulation showed that uterus transplant had a 37% chance of being the cost-effective strategy for a single live birth at a willingness to pay of $150,000/QALY. In the case of two singleton births, the cost using a gestational carrier was $186,278.56 ($103,597.81-$296,010.27) compared with $164,276.84 ($111,961.91-$229,394.43) after uterus transplant. Quality-adjusted life years were again higher in the gestational carrier arm (0.93) than the uterus transplant (0.89). Overall rates of two live births were also higher in the gestational carrier arm (86%) compared with the uterus transplant arm (66%). Monte Carlo simulation showed that uterine transplant has a 62% chance of being the cost-effective strategy for two live births at a willingness to pay $150,000/QALY.
CONCLUSION: In the United States, treatment of uterine factor infertility with a gestational carrier is likely the most cost-effective approach for patients delivering a single child. However, the absolute costs associated with uterus transplants were 14% less than a gestational carrier for those having two live singleton births.
DESIGN: Decision analysis from the US healthcare sector perspective, with time horizons to achieve one or two singleton births.
SUBJECTS: Patients with uterine factor infertility desiring family building.
EXPOSURE: Gestational carrier or uterus transplant.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, comparing the costs (2020 US Dollars) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs] and live births) to achieve one or two births by gestational carrier vs. uterus transplant.
RESULTS: In the base case of one singleton birth, the overall cost using a gestational carrier was $97,712.90 ($56,985.20-$153,084.20) compared with $116,137.20 ($67,142.88-$182,290.86) after uterus transplant. Quality-adjusted life years were higher in the gestational carrier arm (0.93) compared with the uterus transplant (0.90) and overall rates of live birth were also higher in the gestational carrier arm (94%) compared with the uterus transplant arm (77%). Costs of the gestational carrier and uterus transplant recipient were the most significant cost variables in the model. Monte Carlo simulation showed that uterus transplant had a 37% chance of being the cost-effective strategy for a single live birth at a willingness to pay of $150,000/QALY. In the case of two singleton births, the cost using a gestational carrier was $186,278.56 ($103,597.81-$296,010.27) compared with $164,276.84 ($111,961.91-$229,394.43) after uterus transplant. Quality-adjusted life years were again higher in the gestational carrier arm (0.93) than the uterus transplant (0.89). Overall rates of two live births were also higher in the gestational carrier arm (86%) compared with the uterus transplant arm (66%). Monte Carlo simulation showed that uterine transplant has a 62% chance of being the cost-effective strategy for two live births at a willingness to pay $150,000/QALY.
CONCLUSION: In the United States, treatment of uterine factor infertility with a gestational carrier is likely the most cost-effective approach for patients delivering a single child. However, the absolute costs associated with uterus transplants were 14% less than a gestational carrier for those having two live singleton births.