Military medicine · 2020
Single Embryo Transfer Versus Double Embryo Transfer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in a Non-IVF Insurance Mandated System.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Sitler Collin, Lustik Michael, Levy Gary, Pier Bruce
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Because of increased morbidity seen in multiple gestations, the American Society of Reproductive Medicine recommends transfer of blastocysts one at a time for most patients. While cost-effectiveness models have compared single embryo transfer (SET) versus double embryo transfer (DET), few incorporate maternal and neonatal morbidity, and none have been performed in U.S. Military facilities. The purpose of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of sequential SET versus DET in a U.S. Military treatment facility.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was created based on 250 patients between the ages of 20-44 who previously underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF) at our facility. The model consisted of patients pursuing either SET or DET with two total embryos. Cycle outcomes were determined using the published SARTCORS success calculator. Neonatal and obstetrical outcomes were simulated based on singleton and twin IVF pregnancies. Neonatal and obstetrical cost estimates were based on internal data as well.
RESULTS: If 250 model patients pursue SET, 140 live births would occur, with total cost of $5.7 million, and cost per delivery of $40,500. If the model patients pursued DET, 117 live births would occur, with total cost of $9.2 million and a cost per delivery of $77.700. DET would lead to more total infants (207 vs. 143 in SET cohort). Personal costs are higher in SET versus DET cohorts ($23,036 vs. $20,535).
CONCLUSIONS: SET in a system with no infertility coverage saves approximately $3.5 million per 250 patients. Higher personal costs as seen with SET may incentivize patients to seek DET. The total savings should encourage alteration to practice patterns with the U.S Military Healthcare System.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was created based on 250 patients between the ages of 20-44 who previously underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF) at our facility. The model consisted of patients pursuing either SET or DET with two total embryos. Cycle outcomes were determined using the published SARTCORS success calculator. Neonatal and obstetrical outcomes were simulated based on singleton and twin IVF pregnancies. Neonatal and obstetrical cost estimates were based on internal data as well.
RESULTS: If 250 model patients pursue SET, 140 live births would occur, with total cost of $5.7 million, and cost per delivery of $40,500. If the model patients pursued DET, 117 live births would occur, with total cost of $9.2 million and a cost per delivery of $77.700. DET would lead to more total infants (207 vs. 143 in SET cohort). Personal costs are higher in SET versus DET cohorts ($23,036 vs. $20,535).
CONCLUSIONS: SET in a system with no infertility coverage saves approximately $3.5 million per 250 patients. Higher personal costs as seen with SET may incentivize patients to seek DET. The total savings should encourage alteration to practice patterns with the U.S Military Healthcare System.