The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Cost-effectiveness of a mild compared with a standard strategy for IVF: a randomised comparison using cumulative term live birth as the primary endpoint

Cost-effectiveness of a mild compared with a standard strategy for IVF: a randomised comparison using cumulative term live birth as the primary endpoint
Cost-effectiveness of a mild compared with a standard strategy for IVF: a randomised comparison using cumulative term live birth as the primary endpoint
Background: conventional ovarian stimulation and the transfer of two embryos in IVF exhibits an inherent high probability of multiple pregnancies, resulting in high costs. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a mild compared with a conventional strategy for IVF.

Methods: four hundred and four patients were randomly assigned to undergo either mild ovarian stimulation/GnRH antagonist co-treatment combined with single embryo transfer, or standard stimulation/GnRH agonist long protocol and the transfer of two embryos. The main outcome measures are total costs of treatment within a 12 months period after randomization, and the relationship between total costs and proportion of cumulative pregnancies resulting in term live birth within 1 year of randomization.

Results: despite a significantly increased average number of IVF cycles (2.3 versus 1.7; P < 0.001), lower average total costs over a 12-month period (8333 versus {euro}10 745; P = 0.006) were observed using the mild strategy. This was mainly due to higher costs of the obstetric and post-natal period for the standard strategy, related to multiple pregnancies. The costs per pregnancy leading to term live birth were {euro}19 156 in the mild strategy and {euro}24 038 in the standard. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the standard strategy compared with the mild strategy was {euro}185 000 per extra pregnancy leading to term live birth.

Conclusions: despite an increased mean number of IVF cycles within 1 year, from an economic perspective, the mild treatment strategy is more advantageous per term live birth. It is unlikely, over a wide range of society's willingness-to-pay, that the standard treatment strategy is cost-effective, compared with the mild strategy.
GnRH antagonist, mild ovarian stimulation, single embryo transfer, IVF
316-323
Polinder, S.
e6f6af14-0952-43c3-a331-056fd2f06d84
Heijnen, E.M.E.W.
a3f775d4-d175-4e1b-a0c5-dc395d3fef0a
Macklon, N.S.
7db1f4fc-a9f6-431f-a1f2-297bb8c9fb7e
Habbema, J.D.F.
e2596108-b2e4-40fc-84dc-eb89de7e8961
Fauser, B.J.C.M.
5cd9224a-2422-4c7d-a2af-94c1aafd4b00
Eijkemans, M.J.C.
49ac87bc-76a5-493a-8d2b-37abfb606e62
Polinder, S.
e6f6af14-0952-43c3-a331-056fd2f06d84
Heijnen, E.M.E.W.
a3f775d4-d175-4e1b-a0c5-dc395d3fef0a
Macklon, N.S.
7db1f4fc-a9f6-431f-a1f2-297bb8c9fb7e
Habbema, J.D.F.
e2596108-b2e4-40fc-84dc-eb89de7e8961
Fauser, B.J.C.M.
5cd9224a-2422-4c7d-a2af-94c1aafd4b00
Eijkemans, M.J.C.
49ac87bc-76a5-493a-8d2b-37abfb606e62

Polinder, S., Heijnen, E.M.E.W., Macklon, N.S., Habbema, J.D.F., Fauser, B.J.C.M. and Eijkemans, M.J.C. (2008) Cost-effectiveness of a mild compared with a standard strategy for IVF: a randomised comparison using cumulative term live birth as the primary endpoint. Human Reproduction, 23 (2), 316-323. (doi:10.1093/humrep/dem372).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: conventional ovarian stimulation and the transfer of two embryos in IVF exhibits an inherent high probability of multiple pregnancies, resulting in high costs. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a mild compared with a conventional strategy for IVF.

Methods: four hundred and four patients were randomly assigned to undergo either mild ovarian stimulation/GnRH antagonist co-treatment combined with single embryo transfer, or standard stimulation/GnRH agonist long protocol and the transfer of two embryos. The main outcome measures are total costs of treatment within a 12 months period after randomization, and the relationship between total costs and proportion of cumulative pregnancies resulting in term live birth within 1 year of randomization.

Results: despite a significantly increased average number of IVF cycles (2.3 versus 1.7; P < 0.001), lower average total costs over a 12-month period (8333 versus {euro}10 745; P = 0.006) were observed using the mild strategy. This was mainly due to higher costs of the obstetric and post-natal period for the standard strategy, related to multiple pregnancies. The costs per pregnancy leading to term live birth were {euro}19 156 in the mild strategy and {euro}24 038 in the standard. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the standard strategy compared with the mild strategy was {euro}185 000 per extra pregnancy leading to term live birth.

Conclusions: despite an increased mean number of IVF cycles within 1 year, from an economic perspective, the mild treatment strategy is more advantageous per term live birth. It is unlikely, over a wide range of society's willingness-to-pay, that the standard treatment strategy is cost-effective, compared with the mild strategy.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: February 2008
Keywords: GnRH antagonist, mild ovarian stimulation, single embryo transfer, IVF

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 150603
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/150603
PURE UUID: b7fc775c-5dd1-402e-a4cb-9b33fb098b5a

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 05 May 2010 15:23
Last modified: 14 Mar 2024 01:17

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: S. Polinder
Author: E.M.E.W. Heijnen
Author: N.S. Macklon
Author: J.D.F. Habbema
Author: B.J.C.M. Fauser
Author: M.J.C. Eijkemans

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×