Cost-effectiveness of freeze-all policy - A retrospective study based upon the outcome of cumulative live births

doi:10.1016/j.tjog.2020.11.019

中山醫學大學機構典藏 CSMUIR > 中山醫學大學研究成果 > 期刊論文 > Item 310902500/23303

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ir.csmu.edu.tw:8080/ir/handle/310902500/23303

Title:	Cost-effectiveness of freeze-all policy - A retrospective study based upon the outcome of cumulative live births
Authors:	Chang, JC;Yi, YC;Shen, PS;Guu, HF;Chen, YF;Kung, HF;Chen, LY;Chen, MJ
Keywords:	Freeze-all;Cost-effectiveness;Fresh embryo transfer;Embryo cryopreservation;Cumulative live birth rates
Date:	2021
Issue Date:	2022-08-05T09:35:06Z (UTC)
Publisher:	ELSEVIER TAIWAN
ISSN:	1028-4559
Abstract:	Object: We have previously reported that cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs) are higher in the freeze-all group compared with controls (64.3% vs. 45.8%, p = 0.001). Here, we aim to determine if the freeze-all policy is more cost-effective than fresh embryo transfer followed by frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET). Materials and methods: The analysis consisted of 704 ART (Assisted reproductive technology) cycles, which included in IVF (In vitro fertilisation) and ICSI (Intra Cytoplasmic Sperm Injection) cycles performed in Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan between January 2012 and June 2014. The freeze-all group involved 84 patients and the fresh Group 625 patients. Patients were followed up until all embryos obtained from a single controlled ovarian hyper-stimulation cycle were used up, or a live birth had been achieved. The total cost related to treatment of each patient was recorded. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was based on the incremental cost per couple and the incremental live birth rate of the freeze-all strategy compared with the fresh ET strategy. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) were performed. Results: The total treatment cost per patient was significantly higher for the freeze-all group than in the fresh group (USD 3419.93 +/- 638.13 vs. $2920.59 +/- 711.08 p < 0.001). However, the total treatment cost per live birth in the freeze-all group was US $5319.89, vs. US $6382.42 in the fresh group. CEAC show that the freeze-all policy was a cost-effective treatment at a threshold of US $2703.57 for one additional live birth. Considering the Willingness-to-pay threshold per live birth, the probability was 60.1% at the threshold of US $2896.5, with the freeze-all group being more cost-effective than the fresh-ET group; or 90.1% at the threshold of $4183.8. Conclusion: The freeze-all policy is a cost-effective treatment, as long as the additional cost of US $2703.57 per additional live birth is financially acceptable for the subjects. (C) 2021 Taiwan Association of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V.
URI:	http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2020.11.019 https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/full-record/WOS:000631884400023 https://ir.csmu.edu.tw:8080/handle/310902500/23303
Relation:	TAIWANESE JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY ,2021,v60,issue 1, P125-131
Appears in Collections:	[中山醫學大學研究成果] 期刊論文

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
index.html		0Kb	HTML	243	View/Open

Loading...