Notice: Users may be experiencing issues with displaying some pages on stanfordhealthcare.org. We are working closely with our technical teams to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. Thank you for your patience.
 

Learn about the flu shot, COVID-19 vaccine, and our masking policy »

Stanford Health Care

Cost-effectiveness analysis of preimplantation genetic screening and in vitro fertilization versus expectant management in patients with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss FERTILITY AND STERILITY Murugappan, G., Ohno, M. S., Lathi, R. B. 2015; 103 (5): 1215-1220

Abstract

To determine whether in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening (IVF/PGS) is cost effective compared with expectant management in achieving live birth for patients with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL).Decision analytic model comparing costs and clinical outcomes.Academic recurrent pregnancy loss programs.Women with unexplained RPL.IVF/PGS with 24-chromosome screening and expectant management.Cost per live birth.The IVF/PGS strategy had a live-birth rate of 53% and a clinical miscarriage rate of 7%. Expectant management had a live-birth rate of 67% and clinical miscarriage rate of 24%. The IVF/PGS strategy was 100-fold more expensive, costing $45,300 per live birth compared with $418 per live birth with expectant management.In this model, IVF/PGS was not a cost-effective strategy for increasing live birth. Furthermore, the live-birth rate with IVF/PGS needs to be 91% to be cost effective compared with expectant management.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.02.012

View details for Web of Science ID 000353843700024

View details for PubMedID 25772770