top of page
OBJECTIVE: 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).
DESIGN: Decision analytic model comparing costs and clinical outcomes.
SETTING: Academic recurrent pregnancy loss programs.
PATIENT(S): Women with unexplained RPL.
INTERVENTION(S): IVF/PGS with 24-chromosome screening and expectant management.
MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE(S): Cost per live birth.
RESULT(S): 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.
CONCLUSION(S): 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.
Add paragraph text. Click “Edit Text” to update the font, size and more. To change and reuse text themes, go to Site Styles.
Cost-effectiveness analysis of preimplantation genetic screening and in vitro fertilization versus expectant management in patients with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss.
Murugappan G et al., 2015
Murugappan G, Ohno MS, Lathi RB
bottom of page