An Economic Analysis of Aneuploidy Screening of Oocytes in Assisted Reproduction in Germany

13Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background The randomized ESTEEM trial reported that preimplantation genetic aneuploidy testing of oocytes by polar body biopsy (PGT-A) with array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) in women aged 36 - 40 years undergoing assisted reproduction treatment reduces the number of embryo transfers and the risk of miscarriage while not impacting the live birth rate. Method A decision tree model based on data from the ESTEEM trial was created and analyzed, using three cost scenarios for assisted reproduction treatment in Germany (statutory health insurance [GKV] = the deductible is 50% of the standard medical costs; private medical insurance [PKV] = invoicing is based on the German medical fee schedule [GOÄ]; private medical insurance with a simple GOÄ factor [simple GOÄ factor] = invoicing is based on the standard medical fees multiplied by a linear GOÄ factor). The scenarios were compared for cost-effectiveness (cost per live birth), cost per prevented miscarriage and the threshold values for cost and effectiveness. Results PGT-A increased the costs per live birth in all scenarios (GKV: + 208%; PKV: + 49%; simple GOÄ factor: + 89%). A threshold analysis showed a substantial cost discrepancy between the actual cost of the intervention based on GOÄ (€ 5801) vs. the theoretically tolerable PGT-A cost (GKV: € 561, PKV: € 1037, single GOÄ-factor: € 743). The incremental cost per one prevented miscarriage was approximately € 70 000 - 75 000 for all cost scenarios. Conclusion The use of PGT-A with aCGH in assisted reproduction cannot be recommended from a cost-effectiveness perspective.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Neumann, K., & Griesinger, G. (2020). An Economic Analysis of Aneuploidy Screening of Oocytes in Assisted Reproduction in Germany. Geburtshilfe Und Frauenheilkunde, 80(2), 172–178. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1079-5283

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free