Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Decision analysis about the cost-effectiveness of different in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer protocol under considering governments, hospitals, and patient.
Pan, Wei; Tu, Haiting; Jin, Lei; Hu, Cheng; Li, Yuehan; Wang, Renjie; Huang, Weiming; Liao, ShuJie.
Afiliação
  • Pan W; Cancer Biology Research Center, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei.
  • Tu H; School of Economic and Management, Wuhan University, Wuhan.
  • Jin L; Management Science and Data Analytics Research Center, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
  • Hu C; School of Economic and Management, Wuhan University, Wuhan.
  • Li Y; Management Science and Data Analytics Research Center, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
  • Wang R; Cancer Biology Research Center, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei.
  • Huang W; School of Economic and Management, Wuhan University, Wuhan.
  • Liao S; Management Science and Data Analytics Research Center, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 98(19): e15492, 2019 May.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31083186
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

The aim of this study was to explore the benefits of in vitro fertilization (IVF) for patients and hospitals under different protocols and if IVF treatment should be incorporated into health care. PERSPECTIVE The government should consider including IVF treatment in health insurance. Hospitals and patients could obtain the best benefit by following the hospital's recommended protocol.

SETTING:

This retrospective study was conducted from January 2014 to August 2017 at an academic hospital.

METHODS:

A total of 7440 patients used gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) protocol, 2619 patients used, gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists (GnRHant) protocol, and 1514 patients used GnRHa ultra-long protocol. Primary outcomes were live birth rate (LBR), cost-effectiveness, hospital revenue, and government investment.

RESULTS:

The cycle times for the GnRHa protocol and the GnRHa ultra-long protocol were significantly higher than the GnRHant protocol. Patients who were ≤29 years chose the GnRHant protocol. The cost of a successful cycle was 67,579.39 ±â€Š9,917.55 ¥ and LBR was 29.25%. Patients who were >30 years had the GnRHa protocol as the dominant strategy, as it was more effective at lower costs and higher LBR. When patients were >30 to ≤34 years, the cost of a successful cycle was 66,556.7 ±â€Š8,448.08 ¥ and the LBR was 31.05%. When patients were >35 years, the cost of a successful cycle was 83,297.92 ±â€Š10,918.05 ¥ and the LBR was 25.07%. The government reimbursement for a cycle ranged between 11,372.12 ±â€Š2,147.71 ¥ and 12,753.67 ±â€Š1,905.02 ¥.

CONCLUSIONS:

The government should consider including IVF treatment in health insurance. Hospitals recommend the GnRHant protocol for patients <29 years old and the GnRHa protocol for patients >30 years old, to obtain the best benefits. Patients could obtain the best benefit by using the protocol recommended by the hospital.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Fertilização in vitro / Análise Custo-Benefício / Transferência Embrionária Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Health_economic_evaluation / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Adult / Female / Humans Idioma: En Revista: Medicine (Baltimore) Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Fertilização in vitro / Análise Custo-Benefício / Transferência Embrionária Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Health_economic_evaluation / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limite: Adult / Female / Humans Idioma: En Revista: Medicine (Baltimore) Ano de publicação: 2019 Tipo de documento: Article