Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
1.
Reprod Biomed Online ; 40(1): 99-104, 2020 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31787550

RESUMO

RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the cost-effectiveness of gonadotrophins compared with clomiphene citrate in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian stimulation under strict cancellation criteria? DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Between July 2013 and March 2016, 738 couples were randomized to gonadotrophins (369) or clomiphene citrate (369) in a multicentre RCT in the Netherlands. The direct medical costs of both strategies were compared. Direct medical costs included costs of medication, cycle monitoring, insemination and, if applicable, pregnancy monitoring. Non-parametric bootstrap resampling was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in estimates. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed according to intention-to-treat. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between gonadotrophins and clomiphene citrate for ongoing pregnancy and live birth was assessed. RESULTS: The mean costs per couple were €1534 for gonadotrophins and €1067 for clomiphene citrate (mean difference of €468; 95% confidence interval [CI] €464-472). As ongoing pregnancy rates were 31% in women allocated to gonadotrophins and 26% in women allocated to clomiphene citrate (relative risk 1.16, 95% CI 0.93-1.47), the ICER was €21,804 (95% CI €11,628-31,980) per additional ongoing pregnancy with gonadotrophins and €17,044 (95% CI €8998-25,090) per additional live birth with gonadotrophins. CONCLUSIONS: Gonadotrophins are more expensive compared with clomiphene citrate in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with adherence to strict cancellation criteria, without being significantly more effective.


Assuntos
Clomifeno/uso terapêutico , Fertilização in vitro/economia , Gonadotropinas/uso terapêutico , Infertilidade/economia , Inseminação Artificial/economia , Indução da Ovulação/economia , Adulto , Análise Custo-Benefício , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Indução da Ovulação/métodos , Gravidez , Resultado do Tratamento
2.
Obstet Gynecol ; 130(6): 1207-1217, 2017 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29112652

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of age at initiation and interval of cervical cancer screening in women of reproductive age on the risk of future preterm birth and subsequent adverse neonatal outcome relative to maternal life-years gained and cost of both screening and preterm birth. METHODS: In this decision and cost-effectiveness analysis, we compared eight cytology-based screening programs varying in age of onset (21, 24, 25, 27, or 30 years) and screening interval (3 or 5 years) in a fictive cohort of 100,000 women. We used the microsimulation screening analysis model to estimate number of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia diagnoses, large loop excisions of the transformation zone (LLETZs), life-years gained, cervical cancer cases, deaths, and costs of screening and treatment. We used the number of LLETZs to calculate additional preterm births, subsequent neonatal morbidity, mortality, and associated costs. RESULTS: The number of LLETZs per 100,000 women varied from 9,612 for the most intensive screening (every 3 years from age 21 years) to 4,646 for the least intensive screening (every 5 years from age 30 years). Compared with the least intensive program, the most intensive program increased maternal life-years gained by 9% (10,728 compared with 9,839), decreased cervical cancer cases by 67% (52 compared with 158), and cervical cancer deaths by 75% (four compared with 16) at the expense of 250% (158 compared with 45) more preterm births and 320% (four compared with one) more neonatal deaths while increasing total costs by $55 million ($77 compared with $23 million). The number of maternal life-years gained per additional preterm birth varied from 68 to 258 with subsequent total costs per maternal life-years gained of $7,212 and $2,329. CONCLUSION: Cervical cancer screening every 3 years and subsequent treatment in women aged younger than 30 years yield limited life-years but may have substantial perinatal adverse effects. Consequently, women who plan to have children may benefit from a more cautious screening approach, taking into account their risk for both cancer and preterm birth.


Assuntos
Detecção Precoce de Câncer , Nascimento Prematuro , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero , Adulto , Fatores Etários , Austrália , Colo do Útero/patologia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Citodiagnóstico/métodos , Citodiagnóstico/estatística & dados numéricos , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/efeitos adversos , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/economia , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/métodos , Eficiência Organizacional , Feminino , Humanos , Lactente , Mortalidade Infantil , Tábuas de Vida , Países Baixos , Gravidez , Nascimento Prematuro/economia , Nascimento Prematuro/prevenção & controle , Medição de Risco , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero/diagnóstico , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero/prevenção & controle
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA