Cost-effectiveness of seven IVF strategies: results of a Markov decision-analytic model.

BACKGROUND: A selective switch to elective single embryo transfer (eSET) in IVF has been suggested to prevent complications of fertility treatment for both mother and infants. We compared seven IVF strategies concerning their cost-effectiveness using a Markov model. METHODS: The model was based on a three IVF-attempts time horizon and a societal perspective using real world strategies and data, comparing seven IVF strategies, concerning costs, live births and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: In order to increase pregnancy probability, one cycle of eSET + one cycle of standard treatment policy [STP, i.e. eSET in patients <38 years of age with at least one good quality embryo and double embryo transfer (DET) in the remainder of patients] + one cycle of DET have an ICER of 16,593 euro compared with three cycles of eSET. Furthermore, three STP cycles have an ICER of 17,636 euro compared with one cycle of eSET + one cycle of STP + one cycle of DET, and three DET cycles have an ICER of 26,729 euro compared with three cycles STP. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that in patients qualifying for IVF treatment, combining several transfer policies was not cost-effective. A choice has to be made between three cycles of eSET, STP or DET. It depends, however, on society's willingness to pay which strategy is to be preferred from a cost-effectiveness point of view.

Single versus double embryo transfer: cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Twin pregnancies after IVF are still frequent and are considered high-risk pregnancies leading to high costs. Transferring one embryo can reduce the twin pregnancy rate. We compared cost-effectiveness of one fresh cycle elective single embryo transfer (eSET) versus one fresh cycle double embryo transfer (DET) in an unselected patient population. METHODS: Patients starting their first IVF cycle were randomized between eSET and DET. Societal costs per couple were determined empirically, from hormonal stimulation up to 42 weeks after embryo transfer. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, representing additional costs per successful pregnancy. RESULTS: Successful pregnancy rates were 20.8% for eSET and 39.6% for DET. Societal costs per couple were significantly lower after eSET (7334 euro) compared with DET (10,924 euro). The ICER of DET compared with eSET was 19,096 euro, meaning that each additional successful pregnancy in the DET group will cost 19,096 euro extra. CONCLUSIONS: One cycle eSET was less expensive, but also less effective compared to one cycle DET. It depends on the society's willingness to pay for one extra successful pregnancy, whether one cycle DET is preferred from a cost-effectiveness point of view.

In unselected patients, elective single embryo transfer prevents all multiples, but results in significantly lower pregnancy rates compared with double embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Elective single embryo transfer (eSET) in a selected group of patients (i.e. young patients with at least one good quality embryo) reduces the number of multiple pregnancies in an IVF programme. However, the reduced overall multiple pregnancy rate (PR) is still unacceptably high. Therefore, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted comparing eSET and double embryo transfer (DET) in an unselected group of patients (i.e. irrespective of the woman's age or embryo quality). METHODS: Consenting unselected patients were randomized between eSET (RCT-eSET) (n = 154) or DET (RCT-DET) (n = 154). Randomization was performed just prior to the first embryo transfer, provided that at least two 2PN zygotes were available. Non-participants received our standard transfer policy [SP-eSET in a selected group of patients (n = 100), otherwise SP-DET (n = 122)]. RESULTS: The ongoing PR after RCT-eSET was significantly lower as compared with RCT-DET (21.4 versus 40.3%) and the twin PR was reduced from 21.0% after RCT-DET to 0% after RCT-eSET. The ongoing PRs after SP-eSET and SP-DET did not differ significantly (33.0 versus 30.3%), with an overall twin PR of 12.9%. CONCLUSION: To avoid twin pregnancies resulting from an IVF treatment, eSET should be applied in all patients. The consequence would be a halving of the ongoing PR as compared with applying a DET policy in all patients. The transfer of one embryo in a selected group of good prognosis patients leads to a less drastic reduction in PR but maintains a twin PR of 12.9%.

Chromosomally abnormal cells are not selected for the extra-embryonic compartment of the human preimplantation embryo at the blastocyst stage.

BACKGROUND: Although well defined for embryos at cleavage stages, the occurrence and frequency of chromosomal aberrations in human blastocysts is relatively unknown. It has been reported that only one in four blastocysts is comprised totally of chromosomally normal cells. One of the selection mechanisms for the embryo proper to become free of these chromosomally abnormal cells would be to sequester them to the extra-embryonic compartment during development. The study aim was to investigate whether such a mechanism of selection exists in human preimplantation embryos. METHODS: Inner cell mass (ICM)/trophectoderm (TE) differentiation was performed, followed by fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH), to study the chromosomal distribution in both populations of cells. RESULTS: Of the 94 successfully analysed blastocysts, 68.8 +/- 1.5% of all analysable nuclei per blastocyst showed a disomic chromosomal content. Only 22.6% of blastocysts analysed were classified as normal. Of the embryos classified as abnormal at the blastocyst stage, 11.9% showed a simple mosaic pattern and 32.1% a complex mosaic pattern. An equally large group of blastocysts showed either a chaotic pattern (16.7%), or the chromosomal pattern could not be classified. The average degree of normal cells in the ICM (67.9%) was similar to the degree observed in the TE (69.5%). CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that chromosomally abnormal cells are not preferentially segregating to the extra-embryonic compartment of the human preimplantation embryo at the blastocyst stage. Hence, other mechanisms should be responsible for an absence of chromosomally abnormal cells in the embryo proper at later stages of development. One possible mechanism might be the elimination of the chromosomally abnormal cells by selective cell death activation.