4.6 Article

IVF with planned single-embryo transfer versus IUI with ovarian stimulation in couples with unexplained subfertility: an economic analysis

Journal

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
Volume 28, Issue 3, Pages 336-342

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.10.021

Keywords

economic analysis; IUI; IVF; randomized pilot study; single-embryo transfer; unexplained subfertility

Funding

  1. Organon

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Couples with unexplained subfertility are often treated with intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian stimulation, which carries the risk of multiple pregnancies. An explorative randomized controlled trial was performed comparing one cycle of IVF with elective single-embryo transfer (eSET) versus three cycles of IUI-ovarian stimulation in couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, to assess the economic burden of the treatment modalities. The main outcome measures were ongoing pregnancy rates and costs. This study randomly assigned 58 couples to IVF-eSET and 58 couples to IUI-ovarian stimulation. The ongoing pregnancy rates were 24% in with IVF-eSET versus 21% with IUI-ovarian stimulation, with two and three multiple pregnancies, respectively. The mean cost per included couple was significantly different: (sic)2781 with IVF-eSET and (sic)1876 with IUI-ovarian stimulation (P < 0.01). The additional costs per ongoing pregnancy were (sic)2456 for IVF-eSET. In couples with unexplained subfertility, one cycle of IVF-eSET cost an additional (sic)900 per couple compared with three cycles of IUI-ovarian stimulation, for no increase in ongoing pregnancy rates or decrease in multiple pregnancies. When IVF-eSET results in higher ongoing pregnancy rates, IVF would be the preferred treatment. (C) 2013, Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available