ObjectiveInformation on the pregnancy rate after successive in-vitro fertilization
(IVF) cycles and their associated costs is relevant for couples undergoing
assisted reproduction treatments (ARTs). This study, therefore, sought to
investigate the effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of two ARTs, the
minimal ovarian stimulation IVF (MS-IVF) compared to the conventional
ovarian stimulation IVF (C-IVF) from the payer’s perspective.MethodsA 10-months follow-up prospective observational study was conducted in a
sample of couples who sought ARTs in a private clinic in Southern Brazil.
Women had to satisfy the Bologna Criteria and be older than 35 years. The
effect outcome was pregnancy rate per initiated cycle. Medication costs were
based on medical records. Costs and effect differences were estimated using
seemingly unrelated regressions adjusted for the propensity score estimated
based on women’s characteristics.ResultsAll 84 eligible women who agreed to participate received a total of 92 IVF
cycles (MS-IVF, n=27[35 cycles]; C-IVF n=57[57 cycles]. The effect
difference between MS-IVF and C-IVF was -5.1% (95%CI, -13.2 to 5.2).
Medication costs of MS-IVF were significantly lower than C-IVF by €-1260
(95%CI, -1401 to -1118). The probabilities of MS-IVF being cost-effective
compared to C-IVF ranged from 1 to 0.76 for willingness-to-pay of €0 to
€15,000 per established pregnancy, respectively.ConclusionsEven though there were no positive effect differences between groups, MS-IVF
might be cost-effective compared to C-IVF from the payer’s perspective due
to its relatively large cost savings compared to C-IVF. However, further
investigation is needed to confirm these findings in a larger sample.