Comparing gestational carrier with uterine transplantation in uterine-factor infertility: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

IF 6.6 1区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Fertility and sterility Pub Date : 2025-01-22 DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.01.012
Joshua C Combs, Meghan U Yamasaki, Maura Dougherty, Kiley Hunkler, Elizabeth B Osmundsen, Jaime Roura-Monllor, Robert J Stillman, Micah J Hill, Kate Devine, Alan H DeCherney, Richard E Nelson, Jeanne E O'Brien
{"title":"Comparing gestational carrier with uterine transplantation in uterine-factor infertility: a cost-effectiveness analysis.","authors":"Joshua C Combs, Meghan U Yamasaki, Maura Dougherty, Kiley Hunkler, Elizabeth B Osmundsen, Jaime Roura-Monllor, Robert J Stillman, Micah J Hill, Kate Devine, Alan H DeCherney, Richard E Nelson, Jeanne E O'Brien","doi":"10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.01.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the cost-effectiveness of a gestational carrier (GC) to a uterine transplantation (UTX) in the treatment of absolute uterine-factor infertility.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision-tree mathematical model comparing a GC with a UTX.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>Published literature was used to derive costs for solid organ transplant, immunosuppression, GC obtainment, in vitro fertilization, preimplantation genetic testing, and frozen embryo transfer (FET).</p><p><strong>Exposure: </strong>Gestational modality: GC or UTX. We assumed graft failures occurred immediately and FETs at least 6 months after transplant.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measure(s): </strong>The primary outcomes were costs per live birth, number of children born, and quality-adjusted life years for each gestational modality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Uterine transplantation was more expensive than a GC by $1.4 million with a lower utility by 23.74 quality-adjusted life years using the same average number of children born per 2 FETs. After 10,000 simulated iterations, the GC arm had 2 children born 42% of the time, compared with only 17% of the time in the UTX arm. No children were born 56% of the time in the UTX arm vs. 16% for the GC arm. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity variance of all cost parameters by ±75% ($39,292-$275,044 for GC vs. $390,761-$2,735,329 for UTX) and other input parameters by ±20%, including graft failure (21%-31%) and live birth per embryo transfer (29%-78%), produced the same outcomes in >99% of scenarios simulated, as did variation in immunosuppression time (2-18 months) between delivery and subsequent FET. UTX was no longer absolutely dominated if the probability of a live birth per transfer using UTX increased beyond 85%, startup cost for UTX decreased to <$13,646.28, or GC costs increased to >$359,200.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our model suggests that GC use is currently more cost effective than UTX for treating absolute uterine-factor infertility. However, the desire to carry one's own child is an intangible factor not captured in cost analyses, and improvements in UTX success rates or reduced costs may alter these results in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":12275,"journal":{"name":"Fertility and sterility","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fertility and sterility","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.01.012","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness of a gestational carrier (GC) to a uterine transplantation (UTX) in the treatment of absolute uterine-factor infertility.

Design: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision-tree mathematical model comparing a GC with a UTX.

Subjects: Published literature was used to derive costs for solid organ transplant, immunosuppression, GC obtainment, in vitro fertilization, preimplantation genetic testing, and frozen embryo transfer (FET).

Exposure: Gestational modality: GC or UTX. We assumed graft failures occurred immediately and FETs at least 6 months after transplant.

Main outcome measure(s): The primary outcomes were costs per live birth, number of children born, and quality-adjusted life years for each gestational modality.

Results: Uterine transplantation was more expensive than a GC by $1.4 million with a lower utility by 23.74 quality-adjusted life years using the same average number of children born per 2 FETs. After 10,000 simulated iterations, the GC arm had 2 children born 42% of the time, compared with only 17% of the time in the UTX arm. No children were born 56% of the time in the UTX arm vs. 16% for the GC arm. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity variance of all cost parameters by ±75% ($39,292-$275,044 for GC vs. $390,761-$2,735,329 for UTX) and other input parameters by ±20%, including graft failure (21%-31%) and live birth per embryo transfer (29%-78%), produced the same outcomes in >99% of scenarios simulated, as did variation in immunosuppression time (2-18 months) between delivery and subsequent FET. UTX was no longer absolutely dominated if the probability of a live birth per transfer using UTX increased beyond 85%, startup cost for UTX decreased to <$13,646.28, or GC costs increased to >$359,200.

Conclusions: Our model suggests that GC use is currently more cost effective than UTX for treating absolute uterine-factor infertility. However, the desire to carry one's own child is an intangible factor not captured in cost analyses, and improvements in UTX success rates or reduced costs may alter these results in the future.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Fertility and sterility
Fertility and sterility 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
6.00%
发文量
1446
审稿时长
31 days
期刊介绍: Fertility and Sterility® is an international journal for obstetricians, gynecologists, reproductive endocrinologists, urologists, basic scientists and others who treat and investigate problems of infertility and human reproductive disorders. The journal publishes juried original scientific articles in clinical and laboratory research relevant to reproductive endocrinology, urology, andrology, physiology, immunology, genetics, contraception, and menopause. Fertility and Sterility® encourages and supports meaningful basic and clinical research, and facilitates and promotes excellence in professional education, in the field of reproductive medicine.
期刊最新文献
Fertility and Sterility top videos from 2022. The Strength of Certainty and the Power of Words. Assisted hatching decreases pregnancy outcomes in vitrified donor oocytes. The Y chromosome: male reproduction and beyond. Variable Adoption of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome-Related Infertility Guidelines in the United States: A Retrospective Cohort and Survey Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1