更好地了解胚胎植入前遗传筛查和累积生殖结果:转移策略,诊断准确性和成本效益

P. Scriven
{"title":"更好地了解胚胎植入前遗传筛查和累积生殖结果:转移策略,诊断准确性和成本效益","authors":"P. Scriven","doi":"10.3934/genet.2016.3.177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A decision model was constructed to compare genetic testing and not testing, for the transfer of all suitable embryos, one at a time, from a cycle with up to ten embryos, until a first live birth was achieved or there were no more embryos available (a full cycle). Two strategies were investigated: (i) a fresh transfer with subsequent serial warmed cryopreserved embryo replacement, and (ii) freeze-all prior to serial embryo replacement. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effect of embryo warming survival and diagnostic accuracy on cumulative rates. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a live birth event, and a clinical miscarriage avoided. Reproductive outcome probabilities were obtained from published prospective non-selection studies, and costs from websites and publications. Given 100% embryo warming survival and no false abnormal genetic test results, the live birth rate for a full cycle was the same with and without testing for both transfer strategies. Compared to not testing, it was theoretically possible for testing to be favoured for live birth only for the fresh and frozen transfer strategy, where more than one embryo was available, and dependent on the efficiency of warming survival and the positive predictive value of the test; however, this was unlikely to be cost-effective from a society perspective without a substantial reduction in genetic testing costs. For both transfer strategies, when more than one embryo was available, testing was more likely to achieve a live birth event following the first attempt with fewer attempts required overall. Testing was likely to be effective to avoid a clinical miscarriage but also to be expensive from a society perspective compared to the cost of dilation and curettage.","PeriodicalId":43477,"journal":{"name":"AIMS Genetics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards a better understanding of preimplantation genetic screening and cumulative reproductive outcome: transfer strategy, diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness\",\"authors\":\"P. Scriven\",\"doi\":\"10.3934/genet.2016.3.177\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract A decision model was constructed to compare genetic testing and not testing, for the transfer of all suitable embryos, one at a time, from a cycle with up to ten embryos, until a first live birth was achieved or there were no more embryos available (a full cycle). Two strategies were investigated: (i) a fresh transfer with subsequent serial warmed cryopreserved embryo replacement, and (ii) freeze-all prior to serial embryo replacement. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effect of embryo warming survival and diagnostic accuracy on cumulative rates. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a live birth event, and a clinical miscarriage avoided. Reproductive outcome probabilities were obtained from published prospective non-selection studies, and costs from websites and publications. Given 100% embryo warming survival and no false abnormal genetic test results, the live birth rate for a full cycle was the same with and without testing for both transfer strategies. Compared to not testing, it was theoretically possible for testing to be favoured for live birth only for the fresh and frozen transfer strategy, where more than one embryo was available, and dependent on the efficiency of warming survival and the positive predictive value of the test; however, this was unlikely to be cost-effective from a society perspective without a substantial reduction in genetic testing costs. For both transfer strategies, when more than one embryo was available, testing was more likely to achieve a live birth event following the first attempt with fewer attempts required overall. Testing was likely to be effective to avoid a clinical miscarriage but also to be expensive from a society perspective compared to the cost of dilation and curettage.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43477,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AIMS Genetics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-08-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AIMS Genetics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3934/genet.2016.3.177\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AIMS Genetics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3934/genet.2016.3.177","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

构建了一个决策模型来比较基因检测和不检测,对于所有合适的胚胎移植,一次一个,从一个周期最多10个胚胎,直到第一次活产或没有更多的胚胎可用(一个完整的周期)。研究了两种策略:(i)新鲜移植,随后连续加热冷冻保存胚胎置换,(ii)在连续胚胎置换之前全部冷冻。进行敏感性分析以评估胚胎升温存活率和诊断准确性对累积率的影响。成本-效果评估使用增量成本-效果比为活产事件,避免临床流产。生殖结果概率从已发表的前瞻性非选择研究中获得,成本从网站和出版物中获得。在胚胎预热成活率100%且无假异常基因检测结果的情况下,两种移植策略的全周期活产率是相同的。与不进行测试相比,理论上可以只对新鲜和冷冻移植策略进行活产测试,其中有多个胚胎可用,并且依赖于升温存活的效率和测试的积极预测值;然而,从社会的角度来看,如果不大幅降低基因检测费用,这种做法不太可能具有成本效益。对于这两种移植策略,当有一个以上的胚胎可用时,在第一次尝试之后,测试更有可能实现活产事件,总体上需要的尝试次数更少。检测可能是有效的,以避免临床流产,但从社会的角度来看,与扩张和刮宫的费用相比,这是昂贵的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Towards a better understanding of preimplantation genetic screening and cumulative reproductive outcome: transfer strategy, diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness
Abstract A decision model was constructed to compare genetic testing and not testing, for the transfer of all suitable embryos, one at a time, from a cycle with up to ten embryos, until a first live birth was achieved or there were no more embryos available (a full cycle). Two strategies were investigated: (i) a fresh transfer with subsequent serial warmed cryopreserved embryo replacement, and (ii) freeze-all prior to serial embryo replacement. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effect of embryo warming survival and diagnostic accuracy on cumulative rates. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a live birth event, and a clinical miscarriage avoided. Reproductive outcome probabilities were obtained from published prospective non-selection studies, and costs from websites and publications. Given 100% embryo warming survival and no false abnormal genetic test results, the live birth rate for a full cycle was the same with and without testing for both transfer strategies. Compared to not testing, it was theoretically possible for testing to be favoured for live birth only for the fresh and frozen transfer strategy, where more than one embryo was available, and dependent on the efficiency of warming survival and the positive predictive value of the test; however, this was unlikely to be cost-effective from a society perspective without a substantial reduction in genetic testing costs. For both transfer strategies, when more than one embryo was available, testing was more likely to achieve a live birth event following the first attempt with fewer attempts required overall. Testing was likely to be effective to avoid a clinical miscarriage but also to be expensive from a society perspective compared to the cost of dilation and curettage.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
AIMS Genetics
AIMS Genetics GENETICS & HEREDITY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信