The cost-effectiveness of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in the United States: an analysis of cost and birth outcomes from 158,665 in vitro fertilization cycles

BACKGROUND: A controversial and unresolved question in reproductive medicine is the utility of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy as an adjunct to in vitro fertilization. Infertility is prevalent, but its treatment is notoriously expensive and typically not covered by insurance. Therefore, cost-effectiveness is critical to consider in this context. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy for the treatment of infertility in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: As reported to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcomes Reporting System, a national data registry, in vitro fertilization cycles occurring between 2014 and 2016 in the United States were analyzed. A probabilistic decision tree was developed using empirical outputs to simulate the events and outcomes associated with in vitro fertilization with and without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. The treatment strategies were (1) in vitro fertilization with intended preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy and (2) in vitro fertilization with transfers of untested embryos. Patients progressed through the treatment model until they achieved a live birth or 12 months after ovarian stimulation. Clinical costs related to both treatment strategies were extracted from the literature and considered from both the patient and payer perspectives. Outcome metrics included incremental cost (measured in 2018 US dollars), live birth outcomes, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and incremental cost per live birth between treatment strategies. RESULTS: The study population included 114,157 first fresh in vitro fertilization stimulations and 44,508 linked frozen embryo transfer cycles. Of the fresh stimulations, 16.2% intended preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy and 83.8% did not. In patients younger than 35 years old, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy was associated with worse clinical outcomes and higher costs. At age 35 years and older, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy led to more cumulative births but was associated with higher costs from both perspectives. From a patient perspective, the incremental cost per live birth favored the no preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy strategy from the <35 years age group to the 38 years age group and beginning at age 39 years favored preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. From a payer perspective, the incremental cost per live birth favored preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy regardless of patient age. CONCLUSION: The cost-effectiveness of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy is dependent on patient age and perspective. From an economic perspective, routine preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy should not be universally adopted; however, it may be cost-effective in certain scenarios.