Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Apr;40(4):793-801.
doi: 10.1007/s10815-023-02738-7. Epub 2023 Feb 9.

Cost-effectiveness of IVF with PGT-M/A to prevent transmission of spinal muscular atrophy in offspring of carrier couples

Arian Khorshid  1 , Alleigh L H Boyd  2 , Barry Behr  2 , Qianying Zhao  2 , Ruben Alvero  2 , Brindha Bavan  2
Affiliations

Cost-effectiveness of IVF with PGT-M/A to prevent transmission of spinal muscular atrophy in offspring of carrier couples

Arian Khorshid et al. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2023 Apr.

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of in-vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy and monogenic disorders (IVF with PGT-M/A) to prevent transmission of spinal muscular atrophy to offspring of carrier couples.

Methods: A decision-analytic model was created to compare the cost-effectiveness of IVF with PGT-M/A to unassisted conception with prenatal diagnostic testing and termination (if applicable). IVF with PGT-M/A costs were determined using a separate Markov state-transition model. IVF outcomes data was derived from 76 carriers of monogenic disorders who underwent IVF with PGT-M/A at a single academic REI center. Other probabilities, costs, and utilities were derived from the literature. Costs were modeled from healthcare perspective. Utilities were modeled from the parental perspective as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for IVF with PGT-M/A compared to unassisted conception is $22,050 per quality-adjusted life-year. The average cost of IVF with PGT-M/A is $41,002 (SD: $8,355). At willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000, IVF with PGT-M/A is cost-effective 93.3% and 99.5% of the time, respectively.

Conclusions: Compared to unassisted conception, IVF with PGT-M/A is cost-effective for preventing the transmission of spinal muscular atrophy to the offspring of carrier couples. These findings support insurance coverage of IVF with PGT-M/A for carriers of spinal muscular atrophy.

Keywords: Cost-effectiveness; IVF; PGTA; PGTM; Spinal muscular atrophy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Cost-effectiveness of IVF with PGT-M/A vs unassisted conception model diagram. The “M” process node is a Markov state transition that computes the annual parental healthcare costs including the costs of raising a child affected with SMA (if applicable) and the accumulated utility penalties over the simulated lifetime of the parent
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
IVF with PGT-M/A cost model diagram. Success/failure of IVF defined as having retrieved eggs and then embryos available for PGT. Simulated patients undergo up to three IVF cycles and up to three embryo transfers per IVF cycle
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Acceptability curve for willingness-to-pay (WTP). At a WTP of $22,950, IVF with PGT-M/A becomes cost-effective compared to unassisted conception. At WTP above $50,000, IVF with PGT-M/A is cost-effective in 93.3% of the 10,000 model iterations. At WTP above $100,000, IVF with PGT-M/A is cost-effective in 99.5% of the 10,000 model iterations
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Incremental cost and effectiveness scatterplot showing all 10,000 model iterations. The circle delineates the 95% confidence region. IVF with PGT-M/A is more effective and more costly in all iterations. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) line plots the WTP as the slope of the line; all data points below/to the right of the line favor IVF with PGT-M/A as the cost-effective option while those above/to the left of the WTP line favor unassisted conception.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. BT D. Spinal muscular atrophies. Pediatr Clin North Am [Internet]. Pediatr Clin North Am; 2015 [cited 2021 Aug 17];62:743–66. Available from: https://pubmed-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.laneproxy.stanford.edu/26022173/ - PubMed
    1. Droege M, Sproule D, Arjunji R, Gauthier-Loiselle M, Cloutier M, Dabbous O. Economic burden of spinal muscular atrophy in the United States: a contemporary assessment. J Med Econ [Internet]. Taylor and Francis Ltd; 2020 [cited 2020 Nov 19];23:70–9 10.1080/13696998.2019.1646263 - PubMed
    1. Landfeldt E, Edström J, Sejersen T, Tulinius M, Lochmüller H, Kirschner J. Quality of life of patients with spinal muscular atrophy: a systematic review. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. W.B. Saunders Ltd; 2019;23:347–56. - PubMed
    1. Chaytow H, Huang YT, Gillingwater TH, Faller KME. The role of survival motor neuron protein (SMN) in protein homeostasis. Cell Mol Life Sci [Internet]. Springer; 2018 [cited 2022 Dec 28];75:3877. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC6182345/ - PMC - PubMed
    1. Prior TW, Leach ME, Finanger E. Spinal Muscular Atrophy. GeneReviews® [Internet]. University of Washington, Seattle; 2020 [cited 2021 Aug 17]; Available from: https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.laneproxy.stanford.edu/books/NBK1352/ - PubMed