Modified natural cycle in vitro fertilization an alternative in vitro fertilization treatment with lower costs per achieved pregnancy but longer treatment time

OBJECTIVE To analyze the cost and time requirement per achieved pregnancy in optimized modified natural cycle in vitro fertilization (mNC-IVF) based on a treatment protocol with very few consultations and to compare those with conventional gonadotropin-stimulated aVF (clVF) cycles. STUDY DESIGN Mono centric prospective trial. Eighty infertile patients each received 1 modified mNC-IVF cycle using low doses of the clomiphene citrate. Based on the number of consultations and the clinical pregnancy rate per cycle, the total costs and required time to achieve a pregnancy were analyzed and compared with cIVF. Calculations for cIVF were based on standard therapy protocols and outcomes of European registries. RESULTS Patients (21-42 years old, 35.4 +/- 4.7 years) undergoing mNC-IVF required on average 1.2 consultations before follicle aspiration. Pregnancy rate per transfer and per initiated cycle were 25% and 13.6%, respectively. Multiple pregnancies did not occur. According to the calculations, total costs per pregnancy rate were around 15% lower with mNC-IVF as compared to cIVF. In contrast, time to achieve an equal pregnancy rate was calculated to take around 30% longer with mNC-IVF as compared to cIVF. CONCLUSION mNC-IVF using very low dosages of clomiphene citrate avoids multiple pregnancies and is less expensive but more time consuming per achieved pregnancy when compared to clVF.

Dexmedetomidine versus standard care sedation with propofol or midazolam in intensive care: an economic evaluation.

INTRODUCTION Dexmedetomidine was shown in two European randomized double-blind double-dummy trials (PRODEX and MIDEX) to be non-inferior to propofol and midazolam in maintaining target sedation levels in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Additionally, dexmedetomidine shortened the time to extubation versus both standard sedatives, suggesting that it may reduce ICU resource needs and thus lower ICU costs. Considering resource utilization data from these two trials, we performed a secondary, cost-minimization analysis assessing the economics of dexmedetomidine versus standard care sedation. METHODS The total ICU costs associated with each study sedative were calculated on the basis of total study sedative consumption and the number of days patients remained intubated, required non-invasive ventilation, or required ICU care without mechanical ventilation. The daily unit costs for these three consecutive ICU periods were set to decline toward discharge, reflecting the observed reduction in mean daily Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (TISS) points between the periods. A number of additional sensitivity analyses were performed, including one in which the total ICU costs were based on the cumulative sum of daily TISS points over the ICU period, and two further scenarios, with declining direct variable daily costs only. RESULTS Based on pooled data from both trials, sedation with dexmedetomidine resulted in lower total ICU costs than using the standard sedatives, with a difference of €2,656 in the median (interquartile range) total ICU costs-€11,864 (€7,070 to €23,457) versus €14,520 (€7,871 to €26,254)-and €1,649 in the mean total ICU costs. The median (mean) total ICU costs with dexmedetomidine compared with those of propofol or midazolam were €1,292 (€747) and €3,573 (€2,536) lower, respectively. The result was robust, indicating lower costs with dexmedetomidine in all sensitivity analyses, including those in which only direct variable ICU costs were considered. The likelihood of dexmedetomidine resulting in lower total ICU costs compared with pooled standard care was 91.0% (72.4% versus propofol and 98.0% versus midazolam). CONCLUSIONS From an economic point of view, dexmedetomidine appears to be a preferable option compared with standard sedatives for providing light to moderate ICU sedation exceeding 24 hours. The savings potential results primarily from shorter time to extubation. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00479661 (PRODEX), NCT00481312 (MIDEX).

Calibrating a CGE model with NTBs that Incorporates Standard Models of Modern Trade Theory

We propose a way to incorporate NTBs for the four workhorse models of the modern trade literature in computable general equilibrium models (CGEs). CGE models feature intermediate linkages and thus allow us to study global value chains (GVCs). We show that the Ethier-Krugman monopolistic competition model, the Melitz firm heterogeneity model and the Eaton and Kortum model can be defined as an Armington model with generalized marginal costs, generalized trade costs and a demand externality. As already known in the literature in both the Ethier-Krugman model and the Melitz model generalized marginal costs are a function of the amount of factor input bundles. In the Melitz model generalized marginal costs are also a function of the price of the factor input bundles. Lower factor prices raise the number of firms that can enter the market profitably (extensive margin), reducing generalized marginal costs of a representative firm. For the same reason the Melitz model features a demand externality: in a larger market more firms can enter. We implement the different models in a CGE setting with multiple sectors, intermediate linkages, non-homothetic preferences and detailed data on trade costs. We find the largest welfare effects from trade cost reductions in the Melitz model. We also employ the Melitz model to mimic changes in Non tariff Barriers (NTBs) with a fixed cost-character by analysing the effect of changes in fixed trade costs. While we work here with a model calibrated to the GTAP database, the methods developed can also be applied to CGE models based on the WIOD database.