1
|
Van Muylder A, D'Hooghe T, Luyten J. Economic Evaluation of Medically Assisted Reproduction: A Methodological Systematic Review. Med Decis Making 2023; 43:973-991. [PMID: 37621143 DOI: 10.1177/0272989x231188129] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/26/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Medically assisted reproduction (MAR) is a challenging application area for health economic evaluations, entailing a broad range of costs and outcomes, stretching out long-term and accruing to several parties. PURPOSE To systematically review which costs and outcomes are included in published economic evaluations of MAR and to compare these with health technology assessment (HTA) prescriptions about which cost and outcomes should be considered for different evaluation objectives. DATA SOURCES HTA guidelines and systematic searches of PubMed Central, Embase, WOS CC, CINAHL, Cochrane (CENTRAL), HTA, and NHS EED. STUDY SELECTION All economic evaluations of MAR published from 2010 to 2022. DATA EXTRACTION A predetermined data collection form summarized study characteristics. Essential costs and outcomes of MAR were listed based on HTA and treatment guidelines for different evaluation objectives. For each study, included costs and outcomes were reviewed. DATA SYNTHESIS The review identified 93 cost-effectiveness estimates, of which 57% were expressed as cost-per-(healthy)-live-birth, 19% as cost-per-pregnancy, and 47% adopted a clinic perspective. Few adopted societal perspectives and only 2% used quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Broader evaluations omitted various relevant costs and outcomes related to MAR. There are several cost and outcome categories for which available HTA guidelines do not provide conclusive directions regarding inclusion or exclusion. LIMITATIONS Studies published before 2010 and of interventions not clearly labeled as MAR were excluded. We focus on methods rather than which MAR treatments are cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS Economic evaluations of MAR typically calculate a short-term cost-per-live-birth from a clinic perspective. Broader analyses, using cost-per-QALY or BCRs from societal perspectives, considering the full scope of reproduction-related costs and outcomes, are scarce and often incomplete. We provide a summary of costs and outcomes for future research guidance and identify areas requiring HTA methodological development. HIGHLIGHTS The cost-effectiveness of MAR procedures can be exceptionally complex to estimate as there is a broad range of costs and outcomes involved, in principle stretching out over multiple generations and over many stakeholders.We list 21 key areas of costs and outcomes of MAR. Which of these needs to be accounted for alters for different evaluation objectives (determined by the type of economic evaluation, time horizon considered, and perspective).Published studies mostly investigate cost-effectiveness in the very short-term, from a clinic perspective, expressed as cost-per-live-birth. There is a lack of comprehensive economic evaluations that adopt a broader perspective with a longer time horizon. The broader the evaluation objective, the more relevant costs and outcomes were excluded.For several costs and outcomes, particularly those relevant for broader, societal evaluations of MAR, the inclusion or exclusion is theoretically ambiguous, and HTA guidelines do not offer sufficient guidance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Astrid Van Muylder
- Department Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (AVM, JL); Research Group Reproductive Medicine, Department of Development and Regeneration, Organ Systems, Group Biomedical Sciences, KU Leuven (University of Leuven), Belgium (TD); Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA (TD); Global Medical Affairs Fertility, Research and Development, Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (TD). The review was written at the Leuven Institute for Healthcare Policy. It was presented at the ESHRE 38th Annual Meeting (Milan 2022). The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Astrid Van Muylder and Jeroen Luyten have no conflicting interests to declare. The participation of Thomas D'Hooghe to this publication is part of his academic work; he does not see a conflict of interest as Merck KGaA was not involved in writing this article. The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We acknowledge an internal funding from KU Leuven for this study. The funding agreement ensured the authors' independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. The following authors are employed by the sponsor: Astrid Van Muylder and Jeroen Luyten
| | - Thomas D'Hooghe
- Department Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (AVM, JL); Research Group Reproductive Medicine, Department of Development and Regeneration, Organ Systems, Group Biomedical Sciences, KU Leuven (University of Leuven), Belgium (TD); Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA (TD); Global Medical Affairs Fertility, Research and Development, Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (TD). The review was written at the Leuven Institute for Healthcare Policy. It was presented at the ESHRE 38th Annual Meeting (Milan 2022). The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Astrid Van Muylder and Jeroen Luyten have no conflicting interests to declare. The participation of Thomas D'Hooghe to this publication is part of his academic work; he does not see a conflict of interest as Merck KGaA was not involved in writing this article. The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We acknowledge an internal funding from KU Leuven for this study. The funding agreement ensured the authors' independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. The following authors are employed by the sponsor: Astrid Van Muylder and Jeroen Luyten
| | - Jeroen Luyten
- Department Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (AVM, JL); Research Group Reproductive Medicine, Department of Development and Regeneration, Organ Systems, Group Biomedical Sciences, KU Leuven (University of Leuven), Belgium (TD); Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA (TD); Global Medical Affairs Fertility, Research and Development, Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (TD). The review was written at the Leuven Institute for Healthcare Policy. It was presented at the ESHRE 38th Annual Meeting (Milan 2022). The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Astrid Van Muylder and Jeroen Luyten have no conflicting interests to declare. The participation of Thomas D'Hooghe to this publication is part of his academic work; he does not see a conflict of interest as Merck KGaA was not involved in writing this article. The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We acknowledge an internal funding from KU Leuven for this study. The funding agreement ensured the authors' independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. The following authors are employed by the sponsor: Astrid Van Muylder and Jeroen Luyten
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lai JD, Fantus RJ, Meza JA, Hudnall MT, Pham M, Brannigan RE, Ghomrawi HMK, Halpern JA. Cost-effectiveness of early screening home semen analysis in couples attempting to conceive. Urology 2022; 170:104-110. [PMID: 36115433 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2022.06.053] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2022] [Revised: 05/31/2022] [Accepted: 06/27/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To study the cost-effectiveness of incorporating home semen analysis in screening for oligospermia and expediting time to evaluation. METHODS A decision analytic model was built using inputs from the medical literature. The index patient is the male partner in a couple seeking fertility, and entry into the model was assumed to be at the inception of the couple's attempts to conceive via natural means. Three main strategies are described and analyzed: 1) baseline strategy of no testing; 2) utilization of a home semen testing kit; 3) universal testing via a clinic visit and gold standard lab semen analysis. The primary outcome was detection of oligospermia (defined as sperm concentration < 15mil/mL). Strategies were ranked by months to evaluation by a male infertility specialist saved. Costs were considered from the patient perspective and were incorporated to determine the incremental cost per month saved to evaluation (ICMS) per 100,000 patients. RESULTS Compared to a baseline strategy of no screening, utilizing a home test would save 89,000 months at the incremental cost of $7,418,000 for an ICMS of $45.51. Shifting to a strategy of universal gold standard clinic and lab testing saves an additional 3,000 months but at an ICMS of $17,691 compared to the home testing strategy. CONCLUSIONS Widespread adoption and early usage of home semen analysis may be a cost-effective method of screening for oligospermia and facilitating further evaluation with an andrology specialist.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeremy D Lai
- Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago IL,.
| | | | - Julio A Meza
- Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago IL
| | - Matthew T Hudnall
- Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago IL
| | - Minh Pham
- Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago IL
| | - Robert E Brannigan
- Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago IL
| | - Hassan M K Ghomrawi
- Departments of Surgery; Department of Pediatrics; Department of Medicine (Rheumatology); Center for Health Services and Outcomes Research, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago IL
| | - Joshua A Halpern
- Department of Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago IL
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Gonen LD, Bokek-Cohen Y, Azuri P, Tarabeih M. Differential Willingness to Pay for Kidney Transplantation From Living and Deceased Donors: Empirical Study Among End-Stage Kidney Disease (ESKD) Patients. INQUIRY : A JOURNAL OF MEDICAL CARE ORGANIZATION, PROVISION AND FINANCING 2022; 59:469580221139368. [PMID: 36484339 DOI: 10.1177/00469580221139368] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Kidney transplantation has developed to the stage where it is currently the most cost-effective treatment for patients suffering from end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and, when available, offers them the highest quality of life. Yet, kidney transplantation is challenged by cultural and traditional beliefs; thus, this study sought to evaluate the willingness to pay for a kidney transplant in a culturally sensitive population. A self-administered survey was completed by 734 end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients. A quantitative method and survey design were chosen and employed descriptive, correlational, nonparametric, and multivariate statistical tests. Participants were willing to pay a mean amount of $40 751.36 for a living donor kidney transplant, whereas the mean is considerably lower, $18 350.51, for a deceased donor kidney. Significant predictors of the willingness to pay (WTP) for a kidney transplant from a living donor and a deceased donor were found, among them: religiosity and ethnicity. The participants' willingness to pay for a kidney transplant could attest to significant benefits in enhancing patient well-being. The willingness to pay differentially for a donation from a deceased or a living donor stems from the higher chances of success with a living-donor organ as well as from moral and religious motives. In Israel kidney transplantation is not tradable in the free market and is fully funded by the state. The average cost of kidney transplantation in Israel is $61 714.50. Since the cost exceeds the utility and since the economic literature suggests that the funding of healthcare interventions should be provided up to the point where the costs of that funding equal the benefits that society derives from it, crucial revisions in public health policy should be made. Education may have a significant impact on the approach to kidney donation and organ donation in general.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Limor Dina Gonen
- Department of Economics and Business Administration, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel
| | - Ya'arit Bokek-Cohen
- Department of behavioral sciences, Academic College of Israel, Ramat-Gan, Israel
| | - Pazit Azuri
- Tel Aviv-Yafo Academic College, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Mahdi Tarabeih
- School of Nursing Science, Tel Aviv-Yafo Academic College, Tel Aviv, Israel
| |
Collapse
|