Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing continuation of assisted reproductive technology with conversion to intrauterine insemination in patients with low follicle numbers

Economic evaluations of assisted reproductive technologies in high-income countries: a systematic review

STUDY QUESTION

Which assited reproductive technology (ART) interventions in high-income countries are cost-effective and which are not?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Among all ART interventions assessed in economic evaluations, most high-cost interventions, including preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) for a general population and ICSI for unexplained infertility, are unlikely to be cost-effective owing to minimal or no increase in effectiveness.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Approaches to reduce costs in order to increase access have been identified as a research priority for future infertility research. There has been an increasing number of ART interventions implemented in routine clinical practice globally, before robust assessments of evidence on economic evaluations. The extent of clinical effectiveness of some studied comparisons has been evaluated in high-quality research, allowing more informative decision making around cost-effectiveness.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We performed a systematic review and searched seven databases (MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE, ECONLIT, SCOPUS, and CINAHL) for studies examining ART interventions for infertility together with an economic evaluation component (cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, cost-utility, or cost-minimization assessment), in high-income countries, published since January 2011. The last search was 22 June 2022.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Two independent reviewers assessed publications and included those fulfilling the eligibility criteria. Studies were examined to assess the cost-effectiveness of the studied intervention, as well as the reporting quality of the study. The chosen outcome measure and payer perspective were also noted. Completeness of reporting was assessed against the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard. Results are presented and summarized based on the intervention studied.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The review included 40 studies which were conducted in 11 high-income countries. Most studies (n = 34) included a cost-effectiveness analysis. ART interventions included medication or strategies for controlled ovarian stimulation (n = 15), IVF (n = 9), PGT-A (n = 7), single embryo transfer (n = 5), ICSI (n = 3), and freeze-all embryo transfer (n = 1). Live birth was the mostly commonly reported primary outcome (n = 27), and quality-adjusted life years was reported in three studies. The health funder perspective was used in 85% (n = 34) of studies. None of the included studies measured patient preference for treatment. It remains uncertain whether PGT-A improves pregnancy rates compared to IVF cycles managed without PGT-A, and therefore cost-effectiveness could not be demonstrated for this intervention. Similarly, ICSI in non-male factor infertility appears not to be clinically effective compared to standard fertilization in an IVF cycle and is therefore not cost-effective. Interventions such as use of biosimilars or HMG for ovarian stimulation are cheaper but compromise clinical effectiveness.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Lack of both preference-based and standardized outcomes limits the comparability of results across studies. The selection of efficacy evidence offered for some interventions for economic evaluations is not always based on high-quality randomized trials and systematic reviews. In addition, there is insufficient knowledge of the willingness to pay thresholds of individuals and state funders for treatment of infertility. There is variable quality of reporting scores, which might increase uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness results.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Investment in strategies to help infertile people who utilize ART is justifiable at both personal and population levels. This systematic review may assist ART funders decide how to best invest to maximize the likelihood of delivery of a healthy child.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

There was no funding for this study. E.C. and R.W. receive salary support from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) through their fellowship scheme (EC GNT1159536, RW 2021/GNT2009767). M.D.-T. reports consulting fees from King Fahad Medical School. All other authors have no competing interests to declare.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

Prospero CRD42021261537.

Economics of Fertility Care

Family building is a human right. The high cost and lack of insurance coverage associated with fertility treatments in the United States have made treatment inaccessible for many patients. The universal uptake of "add-on" services has further contributed to high out-of-pocket costs. Expansion in access to infertility care has occurred in several states through implementation of insurance mandates, and more employers are offering fertility benefits to attract and retain employees. An understanding of the economic issues shaping fertility should inform future policies aimed at promoting evidence-based practices and improving access to care in the United States.

Economic Evaluation of Medically Assisted Reproduction: A Methodological Systematic Review

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.

Diminished ovarian reserve in the United States assisted reproductive technology population: diagnostic trends among 181,536 cycles from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcomes Reporting System

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate trends in diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) assignment in the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) Clinic Outcomes Reporting System database and to evaluate its accuracy in predicting poor ovarian response (POR) as defined in European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology's Bologna criteria (2011).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 181,536 fresh, autologous ART cycles reported to SART by U.S. clinics in 2004 and 2011 (earliest and most recent available reporting years).

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

DOR assignment was the primary exposure. POR, defined as cycle cancellation for poor response or less than 4 oocytes retrieved after conventional gonadotropin stimulation (>149 IU FSH daily), was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were live birth and number of oocytes retrieved. DOR prevalence, power of DOR and FSH (</≥12 mIU/mL) to predict POR, and live birth in POR cycles were also calculated.

RESULT(S)

DOR prevalence increased from 19% to 26% from 2004 to 2011. Among cycles clinically assigned as DOR, incidence of POR decreased from 32% to 30%, and live birth improved from 15% to 17%. Comparing basal FSH ≥12 versus clinical assignment of DOR, basal FSH had a higher specificity (92.2% vs. 81.6%) and positive predictive value (38.3% vs. 30.9%) for predicting POR. Live birth among POR cycles was 4%.

CONCLUSION(S)

DOR diagnosis is increasing, and accuracy remains poor, despite the availability of additional diagnostic parameters such as antral follicle count and antimüllerian hormone. POR entailed poor outcomes, but the majority of patients clinically assigned as DOR did not experience POR. Development and use of more accurate predictors of POR are needed to minimize patient distress resulting from overdiagnosis.