1
|
Fauser BCJM, Adamson GD, Boivin J, Chambers GM, de Geyter C, Dyer S, Inhorn MC, Schmidt L, Serour GI, Tarlatzis B, Zegers-Hochschild F. Declining global fertility rates and the implications for family planning and family building: an IFFS consensus document based on a narrative review of the literature. Hum Reprod Update 2024; 30:153-173. [PMID: 38197291 PMCID: PMC10905510 DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmad028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 45.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/14/2023] [Revised: 09/25/2023] [Indexed: 01/11/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Family-planning policies have focused on contraceptive approaches to avoid unintended pregnancies, postpone, or terminate pregnancies and mitigate population growth. These policies have contributed to significantly slowing world population growth. Presently, half the countries worldwide exhibit a fertility rate below replacement level. Not including the effects of migration, many countries are predicted to have a population decline of >50% from 2017 to 2100, causing demographic changes with profound societal implications. Policies that optimize chances to have a child when desired increase fertility rates and are gaining interest as a family-building method. Increasingly, countries have implemented child-friendly policies (mainly financial incentives in addition to public funding of fertility treatment in a limited number of countries) to mitigate decreasing national populations. However, the extent of public spending on child benefits varies greatly from country to country. To our knowledge, this International Federation of Fertility Societies (IFFS) consensus document represents the first attempt to describe major disparities in access to fertility care in the context of the global trend of decreasing growth in the world population, based on a narrative review of the existing literature. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE The concept of family building, the process by which individuals or couples create or expand their families, has been largely ignored in family-planning paradigms. Family building encompasses various methods and options for individuals or couples who wish to have children. It can involve biological means, such as natural conception, as well as ART, surrogacy, adoption, and foster care. Family-building acknowledges the diverse ways in which individuals or couples can create their desired family and reflects the understanding that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to building a family. Developing education programs for young adults to increase family-building awareness and prevent infertility is urgently needed. Recommendations are provided and important knowledge gaps identified to provide professionals, the public, and policymakers with a comprehensive understanding of the role of child-friendly policies. SEARCH METHODS A narrative review of the existing literature was performed by invited global leaders who themselves significantly contributed to this research field. Each section of the review was prepared by two to three experts, each of whom searched the published literature (PubMed) for peer reviewed full papers and reviews. Sections were discussed monthly by all authors and quarterly by the review board. The final document was prepared following discussions among all team members during a hybrid invitational meeting where full consensus was reached. OUTCOMES Major advances in fertility care have dramatically improved family-building opportunities since the 1990s. Although up to 10% of all children are born as a result of fertility care in some wealthy countries, there is great variation in access to care. The high cost to patients of infertility treatment renders it unaffordable for most. Preliminary studies point to the increasing contribution of fertility care to the global population and the associated economic benefits for society. WIDER IMPLICATIONS Fertility care has rarely been discussed in the context of a rapid decrease in world population growth. Soon, most countries will have an average number of children per woman far below the replacement level. While this may have a beneficial impact on the environment, underpopulation is of great concern in many countries. Although governments have implemented child-friendly policies, distinct discrepancies in access to fertility care remain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bart C J M Fauser
- University Medical Center Utrecht, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | - Silke Dyer
- Groot Schuur Hospital and Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
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
|
3
|
Darvishi A, Goudarzi R, Zadeh VH, Barouni M. Cost-benefit Analysis of IUI and IVF based on willingness to pay approach; case study: Iran. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0231584. [PMID: 32663214 PMCID: PMC7360055 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231584] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/07/2019] [Accepted: 03/27/2020] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) are often considered luxury services by policy-makers and the general population, which are always susceptible of removal from public funding of health care. The analysis of the economic aspects of this scope seems essential due to the high prevalence of infertility in Iran and the high costs of infertility treatments. This study aimed to investigate the value put on IUI and IVF treatments by communities in Iran and the affordability of services based on community preferences. A cost-benefit analysis (CBA) was performed based on the WTP approach, and the contingent valuation method (CVM) was used to estimate WTP for IUI and IVF using a researcher-made survey in two cities of Kerman and Isfahan, Iran, in 2016–17. The sample size was 604, and the study sample frame to estimate WTP included two groups of couples who were/were not aware of their fertility statuses. The costs of one cycle of IUI and IVF were calculated according to the treatment protocols, tariffs of 2016–17, and medical information records of patients. The mean direct and indirect medical costs of one cycle of IUI and IVF were equivalent to 19561140 and 60897610 IRR, respectively. Also, the mean WTP for IUI and IVF treatments were obtained of 15941061 and 28870833 IRR, respectively. The demand for IUI and IVF treatments was elastic and the community was sensitive to price changes of these treatment methods. IUI and IVF treatments brought no positive net benefits, and economic variables had the highest impact on the WTP and community preferences, indicating the significant role of financial constraints in the community's valuation for advanced infertility treatments in Iran.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ali Darvishi
- Students’ Scientific Research Center (SSRC), Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS), Tehran, Iran
- Department of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Reza Goudarzi
- Health Services Management Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
- * E-mail:
| | - Viktoria Habib Zadeh
- Afzalipour Clinical Center for Infertility, Afzalipour Hospital, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
| | - Mohsen Barouni
- Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
van Heesch MMJ, van Asselt ADI, Evers JLH, van der Hoeven MAHBM, Dumoulin JCM, van Beijsterveldt CEM, Bonsel GJ, Dykgraaf RHM, van Goudoever JB, Koopman-Esseboom C, Nelen WLDM, Steiner K, Tamminga P, Tonch N, Torrance HL, Dirksen CD. Cost-effectiveness of embryo transfer strategies: a decision analytic model using long-term costs and consequences of singletons and multiples born as a consequence of IVF. Hum Reprod 2016; 31:2527-2540. [PMID: 27907897 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dew229] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/03/2014] [Revised: 05/21/2016] [Accepted: 06/10/2016] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION What is the cost-effectiveness of elective single embryo transfer (eSET) versus double embryo transfer (DET) strategies from a societal perspective, when applying a time horizon of 1, 5 and 18 years? SUMMARY ANSWER From a short-term perspective (1 year) it is cost-effective to replace DET with single embryo transfer; however when intermediate- (5 years) and long-term (18 years) costs and consequences are incorporated, DET becomes the most cost-effective strategy, given a ceiling ratio of €20 000 per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN According to previous cost-effectiveness research into embryo transfer strategies, DET is considered cost-effective if society is willing to pay around €20 000 for an extra live birth. However, interpretation of those studies is complicated, as those studies fail to incorporate long-term costs and outcomes and used live birth as a measure of effectiveness instead of QALYs. With this outcome, both multiple and singletons were valued as one live birth, whereas costs of all children of a multiple were incorporated. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A Markov model (cycle length: 1 year; time horizon: 1, 5 and 18 years) was developed comparing a maximum of: (i) three cycles of eSET in all patients; (ii) four cycles of eSET in all patients; (iii) five cycles of eSET in all patients; (iv) three cycles of standard treatment policy (STP), i.e. eSET in women <38 years with a good quality embryo, and DET in all other women; and (v) three cycles of DET in all patients. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Expected life years (LYs), child QALYs and costs were estimated for all comparators. Input parameters were derived from a retrospective cohort study, in which hospital resource data were collected (n=580) and a parental questionnaire was sent out (431 respondents). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (5000 iterations) was performed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE With a time horizon of 18 years, DETx3 is most effective (0.54 live births, 10.2 LYs and 9.8 QALYs) and expensive (€37 871) per couple starting IVF. Three cycles of eSET are least effective (0.43 live births, 7.1 LYs and 6.8 QALYs) and expensive (€25 563). We assumed that society is willing to pay €20 000 per QALY gained. With a time horizon of 1 year, eSETx3 was the most cost-effective embryo transfer strategy with a probability of being cost-effective of 99.9%. With a time horizon of 5 or 18 years, DETx3 was most cost-effective, with probabilities of being cost-effective of 77.3 and 93.2%, respectively. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION This is the first study to use QALYs generated by the children in the economic evaluation of embryo transfer strategies. There remains some disagreement on whether QALYs generated by new life should be used in economic evaluations of fertility treatment. A further limitation is that treatment ends when it results in live birth and that only child QALYs were considered as measure of effectiveness. The results for the time horizon of 18 years might be less solid, as the data beyond the age of 8 years are based on extrapolation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The current Markov model indicates that when child QALYs are used as measure of outcome it is not cost-effective on the long term to replace DET with single embryo transfer strategies. However, for a balanced approach, a family-planning perspective would be preferable, including additional treatment cycles for couples who wish to have another child. Furthermore, the analysis should be extended to include QALYs of family members. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS This study was supported by a research grant (grant number 80-82310-98-09094) from the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw). There are no conflicts of interest in connection with this article. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Not applicable.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M M J van Heesch
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Center, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - A D I van Asselt
- Department of Pharmacy, University of Groningen, Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV Groningen, The Netherlands.,Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - J L H Evers
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maastricht University Medical Center, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands.,GROW, School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - M A H B M van der Hoeven
- Department of Neonatology, Maastricht University Medical Center, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - J C M Dumoulin
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maastricht University Medical Center, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands.,GROW, School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - C E M van Beijsterveldt
- Department of Biological Psychology, VU University, Van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - G J Bonsel
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands.,Division of Woman and Baby, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - R H M Dykgraaf
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Erasmus Medical Center, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J B van Goudoever
- Department of Pediatrics, Emma Children's Hospital, Academic Medical Center, PO Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Pediatrics, VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - C Koopman-Esseboom
- Department of Neonatology, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85090, 3508 AB Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - W L D M Nelen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - K Steiner
- Department of Neonatology, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - P Tamminga
- Department of Neonatology, Emma Children's Hospital, Academic Medical Center, PO Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - N Tonch
- Academic Medical Center, Center of Reproductive Medicine, PO Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - H L Torrance
- Department of Reproductive Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85090, 3508 AB Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - C D Dirksen
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, Maastricht University Medical Center, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Matorras R, Villoro R, González-Domínguez A, Pérez-Camarero S, Hidalgo-Vega A, Polanco C. Long-term fiscal implications of funding assisted reproduction: a generational accounting model for Spain. REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE & SOCIETY ONLINE 2015; 1:113-122. [PMID: 29911192 PMCID: PMC6001347 DOI: 10.1016/j.rbms.2016.04.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2015] [Revised: 02/25/2016] [Accepted: 04/25/2016] [Indexed: 06/01/2023]
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the lifetime economic benefits of assisted reproduction in Spain by calculating the return on this investment. We developed a generational accounting model that simulates the flow of taxes paid by the individual, minus direct government transfers received over the individual's lifetime. The difference between discounted transfers and taxes minus the cost of either IVF or artificial insemination (AI) equals the net fiscal contribution (NFC) of a child conceived through assisted reproduction. We conducted sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of our results under various macroeconomic scenarios. A child conceived through assisted reproduction would contribute €370,482 in net taxes to the Spanish Treasury and would receive €275,972 in transfers over their lifetime. Taking into account that only 75% of assisted reproduction pregnancies are successful, the NFC was estimated at €66,709 for IVF-conceived children and €67,253 for AI-conceived children. The return on investment for each euro invested was €15.98 for IVF and €18.53 for AI. The long-term NFC of a child conceived through assisted reproduction could range from €466,379 to €-9,529 (IVF) and from €466,923 to €-8,985 (AI). The return on investment would vary between €-2.28 and €111.75 (IVF), and €-2.48 and €128.66 (AI) for each euro invested. The break-even point at which the financial position would begin to favour the Spanish Treasury ranges between 29 and 41 years of age. Investment in assisted reproductive techniques may lead to positive discounted future fiscal revenue, notwithstanding its beneficial psychological effect for infertile couples in Spain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R. Matorras
- Human Reproduction Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital de Cruces, Baracaldo, Vizcaya, Spain
- Department of Medical Specialities, University of the Basque Country, Leioa, Vizcaya, Spain
- Valencian Institute of Infertility, Bilbao, Spain
| | | | | | | | - A. Hidalgo-Vega
- Health Economics Department, Castilla La Mancha University, Spain
| | - C. Polanco
- Health Economics, Business Excellence and Corporate Development, Merck S.L., Spain1
An affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|