Cost-effectiveness analysis of lifestyle intervention in obese infertile women

How effective are lifestyle interventions for overweight women trying to conceive?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize and critically review the current knowledge on the effectiveness of lifestyle modifications for overweight women trying to conceive.

RECENT FINDINGS

Overweight is associated with a wide spectrum of disorders, which may directly or indirectly affect fertility [from menstrual cycle irregularities to a lower chance of live birth after assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment]. Weight loss through nonpharmaceutical lifestyle interventions is achievable. Weight loss can normalize menstrual cycle irregularities and can increase fecundability. Pregnancy-associated risks, such as gestational diabetes can be decreased by preconception weight reduction.

SUMMARY

Weight loss through lifestyle changes (i.e., lower caloric intake and increased physical activity), may increase fecundability and may have a positive impact on the course of pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes. Accordingly, women should be motivated to reduce their weight before conception. However, the effectiveness of life-style intervention programs for women actively seeking medical support in achieving pregnancy has not convincingly been demonstrated. In the few randomized controlled trials (RCTs), selection bias for trial participation by patient motivation may have been present, yet participant attrition was still high and mean effects were small, casting doubts on the utility of such programs in routine care. Pharmacological and surgical intervention may be more effective or necessary complements to lifestyle intervention programs.

Protocol of the Fit-For-Fertility study: a multicentre randomised controlled trial assessing a lifestyle programme targeting women with obesity and infertility

INTRODUCTION

Women with obesity are at a higher risk of infertility as well as gestational and neonatal complications. Lifestyle changes are universally recommended for women with obesity seeking fertility treatments, but such intervention has only been assessed in very few robust studies. This study's objectives are therefore to assess the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of an interdisciplinary lifestyle intervention (the Fit-For-Fertility Programme; FFFP) targeting women with obesity and subfertility in a diverse population.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) will include 616 women with obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m² or ≥27 kg/m² with polycystic ovary syndrome or at-risk ethnicities) who are evaluated at a Canadian fertility clinic for subfertility. Women will be randomised either to (1) the FFFP (experimental arm) alone for 6 months, and then in combination with usual care for infertility if not pregnant; or (2) directly to usual fertility care (control arm). Women in the intervention group benefit from the programme up to 18 months or, if pregnant, up to 24 months or the end of the pregnancy (whichever comes first). Women from both groups are evaluated every 6 months for a maximum of 18 months. The primary outcome is live birth rate at 24 months. Secondary outcomes include fertility, pregnancy and neonatal outcomes; lifestyle and anthropometric measures; and cost-effectiveness. Qualitative data collected from focus groups of participants and professionals will also be analysed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This research study has been approved by the Research Ethics Board (REB) of Centre intégré universtaire de santé et des services sociaux de l'Estrie-CHUS (research coordinating centre) on 10 December 2018 and has been or will be approved successively by each participating centres' REB. This pragmatic RCT will inform decision-makers on improving care trajectories and policies regarding fertility treatments for women with obesity and subfertility.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03908099.

PROTOCOL VERSION

1.1, 13 April 2019.

Obesity and reproduction: a committee opinion

The purpose of this American Society for Reproductive Medicine Practice Committee report is to provide clinicians with principles and strategies for the evaluation and treatment of couples with infertility associated with obesity. This revised document replaces the Practice Committee document titled "Obesity and reproduction: an educational bulletin" last published in 2015 (Fertil Steril 2015;104:1116-26).

Preconception lifestyle advice for people with infertility

BACKGROUND

Infertility is a prevalent problem that has significant consequences for individuals, families, and the community. Modifiable lifestyle factors may affect the chance of people with infertility having a baby. However, no guideline is available about what preconception advice should be offered. It is important to determine what preconception advice should be given to people with infertility and to evaluate whether this advice helps them make positive behavioural changes to improve their lifestyle and their chances of conceiving.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and effectiveness of preconception lifestyle advice on fertility outcomes and lifestyle behavioural changes for people with infertility.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL, trial registers, Google Scholar, and Epistemonikos in January 2021; we checked references and contacted field experts to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), randomised cross-over studies, and cluster-randomised studies that compared at least one form of preconception lifestyle advice with routine care or attention control for people with infertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary effectiveness outcomes were live birth and ongoing pregnancy. Primary safety outcomes were adverse events and miscarriage. Secondary outcomes included reported behavioural changes in lifestyle, birth weight, gestational age, clinical pregnancy, time to pregnancy, quality of life, and male factor infertility outcomes. We assessed the overall quality of evidence using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in the review seven RCTs involving 2130 participants. Only one RCT included male partners. Three studies compared preconception lifestyle advice on a combination of topics with routine care or attention control. Four studies compared preconception lifestyle advice on one topic (weight, alcohol intake, or smoking) with routine care for women with infertility and specific lifestyle characteristics. The evidence was of low to very low-quality. The main limitations of the included studies were serious risk of bias due to lack of blinding, serious imprecision, and poor reporting of outcome measures. Preconception lifestyle advice on a combination of topics versus routine care or attention control Preconception lifestyle advice on a combination of topics may result in little to no difference in the number of live births (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.10; 1 RCT, 626 participants), but the quality of evidence was low. No studies reported on adverse events or miscarriage. Due to very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain whether preconception lifestyle advice on a combination of topics affects lifestyle behavioural changes: body mass index (BMI) (mean difference (MD) -1.06 kg/m², 95% CI -2.33 to 0.21; 1 RCT, 180 participants), vegetable intake (MD 12.50 grams/d, 95% CI -8.43 to 33.43; 1 RCT, 264 participants), alcohol abstinence in men (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.58; 1 RCT, 210 participants), or smoking cessation in men (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 212 participants). Preconception lifestyle advice on a combination of topics may result in little to no difference in the number of women with adequate folic acid supplement use (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.01; 2 RCTs, 850 participants; I² = 4%), alcohol abstinence (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.17; 1 RCT, 607 participants), and smoking cessation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.04; 1 RCT, 606 participants), on low quality evidence. No studies reported on other behavioural changes. Preconception lifestyle advice on weight versus routine care Studies on preconception lifestyle advice on weight were identified only in women with infertility and obesity. Compared to routine care, we are uncertain whether preconception lifestyle advice on weight affects the number of live births (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.43; 2 RCTs, 707 participants; I² = 68%; very low-quality evidence), adverse events including gestational diabetes (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.26; 1 RCT, 317 participants; very low-quality evidence), hypertension (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.75; 1 RCT, 317 participants; very low-quality evidence), or miscarriage (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.37; 1 RCT, 577 participants; very low-quality evidence). Regarding lifestyle behavioural changes for women with infertility and obesity, preconception lifestyle advice on weight may slightly reduce BMI (MD -1.30 kg/m², 95% CI -1.58 to -1.02; 1 RCT, 574 participants; low-quality evidence). Due to very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain whether preconception lifestyle advice affects the percentage of weight loss, vegetable and fruit intake, alcohol abstinence, or physical activity. No studies reported on other behavioural changes. Preconception lifestyle advice on alcohol intake versus routine care Studies on preconception lifestyle advice on alcohol intake were identified only in at-risk drinking women with infertility. We are uncertain whether preconception lifestyle advice on alcohol intake affects the number of live births (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.50; 1 RCT, 37 participants; very low-quality evidence) or miscarriages (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.21 to 8.34; 1 RCT, 37 participants; very low-quality evidence). One study reported on behavioural changes for alcohol consumption but not as defined in the review methods. No studies reported on adverse events or other behavioural changes. Preconception lifestyle advice on smoking versus routine care Studies on preconception lifestyle advice on smoking were identified only in smoking women with infertility. No studies reported on live birth, ongoing pregnancy, adverse events, or miscarriage. One study reported on behavioural changes for smoking but not as defined in the review methods.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality evidence suggests that preconception lifestyle advice on a combination of topics may result in little to no difference in the number of live births. Evidence was insufficient to allow conclusions on the effects of preconception lifestyle advice on adverse events and miscarriage and on safety, as no studies were found that looked at these outcomes, or the studies were of very low quality. This review does not provide clear guidance for clinical practice in this area. However, it does highlight the need for high-quality RCTs to investigate preconception lifestyle advice on a combination of topics and to assess relevant effectiveness and safety outcomes in men and women with infertility.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies for obese women with subfertility

BACKGROUND

Clinicians primarily recommend weight loss for obese women seeking pregnancy. The effectiveness of interventions aimed at weight loss in obese women with subfertility is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies compared with each other, placebo, or no treatment for achieving weight loss in obese women with subfertility.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CGF Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and AMED from inception to 18 August 2020. We also checked reference lists and contacted experts in the field for additional relevant papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published and unpublished randomised controlled trials in which weight loss was the main goal of the intervention. Our primary effectiveness outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy and primary safety outcomes were miscarriage and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy, weight change, quality of life, and mental health outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors followed standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 10 trials. Evidence was of very low to low quality: the main limitations were due to lack of studies and poor reporting of study methods. The main reasons for downgrading evidence were lack of details by which to judge risk of bias (randomisation and allocation concealment), lack of blinding, and imprecision. Non-pharmacological intervention versus no intervention or placebo Evidence is insufficient to determine whether a diet or lifestyle intervention compared to no intervention affects live birth (odds ratio (OR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.11; 918 women, 3 studies; I² = 78%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following no intervention is assumed to be 43%, the chance following diet or lifestyle changes would be 33% to 46%. We are uncertain if lifestyle change compared with no intervention affects miscarriage rate (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.39; 917 women, 3 studies; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Evidence is insufficient to determine whether lifestyle change compared with no intervention affects clinical pregnancy (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.40; 917 women, 3 studies; I² = 73%; low-quality evidence). Lifestyle intervention resulted in a decrease in body mass index (BMI), but data were not pooled due to heterogeneity in effect (mean difference (MD) -3.70, 95% CI -4.10 to -3.30; 305 women, 1 study; low-quality evidence; and MD -1.80, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.93; 43 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). Non-pharmacological versus non-pharmacological intervention We are uncertain whether intensive weight loss interventions compared to standard care nutrition counselling affects live birth (OR 11.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 284; 11 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy (OR 11.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 284; 11 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), BMI (MD -3.00, 95% CI -5.37 to -0.63; 11 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), weight change (MD -9.00, 95% CI -15.50 to -2.50; 11 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), quality of life (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.15; 11 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), or mental health (MD -7.00, 95% CI -13.92 to -0.08; 11 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). No study reported on adverse events . Pharmacological versus pharmacological intervention For metformin plus liraglutide compared to metformin we are uncertain of an effect on the adverse events nausea (OR 7.22, 95% CI 0.72 to 72.7; 28 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), diarrhoea (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.3; 28 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), and headache (OR 5.80, 95% CI 0.25 to 133; 28 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if a combination of metformin plus liraglutide vs metformin affects BMI (MD 2.1, 95% CI -0.42 to 2.62; 28 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence) and total body fat (MD -0.50, 95% CI -4.65 to 3.65; 28 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). For metformin, clomiphene, and L-carnitine versus metformin, clomiphene, and placebo, we are uncertain of an effect on miscarriage (OR 3.58, 95% CI 0.73 to 17.55; 274 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy (OR 5.56, 95% CI 2.57 to 12.02; 274 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence) or BMI (MD -0.3, 95% CI 1.17 to 0.57, 274 women, 1 study, very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if dexfenfluramine versus placebo affects weight loss in kilograms (MD -0.10, 95% CI -2.77 to 2.57; 21 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). No study reported on live birth, quality of life, or mental health outcomes. Pharmacological intervention versus no intervention or placebo We are uncertain if metformin compared with placebo affects live birth (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.44 to 5.57; 65 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following placebo is assumed to be 15%, the chance following metformin would be 7% to 50%. We are uncertain if metformin compared with placebo affects gastrointestinal adverse events (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.57; 65 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence) or miscarriage (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.80; 65 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy (OR 2.67, 95% CI 0.90 to 7.93; 96 women, 2 studies; I² = 48%; very low-quality evidence). We are also uncertain if diet combined with metformin versus diet and placebo affects BMI (MD -0.30, 95% CI -2.16 to 1.56; 143 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence) or waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) (MD 2.00, 95% CI -2.21 to 6.21; 143 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). Pharmacological versus non-pharmacological intervention No study undertook this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is insufficient to support the use of pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies for obese women with subfertility. No data are available for the comparison of pharmacological versus non-pharmacological strategies. We are uncertain whether pharmacological or non-pharmacological strategies effect live birth, ongoing pregnancy, adverse events, clinical pregnancy, quality of life, or mental heath outcomes. However, for obese women with subfertility, a lifestyle intervention may reduce BMI. Future studies should compare a combination of pharmacological and lifestyle interventions for obese women with subfertility.

Pre-Conception Interventions for Subfertile Couples Undergoing Assisted Reproductive Technology Treatment: Modeling Analysis

Background

Approximately 1 in 7 couples experience subfertility, many of whom have lifestyles that negatively affect fertility, such as poor nutrition, low physical activity, obesity, smoking, or alcohol consumption. Reducing lifestyle risk factors prior to pregnancy or assisted reproductive technology treatment contributes to the improvement of reproductive health, but cost-implications are unknown.

Objective

The goal of this study was to evaluate reproductive, maternal pregnancy, and birth outcomes, as well as the costs of pre-conception lifestyle intervention programs in subfertile couples and obese women undergoing assisted reproductive technology.

Methods

Using a hypothetical model based on quantitative parameters from published literature and expert opinion, we evaluated the following lifestyle intervention programs: (1) Smarter Pregnancy, an online tool; (2) LIFEstyle, which provides outpatient support for obese women; (3) concurrent use of both Smarter Pregnancy and LIFEstyle for obese women; (4) smoking cessation in men; and (5) a mindfulness mental health support program using group therapy sessions. The model population was based on data from the Netherlands.

Results

All model-based analyses of the lifestyle interventions showed a reduction in the number of in vitro fertilization, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, or intrauterine insemination treatments required to achieve pregnancy and successful birth for couples in the Netherlands. Smarter Pregnancy was modeled to have the largest increase in spontaneous pregnancy rate (13.0%) and the largest absolute reduction in potential assisted reproductive technology treatments. Among obese subfertile women, LIFEstyle was modeled to show a reduction in the occurrence of gestational diabetes, maternal hypertensive pregnancy complications, and preterm births by 4.4%, 3.8%, and 3.0%, respectively, per couple. Modeled cost savings per couple per year were €41 (US $48.66), €360 (US $427.23), €513 (US $608.80), €586 (US $695.43), and €1163 (US $1380.18) for smoking cessation, mindfulness, Smarter Pregnancy, combined Smarter Pregnancy AND LIFEstyle, and LIFEstyle interventions, respectively.

Conclusions

Although we modeled the potential impact on reproductive outcomes and costs of fertility treatment rather than collecting real-world data, our model suggests that of the lifestyle interventions for encouraging healthier behaviors, all are likely to be cost effective and appear to have positive effects on reproductive, maternal pregnancy, and birth outcomes. Further real-world data are required to determine the cost-effectiveness of pre-conception lifestyle interventions, including mobile apps and web-based tools that help improve lifestyle, and their effects on reproductive health. We believe that further implementation of the lifestyle app Smarter Pregnancy designed for subfertile couples seeking assistance to become pregnant is likely to be cost-effective and would allow reproductive health outcomes to be collected.

Relationship between nutrition and reproduction

BACKGROUND

Recently, the relationship between nutrition and reproduction is being studied. In particular, when older women receive reproductive treatment, egg aging causes greater problems than organic factors.

METHODS

This study investigated the relationship between nutrition and reproduction with a focus on factors that cause aging, including oxidation, glycation, and chronic inflammation. A large volume of data concerning each nutrient's relationship with reproductive medicine was collected from a number of observational studies.

MAIN FINDINGS

The results showed that refined carbohydrates should be avoided and care should be taken to achieve proper intake of omega-3 fatty acids. Folic acid and vitamin D were also effective. For men, antioxidant measures are especially effective. The effects of antioxidants are related to insulin resistance, which causes chronic inflammation.

CONCLUSION

Recent research has shown that rather than meal content, meal intervals are more important for improving insulin resistance. Future research should examine lifestyle-related nutrition factors and their relationships to reproductive treatment.

Mobile Health Coaching on Nutrition and Lifestyle Behaviors for Subfertile Couples Using the Smarter Pregnancy Program: Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

The health care costs for reproductive care have substantially increased with the use of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. The mobile health (mHealth) coaching program Smarter Pregnancy is an effective intervention to improve nutrition and lifestyle behaviors and pregnancy rates in (sub)fertile couples, including those who undergo IVF treatment. Therefore, we hypothesize that this mHealth program can also reduce health care costs associated with IVF treatment.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the mHealth coaching program Smarter Pregnancy and compare it to usual care in women of subfertile couples who start their first IVF cycle.

METHODS

This model-based cost-effectiveness analysis was performed on data from couples undergoing IVF treatment at the Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam. A decision tree model was used to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ongoing pregnancies and costs of use of the mHealth program as compared to usual care. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to consider the uncertainty surrounding the point estimates of the input parameters.

RESULTS

Based on our model including 793 subfertile women undergoing IVF treatment, use of the mHealth program resulted in 86 additional pregnancies and saved €270,000 compared to usual care after two IVF cycles, with an ICER of -€3050 (95% CI -3960 to -540) per additional pregnancy. The largest cost saving was caused by the avoided IVF treatment costs. Sensitivity analyses showed that the mHealth program needs to increase the ongoing pregnancy rate by at least 51% after two IVF cycles for cost saving.

CONCLUSIONS

The mHealth coaching program Smarter Pregnancy is potentially cost saving for subfertile couples preceding their first IVF treatment. Implementation of this mHealth program in routine preconception care for subfertile couples should be seriously considered, given the relatively low costs and promising cost-effectiveness estimates.

Female subfertility

Subfertility is common and affects one in six couples, half of whom lack an explanation for their delay in conceiving. Developments in the diagnosis and treatment of subfertility over the past 50 years have been truly remarkable. Indeed, current generations of couples with subfertility are more fortunate than previous generations, as they have many more opportunities to become parents. The timely access to effective treatment for subfertility is important as many couples have a narrow window of opportunity before the age-related effects of subfertility limit the likelihood of success. Assisted reproduction can overcome the barriers to fertility caused by tubal disease and low sperm count, but little progress has been made in reducing the effect of increasing age on ovarian function. The next 5-10 years will likely see further increases in birth rates in women with subfertility, a greater awareness of lifestyle factors and a possible refinement of current assisted reproduction techniques and the development of new ones. Such progress will bring challenging questions regarding the potential benefits and harms of treatments involving germ cell manipulation, artificial gametes, genetic screening of embryos and gene editing of embryos. We hope to see a major increase in fertility awareness, access to safe and cost-effective fertility care in low-income countries and a reduction in the current disparity of access to fertility care.