Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography versus hysterosalpingography during fertility work-up: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION

What are the costs and effects of tubal patency testing by hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) compared to hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile women during the fertility work-up?

SUMMARY ANSWER

During the fertility work-up, clinical management based on the test results of HyFoSy leads to slightly lower, though not statistically significant, live birth rates, at lower costs, compared to management based on HSG results.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Traditionally, tubal patency testing during the fertility work-up is performed by HSG. The FOAM trial, formally a non-inferiority study, showed that management decisions based on the results of HyFoSy resulted in a comparable live birth rate at 12 months compared to HSG (46% versus 47%; difference -1.2%, 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%; P = 0.27). Compared to HSG, HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain, it lacks ionizing radiation and exposure to iodinated contrast medium. Moreover, HyFoSy can be performed by a gynaecologist during a one-stop fertility work-up. To our knowledge, the costs of both strategies have never been compared.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We performed an economic evaluation alongside the FOAM trial, a randomized multicenter study conducted in the Netherlands. Participating infertile women underwent, both HyFoSy and HSG, in a randomized order. The results of both tests were compared and women with discordant test results were randomly allocated to management based on the results of one of the tests. The follow-up period was twelve months.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

We studied 1160 infertile women (18-41 years) scheduled for tubal patency testing. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth. The economic evaluation compared costs and effects of management based on either test within 12 months. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the difference in total costs and chance of live birth. Data were analyzed using the intention to treat principle.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 of the 1160 women underwent both tubal tests and had data available: 747 women with concordant results (48% live births), 136 with inconclusive results (40% live births), and 143 with discordant results (41% had a live birth after management based on HyFoSy results versus 49% with live birth after management based on HSG results). When comparing the two strategies-management based on HyfoSy results versus HSG results-the estimated chance of live birth was 46% after HyFoSy versus 47% after HSG (difference -1.2%; 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%). For the procedures itself, HyFoSy cost €136 and HSG €280. When costs of additional fertility treatments were incorporated, the mean total costs per couple were €3307 for the HyFoSy strategy and €3427 for the HSG strategy (mean difference €-119; 95% CI: €-125 to €-114). So, while HyFoSy led to lower costs per couple, live birth rates were also slightly lower. The ICER was €10 042, meaning that by using HyFoSy instead of HSG we would save €10 042 per each additional live birth lost.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

When interpreting the results of this study, it needs to be considered that there was a considerable uncertainty around the ICER, and that the direct fertility enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests was not incorporated as women underwent both tubal patency tests in this study.

WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS

Compared to clinical management based on HSG results, management guided by HyFoSy leads to slightly lower live birth rates (though not statistically significant) at lower costs, less pain, without ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast exposure. Further research on the comparison of the direct fertility-enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests is needed.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

FOAM trial was an investigator-initiated study, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm®-FOAM kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel-and speakers fees from Guerbet and her department received research grants from Guerbet outside the submitted work. H.R.V. received consulting-and travel fee from Ferring. A.M.v.P. reports received consulting fee from DEKRA and fee for an expert meeting from Ferring, both outside the submitted work. C.H.d.K. received travel fee from Merck. F.J.M.B. received a grant from Merck and speakers fee from Besins Healthcare. F.J.M.B. is a member of the advisory board of Merck and Ferring. J.v.D. reported speakers fee from Ferring. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda and consultancy for Sanofi on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford Press in the role of deputy editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a DSMB as independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. B.W.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC GNT1176437. B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Guerbet, iGenomix, and Merck KGaA and travel support from Merck KGaA. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck, and Ferring and travel and speakers fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746.

Oocyte cryopreservation versus ovarian tissue cryopreservation for adult female oncofertility patients: a cost-effectiveness study

PURPOSE

In December 2019, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine designated ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) as no longer experimental and an alternative to oocyte cryopreservation (OC) for women receiving gonadotoxic therapy. Anticipating increased use of OTC, we compare the cost-effectiveness of OC versus OTC for fertility preservation in oncofertility patients.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness model to compare OC versus OTC was built from a payer perspective. Costs and probabilities were derived from the literature. The primary outcome for effectiveness was the percentage of patients who achieved live birth. Strategies were compared using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). All inputs were varied widely in sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

In the base case, the estimated cost for OC was $16,588 and for OTC $10,032, with 1.56% achieving live birth after OC, and 1.0% after OTC. OC was more costly but more effective than OTC, with an ICER of $1,163,954 per live birth. In sensitivity analyses, OC was less expensive than OTC if utilization was greater than 63%, cost of OC prior to chemotherapy was less than $8100, cost of laparoscopy was greater than $13,700, or standardized discounted costs were used.

CONCLUSIONS

With current published prices and utilization, OC is more costly but more effective than OTC. OC becomes cost-saving with increased utilization, when cost of OC prior to chemotherapy is markedly low, cost of laparoscopy is high, or standardized discounted oncofertility pricing is assumed. We identify the critical thresholds of OC and OTC that should be met to deliver more cost-effective care for oncofertility patients.

Cumulative Live Birth Rate and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone-Antagonist Protocol and Multiple Minimal Ovarian Stimulation in Poor Responders

BACKGROUND

The overall cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) of poor ovarian responders (POR) is extremely low. Minimal ovarian stimulation (MOS) provides a relatively realistic solution for ovarian stimulation in POR. Our study aimed to investigate whether multiple MOS strategies resulted in higher CLBR compared to conventional gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists in POR.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 699 patients (1,058 cycles) from one center, who fulfilled the Bologna criteria between 2010 and 2018. Overall, 325 women (325 cycles) were treated with one-time conventional GnRH antagonist ovarian stimulation (GnRH-antagonist). Another 374 patients (733 cycles) were treated with multiple MOS including natural cycles. CLBR and time-and-cost-benefit analyses were compared between these two groups of women.

RESULTS

GnRH antagonists provided more retrieved oocytes, meiosis II oocytes, fertilized oocytes, and more viable embryos compared to both the first MOS (p < 0.001) and the cumulative corresponding numbers in multiple MOSs (p < 0.001). For the first in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle, GnRH antagonists resulted in higher CLBR than MOS [12.92 versus 4.54%, adjusted OR (odds ratio) 2.606; 95% CI (confidence interval) 1.386, 4.899, p = 0.003]. The one-time GnRH-antagonist induced comparable CLBR (12.92 versus 7.92%, adjusted OR 1.702; 95% CI 0.971, 2.982, p = 0.063), but a shorter time to live birth [9 (8, 10.75) months versus 11 (9, 14) months, p = 0.014] and similar financial expenditure compared to repeated MOS [20,838 (17,953, 23,422) ¥ versus 21,261.5 (15,892.5, 35,140.25) ¥, p = 0.13].

CONCLUSION

Both minimal ovarian stimulation (MOS) and GnRH-antagonists provide low chances of live birth in poor responders. The GnRH antagonist protocol is considered a suitable choice for PORs with comparable CLBR, shorter times to live birth, and similar financial expenditure compared to repeated MOS.

Septate uterus according to ESHRE/ESGE, ASRM and CUME definitions: association with infertility and miscarriage, cost and warnings for women and healthcare systems

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the differences in frequency of diagnosis of septate uterus using three different definitions and determine whether these differences are significant in clinical practice, and to examine the association between diagnosis of septate uterus, using each of the three definitions, and infertility and/or previous miscarriage as well as the cost of allocation to surgery.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of data from a prospective study of 261 consecutive women of reproductive age attending a private clinic focused on the diagnosis and treatment of congenital uterine malformations. Reanalysis of the datasets was performed according to three different means of defining septate uterus: following the recommendations of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), a 2016 update of those of the American Fertility Society from 1988 (ASRM-2016: internal fundal indentation depth ≥ 1.5 cm, angle of internal indentation < 90° and external indentation depth < 1 cm); following the recommendations of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology/European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESHRE/ESGE), published in 2013 and reaffirmed in 2016 (ESHRE/ESGE-2016: internal fundal/uterine indentation depth > 50% of uterine-wall thickness and external indentation depth < 50% of uterine-wall thickness, with uterine-wall thickness measured above interostial/intercornual line); and using a definition published last year which was based on the decision made most often by a group of experts (Congenital Uterine Malformation by Experts; CUME) (CUME-2018: internal fundal indentation depth ≥ 1 cm and external fundal indentation depth < 1 cm). We compared the rate of diagnosis of septate uterus using each of these three definitions and, for each, we estimated the association between the diagnosis and infertility and/or previous miscarriage, and anticipated the costs associated with their implementation using a guesstimation method.

RESULTS

Although 32.6% (85/261) of the subjects met the criteria for one of the three definitions of septate uterus, only 2.7% (7/261) of them were defined as having septate uterus according to all three definitions. We diagnosed significantly more cases of septate uterus using ESHRE/ESGE-2016 than using ASRM-2016 (31% vs 5%, relative risk (RR) = 6.7, P < 0.0001) or CUME-2018 (31% vs 12%, RR = 2.6, P < 0.0001) criteria. We also observed frequent cases that could not be classified definitively by ASRM-2016 (gray zone: neither normal/arcuate nor septate; 6.5%). There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) in the prevalence of septate uterus in women with vs those without infertility according to ASRM-2016 (5% vs 4%), ESHRE/ESGE-2016 (35% vs 28%) or CUME-2018 (11% vs 12%). Septate uterus was diagnosed significantly more frequently in women with vs those without previous miscarriage according to ASRM-2016 (11% vs 3%; P = 0.04) and CUME-2018 (22 vs 10%; P = 0.04), but not according to ESHRE/ESGE-2016 (42% vs 28%; P = 0.8) criteria. Our calculations showed that global costs to the healthcare system would be highly dependent on the criteria used in the clinical setting to define septate uterus, with the costs associated with the ESHRE/ESGE-2016 definition potentially being an extra US$ 100-200 billion over 5 years in comparison to ASRM-2016 and CUME-2018 definitions.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of septate uterus according to ESHRE/ESGE-2016, ASRM-2016 and CUME-2018 definitions differs considerably. An important limitation of the ASRM classification, which needs to be addressed, is the high proportion of unclassifiable cases originally named, by us, the 'gray zone'. The high rate of overdiagnosis of septate uterus according to ESHRE/ESGE-2016 may lead to unnecessary surgery and therefore unnecessary risk in these women and may impose a considerable financial burden on healthcare systems. Efforts to define clinically meaningful and universally applicable criteria for the diagnosis of septate uterus should be encouraged. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Decision analysis about the cost-effectiveness of different in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer protocol under considering governments, hospitals, and patient

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore the benefits of in vitro fertilization (IVF) for patients and hospitals under different protocols and if IVF treatment should be incorporated into health care.

PERSPECTIVE

The government should consider including IVF treatment in health insurance. Hospitals and patients could obtain the best benefit by following the hospital's recommended protocol.

SETTING

This retrospective study was conducted from January 2014 to August 2017 at an academic hospital.

METHODS

A total of 7440 patients used gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) protocol, 2619 patients used, gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists (GnRHant) protocol, and 1514 patients used GnRHa ultra-long protocol. Primary outcomes were live birth rate (LBR), cost-effectiveness, hospital revenue, and government investment.

RESULTS

The cycle times for the GnRHa protocol and the GnRHa ultra-long protocol were significantly higher than the GnRHant protocol. Patients who were ≤29 years chose the GnRHant protocol. The cost of a successful cycle was 67,579.39 ± 9,917.55 ¥ and LBR was 29.25%. Patients who were >30 years had the GnRHa protocol as the dominant strategy, as it was more effective at lower costs and higher LBR. When patients were >30 to ≤34 years, the cost of a successful cycle was 66,556.7 ± 8,448.08 ¥ and the LBR was 31.05%. When patients were >35 years, the cost of a successful cycle was 83,297.92 ± 10,918.05 ¥ and the LBR was 25.07%. The government reimbursement for a cycle ranged between 11,372.12 ± 2,147.71 ¥ and 12,753.67 ± 1,905.02 ¥.

CONCLUSIONS

The government should consider including IVF treatment in health insurance. Hospitals recommend the GnRHant protocol for patients <29 years old and the GnRHa protocol for patients >30 years old, to obtain the best benefits. Patients could obtain the best benefit by using the protocol recommended by the hospital.

Is infertility a disease and does it matter?

Claims about whether or not infertility is a disease are sometimes invoked to defend or criticize the provision of state-funded treatment for infertility. In this paper, I suggest that this strategy is problematic. By exploring infertility through key approaches to disease in the philosophy of medicine, I show that there are deep theoretical disagreements regarding what subtypes of infertility qualify as diseases. Given that infertility's disease status remains unclear, one cannot uncontroversially justify or undermine its claim to medical treatment by claiming that it is or is not a disease. Instead of focusing on disease status, a preferable strategy to approach the debate about state-funded treatment is to explicitly address the specific ethical considerations raised by infertility. I show how this alternative strategy can be supported by a recent theoretical framework in the philosophy of medicine which avoids the problems associated with the concepts of health and disease.

Health Care Access, Costs, and Treatment Dynamics: Evidence from In Vitro Fertilization

We study public policies designed to improve access and reduce costs for in vitro fertilization (IVF). High out-of-pocket prices can deter potential patients from IVF, while active patients have an incentive to risk costly high-order pregnancies to improve their odds of treatment success. We analyze IVF's rich choice structure by estimating a dynamic model of patients' choices within and across treatments. Policy simulations show that insurance mandates for treatment or hard limits on treatment aggressiveness can improve access or costs, but not both. Insurance plus price-based incentives against risky treatment, however, can together improve patient welfare and reduce medical costs.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Hysteroscopic Polypectomy Before Controlled Ovarian Hyperstimulation and Intrauterine Insemination in Infertile Women

OBJECTIVE

To examine the cost benefit of performing hysteroscopic polypectomy (HP) in infertile women with endometrial polyp(s) before controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with intrauterine insemination (COH/IUI).

STUDY DESIGN

Decision analytic model comparing costs and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

HP and COH/IUI costs ranged from $537–$12,530 and $800–$7,600, respectively. Performing an HP before COH/IUI lowered fertility cost by $7,652 per clinical pregnancy. When COH/IUI costs remained constant, HP was most cost beneficial when the cost of HP was below a threshold value of $9,452. When HP costs remained constant, the threshold value at which HP was no longer cost beneficial was at COH/IUI costs below $704. The cost benefit was greatest when an office-based HP is performed.

CONCLUSION

HP before COH/IUI is more cost beneficial than fertility treatment alone, particularly when office-based hysteroscopy is performed.

Should uterus transplants be publicly funded?

Since 2000, 11 human uterine transplantation procedures (UTx) have been performed across Europe and Asia. Five of these have, to date, resulted in pregnancy and four live births have now been recorded. The most significant obstacles to the availability of UTx are presently scientific and technical, relating to the safety and efficacy of the procedure itself. However, if and when such obstacles are overcome, the most likely barriers to its availability will be social and financial in nature, relating in particular to the ability and willingness of patients, insurers or the state to pay. Thus, publicly funded healthcare systems such as the UK's National Health Service (NHS) will eventually have to decide whether UTx should be funded. With this in mind, we seek to provide an answer to the question of whether there exist any compelling reasons for the state not to fund UTx. The paper proceeds as follows. It assumes, at least for the sake of argument, that UTx will become sufficiently safe and cost-effective to be a candidate for funding and then asks, given that, what objections to funding there might be. Three main arguments are considered and ultimately rejected as providing insufficient reason to withhold funding for UTx. The first two are broad in their scope and offer an opportunity to reflect on wider issues about funding for infertility treatment in general. The third is narrower in scope and could, in certain forms, apply to UTx but not other assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs). The first argument suggests that UTx should not be publicly funded because doing so would be inconsistent with governments' obligations to prevent climate change and environmental pollution. The second claims that UTx does not treat a disorder and is not medically necessary. Finally, the third asserts that funding for UTx should be denied because of the availability of alternatives such as adoption and surrogacy.

ACCESS OF SINGLE WOMEN TO FERTILITY TREATMENT: A CASE OF INCIDENTAL DISCRIMINATION?

The purpose of this article is to evaluate the extent to which single women have access to publicly funded fertility treatment. It claims that, despite the fact that great progress has been made in removing gender inequalities in the area of assisted reproduction in England and Wales in recent years, there are points in the regulatory framework that still allow for discrimination against single women. The article builds on recent studies concerning the reforms brought about by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA 2008). However, it focusses on publicly funded treatment, thus directing scholarly attention away from the controversies over the amended s 13(5) HFEA 1990. It argues that the primary reason for remaining inequalities can be traced back to (a) the limitations of the current legislative framework; (b) the ambiguities inherent in the regulatory framework, which in the context of publicly funded fertility treatment is determined by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines and Clinical Commissioning Groups and Health Boards' resource allocation policies; and (c) the remaining confusion about the relationship between 'welfare of the child' assessments and eligibility criteria in National Health Service rationing decisions. The article argues that the current regulation does not go far enough in acknowledging the inability of single women to conceive naturally, but at the same time that it struggles to address the fluidity of contemporary familial relationships. The analysis presents an opportunity to contribute to debates about the role of law in shaping the scope of reproductive autonomy, gender equality and social justice.

Optimal timing for elective egg freezing

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the optimal age to pursue elective oocyte cryopreservation.

DESIGN

A decision-tree model was constructed to determine the success and cost-effectiveness of oocyte preservation versus no action when considered at ages 25-40 years, assuming an attempt at procreation 3, 5, or 7 years after initial decision.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Hypothetical patients 25-40 years old presenting to discuss elective oocyte cryopreservation.

INTERVENTION(S)

Decision to cryopreserve oocytes from age 25 years to age 40 years versus taking no action.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE(S)

Probability of live birth after initial decision whether or not to cryopreserve oocytes.

RESULT(S)

Oocyte cryopreservation provided the greatest improvement in probability of live birth compared with no action (51.6% vs. 21.9%) when performed at age 37 years. The highest probability of live birth was seen when oocyte cryopreservation was performed at ages <34 years (>74%), although little benefit over no action was seen at ages 25-30 years (2.6%-7.1% increase). Oocyte cryopreservation was most cost-effective at age 37 years, at $28,759 per each additional live birth in the oocyte cryopreservation group. When the probability of marriage was included, oocyte cryopreservation resulted in little improvement in live birth rates.

CONCLUSION(S)

Oocyte cryopreservation can be of great benefit to specific women and has the highest chance of success when performed at an earlier age. At age 37 years, oocyte cryopreservation has the largest benefit over no action and is most cost-effective.

Infertility care and the introduction of new reproductive technologies in poor resource settings

BACKGROUND

The overall prevalence of infertility was estimated to be 3.5-16.7% in developing countries and 6.9-9.3% in developed countries. Furthermore, according to reports from some regions of sub-Saharan Africa, the prevalence rate is 30-40%. The consequences of infertility and how it affects the lives of women in poor-resource settings, particularly in developing countries, has become an important issue to be discussed in reproductive health. In some societies, the inability to fulfill the desire to have children makes life difficult for the infertile couple. In many regions, infertility is considered a tragedy that affects not only the infertile couple or woman, but the entire family.

METHODS

This is a position paper which encompasses a review of the needs of low-income infertile couples, mainly those living in developing countries, regarding access to infertility care, including ART and initiatives to provide ART at low or affordable cost. Information was gathered from the databases MEDLINE, CENTRAL, POPLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and ICTRP with the key words: infertility, low income, assisted reproductive technologies, affordable cost, low cost.

RESULTS

There are few initiatives geared toward implementing ART procedures at low cost or at least at affordable cost in low-income populations. Nevertheless, from recent studies, possibilities have emerged for new low-cost initiatives that can help millions of couples to achieve the desire of having a biological child.

CONCLUSIONS

It is necessary for healthcare professionals and policymakers to take into account these new initiatives in order to implement ART in resource-constrained settings.

Use of fertility treatment modalities in a large United States cohort of professional women

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the use of fertility treatments among a large cohort of women in the United States.

DESIGN

Cohort study.

SETTING

Nurses' Health Study II.

PATIENT(S)

Ten thousand thirty-six women who reported having used fertility treatment on biennial questionnaires from 1993-2009.

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Data on patterns of treatment modality were collected via self-report from validated mailed questionnaires. Information on clomiphene, gonadotropin injections alone, and gonadotropin injections as part of intrauterine insemination (IUI) and in vitro fertilization (IVF) was queried.

RESULT(S)

Most women who reported fertility treatment used clomiphene (94%), with a large majority reporting clomiphene as their only form of treatment (73%). Of women who reported treatment more advanced than clomiphene, 13% had used gonadotropin injections alone, 11% IUI treatment, and 11% IVF. Several subgroups were more likely to use multiple treatment modalities and to initiate treatment with gonadotropins rather than clomiphene, including women living in states with insurance coverage of fertility procedures, with higher household income, younger in age, who remained nulliparous at the study close, and treated after 2000.

CONCLUSION(S)

Results should be interpreted cautiously, but to our knowledge, this represents the first study of fertility treatment patterns in the United States and could inform public health planning.

Optimising the management of patients with infertility

The main causes of infertility are female factor (anovulation, tubal damage, endometriosis and ovarian failure), male factor (low or absent numbers of motile sperm in the ejaculate, and erectile dysfunction), or unexplained infertility. More than 80% of couples will conceive within one year if the woman is aged under 40 and they have regular sexual intercourse. Of those who fail to conceive in the first year, around half will do so in the second year, giving a cumulative pregnancy rate > 90%. A woman of reproductive age who has not conceived after a year of regular sexual intercourse, and has no known cause of infertility, should be offered referral for further clinical assessment and investigation with her partner. Women who have a BMI > or = 30 are likely to take longer to conceive. Those with a BMI < 19 who have irregular or absent menstruation should be advised that putting on weight is likely to improve their chance of conception. The best test of ovulation is an appropriately timed mid-luteal serum progesterone level. Women with irregular or absent menstrual cycles should be offered a blood test to measure serum gonadotrophin levels (FSH and LH). Women with no known comorbidities should be screened for tubal occlusion. Those who are thought to have comorbidities should be offered laparoscopy and dye testing.

Diagnosis and treatment of diminished ovarian reserve in assisted reproductive technology cycles of women up to age 40 years: the role of insurance mandates

OBJECTIVE

To explore correlates of diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) and predictors of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) treatment outcome in DOR cycles using the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies-Clinical Outcomes Reporting System (SART-CORS) database; we hypothesized that mandated state insurance coverage for ART is associated with the prevalence of DOR diagnosis in ART cycles and with treatment outcomes in DOR cycles.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study using ART cycles between 2004 and 2007.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 182,779 fresh, nondonor, initial ART cycles in women up to age 40 years.

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Prevalence of DOR and elevated FSH, odds ratio of DOR and elevated FSH in ART mandated vs. nonmandated states, live birth rates.

RESULT(S)

Compared with cycles performed in states with mandated ART coverage, cycles in states with no ART mandate were more likely to have DOR (adjusted odds ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 1.37-1.5) or elevated FSH (adjusted odds ratio 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.56-1.85) as the sole reason for treatment. Lack of mandated ART coverage was associated with increased live birth rates in cycles diagnosed as DOR, but not in cycles characterized only by an elevated FSH.

CONCLUSION(S)

A significant association was observed between lack of mandated insurance for ART and the proportion of cycles treating DOR or elevated FSH. The presence or absence of state-mandated ART coverage could impact access to care and the mix of patients that pursue and initiate ART cycles in ways that influence these proportions. Additional studies are needed that consider the coalescence of insurance mandates, patient and provider factors, and state-level variables on the odds of specific infertility diagnoses and treatment prognosis.

Balancing selected medication costs with total number of daily injections: a preference analysis of GnRH-agonist and antagonist protocols by IVF patients

BACKGROUND

During in vitro fertilization (IVF), fertility patients are expected to self-administer many injections as part of this treatment. While newer medications have been developed to substantially reduce the number of these injections, such agents are typically much more expensive. Considering these differences in both cost and number of injections, this study compared patient preferences between GnRH-agonist and GnRH-antagonist based protocols in IVF.

METHODS

Data were collected by voluntary, anonymous questionnaire at first consultation appointment. Patient opinion concerning total number of s.c. injections as a function of non-reimbursed patient cost associated with GnRH-agonist [A] and GnRH-antagonist [B] protocols in IVF was studied.

RESULTS

Completed questionnaires (n = 71) revealed a mean +/- SD patient age of 34 +/- 4.1 yrs. Most (83.1%) had no prior IVF experience; 2.8% reported another medical condition requiring self-administration of subcutaneous medication(s). When out-of-pocket cost for [A] and [B] were identical, preference for [B] was registered by 50.7% patients. The tendency to favor protocol [B] was weaker among patients with a health occupation. Estimated patient costs for [A] and [B] were $259.82 +/- 11.75 and $654.55 +/- 106.34, respectively (p < 0.005). Measured patient preference for [B] diminished as the cost difference increased.

CONCLUSIONS

This investigation found consistently higher non-reimbursed direct medication costs for GnRH-antagonist IVF vs. GnRH-agonist IVF protocols. A conditional preference to minimize downregulation (using GnRH-antagonist) was noted among some, but not all, IVF patient sub-groups. Compared to IVF patients with a health occupation, the preference for GnRH-antagonist was weaker than for other patients. While reducing total number of injections by using GnRH-antagonist is a desirable goal, it appears this advantage is not perceived equally by all IVF patients and its utility is likely discounted heavily by patients when nonreimbursed medication costs reach a critical level.

The sharing of eggs by infertile women who are trying to conceive themselves with an egg recipient for financial advantages does not jeopardize the donor's chance of conceiving

PURPOSE

To determine if the sharing of oocytes by an infertile woman with an egg recipient for financial advantages has any negative impact on the success rate for the donor.

METHODS

A matched controlled study was performed comparing pregnancy outcome of women undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) but sharing half of their eggs with a recipient vs women undergoing IVF-ET but not sharing oocytes.

RESULTS

Even though more women sharing oocytes deferred fresh transfer and cryopreserved the embryos because of a greater likelihood of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, there was no difference in pregnancy rates between the two groups after their first embryo transfer whether it was with fresh or frozen-thawed embryos.

CONCLUSIONS

Sharing of oocytes by a woman undergoing IVF-ET does not jeopardize her chance of a successful outcome following embryo transfer.

Economic implications of insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization in the United States. A review

OBJECTIVE

To analyze cost-effectiveness studies in regard to the costs of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and discuss specific economic trends that may affect the future utilization of IVF in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

Health economics. A Pub Med literature review and the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) Fertility Clinic Success Rate registry served to access cost analyses and trends, respectively.

RESULTS

The average cost of an IVF cycle in the U.S. is $9,226. Among policies that provide IVF services, the increase in premium per month ranges from $0.67 to $14.

CONCLUSION

When IVF is provided as a health benefit, the cost increases can be variable. As utilization increases, contemporary cost analyses and outcomes research will aid providers, third-party payers and policymakers in better understanding the economic impact of lVF.