Economic evaluation of Medically Assisted Reproduction: An educational overview of methods and applications for healthcare professionals

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.

Evaluation of costs associated with fertility treatment leading to a live birth after one fresh transfer: A global perspective

Considerable costs are associated with infertility treatment, but little evidence is available on the main drivers of treatment costs. This cost analysis investigated key costs for treatment with assisted reproductive technology (ART) and the proportion of costs attributed to the acquisition of recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (r-hFSH) alfa originator for one fresh embryo transfer (ET) leading to a live birth in Spain, Norway, the UK, Germany, Denmark, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand. The total costs for one ART cycle with a fresh ET leading to a live birth varied between countries (€4108-€12,314). Costs for pregnancy and live birth were the major contributors in European countries, and the costs of oocyte retrieval, monitoring during ovarian stimulation, pregnancy, and live birth were the top contributors in the Asia-Pacific countries, included in this analysis. Acquisition costs for r-hFSH alfa originator contributed to only 5%-17% of the total costs of one ART cycle with one fresh ET leading to a live birth.

Unmet Parenthood Goals, Health-Related Quality of Life and Apparent Irrationality: Understanding the Value of Treatments for Infertility

An increasing number of prospective parents are experiencing infertility along with associated negative impacts on mental health and life satisfaction that can extend across a network of individuals and family members. Assistive reproductive technologies (ART) can help prospective parents achieve their parenthood goals but, like any health technology, they must demonstrate acceptable 'value for money' to qualify for public funding. We argue that current approaches to understanding the value of ART, including quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains based on changes in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and, more often, cost per live birth, are too narrow to capture the full impact of unmet parenthood goals and ART. We see a fundamental disconnect between measures of HRQOL and broader measures of wellbeing associated with met and unmet parenthood goals. We also suggest that simple concepts such as 'patient' and 'carer' are of limited applicability in the context of ART, where 'spillovers' extend across a wide network of individuals, and the person receiving treatment is often not the infertile individual. Consideration of individual and societal wellbeing beyond HRQOL is necessary to understand the full range of negative impacts associated with unmet parenthood goals and the corresponding positive impacts of successful ART. We suggest moving towards a wellbeing perspective on value to achieve a fuller understanding of value and promote cross-sector allocative efficiency.

The value of treatment for infertility: A systematic literature review of willingness-to-pay thresholds and approaches for determining the cost effectiveness of fertility therapies

Willingness to pay (WTP) for an infertility treatment is the maximum amount of money a patient is willing to pay per treatment, or to achieve a live birth or pregnancy. Such thresholds are important to determine the cost effectiveness of a treatment. A systematic review was conducted to identify and explore the studies that attempt to ascertain WTP for infertility and compare them with the cost-effectiveness studies that claimed to use WTP thresholds. For comparison, all the costs were converted and inflated to 2021 euros. The results demonstrated that there were no standard outcomes or WTP thresholds for an outcome/treatment, and the methodologies used vary. Cost-effectiveness studies either used the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to imply a WTP threshold, or used thresholds that were previously accepted for a quality-adjusted life year outcome converted, inappropriately, to an infertility outcome. There is a need for further research by health economists to develop a consensus for the meaningful assessment of WTP for ART.

Freeze-all embryos during treatment with assisted reproduction: Health economic aspects

Assisted reproductive technologies are evolving, with the most recent example being the introduction of the freeze-all policy during which a fresh embryo transfer does not take place and all embryos of good quality are cryopreserved to be used in future frozen embryo transfers. As the freeze-all policy is becoming more prevalent, it is important to review the economic aspects of this approach, along with considerations of efficacy and safety, and the role of emerging freeze-all-specific ovarian stimulation strategies. Based on the available evidence, the freeze-all policy presents distinct clinical advantages, particularly for high responders. Available health economic evaluations are limited. Two good-quality cost-effectiveness analyses based on randomized controlled trials suggest that the freeze-all strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective in non-polycystic ovarian syndrome (non-PCOS), normally responding patients. However, the cost-effectiveness of the freeze-all strategy in different populations of patients and in different settings has not been evaluated, nor has the clinical and economic efficacy of modern freeze-all-specific ovarian stimulation protocols that are likely to simplify treatment and make it more affordable for patients. Economic evaluations that incorporate good practice health technology assessment (HTA) methods are needed to compare freeze-all with conventional embryo transfer strategies. Furthermore, future research should address the unique limitation of traditional HTA methods in valuing a life conceived through fertility treatment.