Economic evaluation of elective single-embryo transfer with subsequent single frozen embryo transfer in an in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection program

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

STUDY QUESTION

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

SUMMARY ANSWER

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

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

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

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

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

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

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

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

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

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

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

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

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

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

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

REGISTRATION NUMBER

Prospero CRD42021261537.

ESHRE guideline: number of embryos to transfer during IVF/ICSI†

STUDY QUESTION

Which clinical and embryological factors should be considered to apply double embryo transfer (DET) instead of elective single embryo transfer (eSET)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

No clinical or embryological factor per se justifies a recommendation of DET instead of eSET in IVF/ICSI.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

DET is correlated with a higher rate of multiple pregnancy, leading to a subsequent increase in complications for both mother and babies. These complications include preterm birth, low birthweight, and other perinatal adverse outcomes. To mitigate the risks associated with multiple pregnancy, eSET is recommended by international and national professional organizations as the preferred approach in ART.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development and update of ESHRE guidelines. Literature searches were performed in PUBMED/MEDLINE and Cochrane databases, and relevant papers published up to May 2023, written in English, were included. Live birth rate, cumulative live birth rate, and multiple pregnancy rate were considered as critical outcomes.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were discussed until a consensus was reached within the Guideline Development Group (GDG). A stakeholder review was organized after the guideline draft was finalized. The final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The guideline provides 35 recommendations on the medical and non-medical risks associated with multiple pregnancies and on the clinical and embryological factors to be considered when deciding on the number of embryos to transfer. These recommendations include 25 evidence-based recommendations, of which 24 were formulated as strong recommendations and one as conditional, and 10 good practice points. Of the evidence-based recommendations, seven (28%) were supported by moderate-quality evidence. The remaining recommendations were supported by low (three recommendations; 12%), or very low-quality evidence (15 recommendations; 60%). Owing to the lack of evidence-based research, the guideline also clearly mentions recommendations for future studies.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The guideline assessed different factors one by one based on existing evidence. However, in real life, clinicians' decisions are based on several prognostic factors related to each patient's case. Furthermore, the evidence from randomized controlled trials is too scarce to formulate high-quality evidence-based recommendations.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The guideline provides health professionals with clear advice on best practice in the decision-making process during IVF/ICSI, based on the best evidence currently available, and recommendations on relevant information that should be communicated to patients. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in the field.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, the literature searches, and the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. DPB declared receiving honoraria for lectures from Merck, Ferring, and Gedeon Richter. She is a member of ESHRE EXCO, and the Mediterranean Society for reproductive medicine and the president of the Croatian Society for Gynaecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine. CDG is the past Chair of the ESHRE EIM Consortium and a paid deputy member of the Editorial board of Human Reproduction. IR declared receiving reimbursement from ESHRE and EDCD for attending meetings. She holds an unpaid leadership role in OBBCSSR, ECDC Sohonet, and AER. KAR-W declared receiving grants for clinical researchers and funding provision to the institution from the Swedish Cancer Society (200170F), the Senior Clinical Investigator Award, Radiumhemmets Forskningsfonder (Dnr: 201313), Stockholm County Council FoU (FoUI-953912) and Karolinska Institutet (Dnr 2020-01963), NovoNordisk, Merck and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. She received consulting fees from the Swedish Ministry of Health and Welfare. She received honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, and Organon for chairmanship and lectures. She received support from Organon for attending meetings. She participated in advisory boards for Merck, Nordic countries, and Ferring. She declared receiving time-lapse equipment and grants with payment to institution for pre-clinical research from Merck pharmaceuticals and from Ferring. SS-R received research funding from Roche Diagnostics, Organon/MSD, Theramex, and Gedeo-Richter. He received consulting fees from Organon/MSD, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Merck Serono. He declared receiving honoraria for lectures from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Besins, Organon/MSD, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter. He received support for attending Gedeon Richter meetings and participated in the Data Safety Monitoring Board of the T-TRANSPORT trial. He is the Deputy of ESHRE SQART special interest group. He holds stock options in IVI Lisboa and received equipment and other services from Roche Diagnostics and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. KT declared receiving payment for honoraria for giving lectures from Merck Serono and Organon. She is member of the safety advisory board of EDQM. She holds a leadership role in the ICCBBA board of directors. ZV received reimbursement from ESHRE for attending meetings. She also received research grants from ESHRE and Juhani Aaltonen Foundation. She is the coordinator of EHSRE SQART special interest group. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

DISCLAIMER

This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose (full disclaimer available at https://www.eshre.eu/Guidelines-and-Legal).

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.

Dydrogesterone supplementation in addition to routine micronized progesterone administration for luteal support in cycles triggered with lone GnRH agonist results in an acceptable pregnancy rate and avoids the need to freeze embryos

BACKGROUND

Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is reduced when using antagonist cycle with gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist trigger before ovum pick up. This trigger induces short luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) peaks, resulting in an inadequate luteal phase and a reduced implantation rate. We assessed whether the luteal phase can be rescued by supplementing with oral dydrogesterone (duphaston) in antagonist cycles after a lone GnRH agonist trigger.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study. The study group (N.=123) included women who underwent IVF. Patients received a GnRH-antagonist with a lone GnRH-agonist trigger due to imminent OHSS. The control group (N.=374) included patients who underwent a standard antagonist protocol with a dual trigger of a GnRH-agonist and human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). All the patients were treated with micronized progesterone (utrogestan) for luteal phase support. Study patients were given duphaston in addition.

RESULTS

The fertilization rate was comparable between the two groups. The mean number of embryos transferred, the clinical pregnancy rate and the take-home baby rate were comparable between groups (1.5±0.6 vs. 1.5±0.5 and 46.3% vs. 41.2%, and 66.7% vs. 87.7%, respectively). No OHSS event was reported in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study was the first to evaluate outcomes of duphaston supplementation for luteal support in an antagonist cycle with lone GnRH agonist trigger. The functionality of the luteal phase of those cycles could be restored by adding duphaston. This approach was found to be safe and prevented the need to postpone embryo transfer in case of pending OHSS.

[Economic studies of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer]

In vitro fertilization and embryo transplantation (IVF-ET) technology is one of the main treatments for infertility. But IVF-ET is expensive and has not be covered by health insurance in most developing countries. Therefore, how to obtain the maximum success rate with the minimum cost is a common concern of clinicians and patients. At present, the economic studies on IVF-ET mainly focus on different ovulation stimulating drugs, different ovulation stimulating protocols, different transplantation methods and the number of transplants. But the process of IVF-ET is complex, the relevant methods of economic study are diverse, and there are no unified standard for outcome indicators, so there is no unified conclusion for more economical and effective protocol by now. Therefore, to analyze the economic studies of IVF-ET, and to explore appropriate evaluation methods and cost-effective protocols will be helpful for reasonable allocation of medical resources and guidance of clinical selection. It would provide policy reference to include the costs of IVF-ET treatment in health insurance in the future.

Physicians and patients' motivations to perform elective single or double-embryo transfers: A nationwide survey

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate motivations to perform an elective single embryo transfer (e-SET).

METHODS

Cross-sectional surveys to reproductive medicine specialists and to infertile patients undergoing assisted reproductive treatments.

RESULTS

In the physician's survey (n = 278), we found that the main reasons for not offering e-SET were the physicians' belief that patients prefer optimizing the pregnancy rates regardless of the potential complications (57.1%). Regarding the decision making process, 76.7% of physicians thought that patients and doctors should make these decisions together and 93.3% would like to have a more formal decision-aid to help with counseling. In the patients' survey (n = 100), 21.3% chose e-SET, while 33% mentioned that complications associated to multiple pregnancies were insufficiently discussed. Among those patients, none chose to have e-SET, while 30% of those who had a full discussion selected e-SET (p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Most physicians did not offer e-SET based on potential patients' negative feelings. Also, almost 30% take important decisions without the patient's participation. Patients that discussed more thoroughly this topic, more frequently selected e-SET. Almost all the physicians surveyed agreed that decision-aids could help in this important shared-decision process.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Decision aids about e-SET vs DET are needed to help patients in the decision making process.

Comparative economic study of the use of corifollitropin alfa and daily rFSH for controlled ovarian stimulation in older patients: Cost-minimization analysis based on the PURSUE study

This study presents an economic assessment of controlled ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology procedures in Spain, comparing the use of corifollitropin alfa and various forms of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) in women of advanced maternal age. A cost-minimization analysis (CMA) was performed to assess the cost per cycle of controlled controlled ovarian stimulation, including only direct costs associated with the stimulation phase. The CMA was based on the population characteristics, the protocol, and the results obtained from the PURSUE study, taking into account 9 days of controlled controlled ovarian stimulation and 300 IU rFSH/day. The primary analysis included pharmacological costs alone. Different scenarios were evaluated including various doses and possible additional days (0-5) for rFSH. For the alternative analyses, the total costs (direct pharmacological costs, costs of visits and follow-up tests, and any additional pharmacological costs) were considered in both the private and public sectors. Treatment with corifollitropin alfa resulted in a lower pharmacological cost compared with rFSH (€757.25 and €950.30, respectively), creating a saving of approximately -20%. The results of the scenario analyses showed that corifollitropin alfa reduced the pharmacological cost of controlled ovarian stimulation in comparison with daily administration of doses ≥ 250 IU rFSH (considering same daily dose for all days), regardless of the additional days required (7-12 days) (average -€223; range -€488 to -€44). In conclusion, in addition to the efficacy shown in the PURSUE study, the use of corifollitropin alfa results in a decrease in the direct costs associated with controlled ovarian stimulation in older women in Spain.

Segmented ART - The new era in ART?

Currently up to 4% of infants born in developing countries are conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART). Even though most of these conceptions occur and progress without complications, ART procedures and processes may increase iatrogenesis through complications in - and after conception. We herein review and discuss the clinically and scientific implications and evidence of iatrogenesis, and show how the evolution in ART technologies and procedures has led to the current presumption that frozen embryo transfer might be a more optimal strategy than fresh embryo transfer, in terms of not only reproduction, but also of maternal and fetal outcomes. There is increasing scientific evidence to support the notion that controlled ovarian stimulation could induce significant changes to the endocrine profile of a reproductive cycle, especially to the reproductively important early luteal phase. These changes may not only have a negative effect on implantation and early placentation, but also on the mother, the fetus, and the infant. The overt consequences of controlled ovarian stimulation include ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, reduced embryo implantation, increased ectopic pregnancy, and altered placentation and fetal growth. The cumulative scientific evidence from this review suggests that GnRHa trigger in segmented ART might constitute the future routine treatment regimen for IVF patients, providing a safe, effective, and patient friendly treatment.