A 50% reduction in multiple live birth rate is associated with a 13% cost saving: a real-life retrospective cost analysis

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.

Single-embryo transfer implies quality of care in reproductive medicine

This review appraises evidence on the difference between single- and double-embryo transfer (SET, DET) in assisted reproductive technology (ART) regarding the four healthcare quality dimensions most important to fertility patients and doctors. Regarding safety, not only does DET create the uncontested perinatal risks of twin pregnancies, but compelling evidence has added that singleton pregnancies after a vanishing twin also have poorer perinatal outcomes. SET is as effective as DET, as shown by meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, comparing two cycles of SET versus DET and shown by cumulative live birth rates of entire ART trajectories of up to six cycles. Proposing SET, which is safer than DET and as effective, as the gold standard is not irreconcilable with patient-centred care if patients are thoroughly informed on the reasoning behind the proposition and welcomed to challenge whether it fits their personal values. The cost-efficiency of SET is clearly higher, which has even induced certain countries to start reimbursing ART on the condition that SET is used. In conclusion, SET should be the gold standard offered to all patients. The question is not whether to apply SET but how to apply it in terms of patient selection, patient-centred counselling and coverage of treatment.

The economic burden of infertility treatment and distribution of expenditures overtime in France: a self-controlled pre-post study

Background

Recent cost studies related to infertility treatment have focused on assisted reproductive technologies. None has examined lower-intensity infertility treatments or analyzed the distribution of infertility treatment expenditures over time.

The Purpose of the study was to analyse the size and distribution of infertility treatment expenditures over time, and estimate the economic burden of infertility treatment per 10,000 women aged 18 − 50 in France from a societal perspective.

Methods

We used French National individual medico-administrative database to conduct a self-controlled before-after analytic cohort analysis with 556 incidental women treated for infertility in 2014 matched with 9,903 controls using the exact matching method. Infertility-associated expenditures per woman and per 10,000 women over the 3.5-year follow-up period derived as a difference-in-differences.

Results

The average infertility related expenditure per woman is estimated at 6,996 (95% CI: 5,755–8,237) euros, the economic burden for 10,000 women at 70.0 million (IC95%: 57.6–82.4) euros. The infertility related expenditures increased from 235 (IC95%: 98–373) euros in semester 0, i.e. before treatment, to 1,509 (IC95%: 1,277–1,741) euros in semester 1, mainly due to ovulation stimulation treatment (47% of expenditure), to reach a plateau in semesters 2 (1,416 (IC95%: 1,161–1,670)) and 3 (1,319 (IC95%: 943–1,694)), where the share of expenses is mainly related to hospitalizations for assisted reproductive technologies (44% of expenditure), and then decrease until semester 6 (577 (IC95%: 316–839) euros).

Conclusion

This study informs public policy about the economic burden of infertility estimated at 70.0 million (IC95%: 57.6–82.4) euros for 10,000 women aged between 18 and 50. It also highlights the importance of the share of drugs in infertility treatment expenditures. If nothing is done, the increasing use of infertility treatment will lead to increased expenditure. Prevention campaigns against the preventable causes of infertility should be promoted to limit the use of infertility treatments and related costs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07725-9.

Economic assessment of neonatal intensive care

Most of the studies on the costing of neonatal intensive care has concentrated on the costs associated with preterm infants which takes up more than half of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) costs. The focus has been on determining the cost-effectiveness of extreme preterm infants and those at threshold of viability. While the costs of care have an inverse relationship with gestational age (GA) and the lifetime medical costs of the extreme preterm can be as high as $450,000, the total NICU expenditure are skewed towards the care of moderate and late preterm infants who form the main bulk of patients. Neonatal intensive care, has been found to be very cost-effective at $1,000 per term infant per QALY and $9,100 for extreme preterm survivor per QALY. For low and LMIC, where NICU resources are limited, the costs of NICU care is lower largely due to a patient profile of more term and preterm of greater GAs and correspondingly less intensity of care. Public health measures, neonatal resuscitation training, empowerment of nurses to do resuscitation, increasing the accessibility to essential newborn care are recommended cheaper cost-effective measures to reduce neonatal mortality in countries with high neonatal mortality rate, whilst upgraded neonatal intensive care services are needed to further reduce neonatal mortality rate once below 15 per 1,000 livebirths. Economic evaluation of neonatal intensive care should also include post discharge costs which mainly fall on the health, social and educational sectors. Strategies to reduce neonatal intensive care costs could include more widespread implementation of cost-effective methods of improving neonatal outcome and reducing neonatal morbidities, including access to antenatal care, perinatal interventions to delay preterm delivery wherever feasible, improving maternal health status and practising cost saving and effective neonatal intensive care treatment.

Growing body of evidence supports intrauterine insemination as first line treatment and rejects unfounded concerns about its efficacy, risks and cost effectiveness

IUI has been practiced for five decades but only three unconvincing trials attempted to demonstrate the superiority of IUI over sexual intercourse (SI). In the absence of evidence of its effectiveness, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommended IVF over IUI after 2 years of unprotected SI. High-quality recent data in well-constructed studies suggest that biases against IUI procedures and in favour of IVF are invalid. It is unethical to continue to misinform patients and stakeholders. The well-constructed randomised controlled trials (RCT) show IUI procedure to be efficient, with minimal risk, and above all improved cost-effectiveness when compared to IVF for live birth. IUI as first-line treatment should be offered to most patients, while funding agencies and stakeholders need to be urgently informed of the cost-benefit in offering IUI. Fertility clinics, IVF interest groups, and regulatory bodies should amend their patient information and guidance to state that IUI should be the first line treatment and that IVF should be offered only when essential. Reappraising and promoting IUI based on evidence enhances patient autonomy, choices, and trust, while allowing the fertility industry to operate within an ethical and acceptable framework not seen as exploitative toward vulnerable patients.