Long-term fiscal implications of funding assisted reproduction: a generational accounting model for Spain

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.

Barriers and factors associated with significant delays to initial consultation and treatment for infertile patients and partners of infertile patients

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the key drivers and barriers for infertile patients and their partners to see an infertility specialist and initiate treatment?

DESIGN

An online, international, 30-minute quantitative survey collected data from 1944 respondents from nine countries. Respondents were infertile patients (n = 1037) or partners of infertile patients (n = 907; but not necessarily partners of the patient sample), at different stages of the treatment journey.

RESULTS

The overall average times were 3.2 years to receiving a medical infertility diagnosis, 2.0 years attempting to achieve pregnancy without assistance before treatment, and 1.6 years of treatment before successful respondents achieved pregnancy. The most common driver for considering treatment after a consultation (n = 1025) was an equal desire within the couple to have a child (40.8%). Of the partners (n = 356), 29.8% reported that transparency of information from healthcare professionals about treatment expectations was important. A significantly higher proportion of respondents seeking treatment reported that healthcare professionals offered supportive services (61.2%) and mental health services (62.0%), than of the 207 respondents who did not seek treatment (32.4% and 36.7%, respectively; P < 0.001). Perceived cost was the most commonly reported barrier for respondents not seeking a consultation (37.5% of n = 352) or treatment (42.0% of n = 207). Of the 95 respondents who discontinued treatment, 34.7% discontinued due to the financial impact.

CONCLUSIONS

Respondents reported significant delays to seeking treatment, probably negatively impacting the chances of achieving pregnancy. Motivational coherence within couples was a key driver and cost of treatment was the main barrier. Reported supportive service offerings by healthcare professionals were significantly associated with continuation of the treatment journey.

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.