Economic evaluation of endometrial scratching before the second IVF/ICSI treatment: a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial (SCRaTCH trial)

Systematic review of the economic evaluation model of assisted reproductive technology

BACKGROUND

With the increasing demand for fertility services, it is urgent to select the most cost-effective assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment plan and include it in medical insurance. Economic evaluation reports are an important reference for medical insurance negotiation. The aim of this study is to systematically evaluate the economic evaluation research of ART, analyze the existing shortcomings, and provide a reference for the economic evaluation of ART.

METHODS

PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and ScienceDirect databases were searched for relevant articles on the economic evaluation of ART. These articles were screened, and their quality was evaluated based on the Comprehensive Health Economics Evaluation Report Standard (CHEERS 2022), and the data on the basic characteristics, model characteristics and other aspects of the included studies were summarized.

RESULTS

One hundred and two related articles were obtained in the preliminary search, but based on the inclusion criteria, 12 studies were used for the analysis, of which nine used the decision tree model. The model parameters were mainly derived from published literature and included retrospective clinical data of patients. Only two studies included direct non-medical and indirect costs in the cost measurement. Live birth rate was used as an outcome indicator in half of the studies.

CONCLUSION

Suggesting the setting of the threshold range in the field of fertility should be actively discussed, and the monetary value of each live birth is assumed to be in a certain range when the WTP threshold for fertility is uncertain. The range of the parameter sources should be expanded. Direct non-medical and indirect costs should be included in the calculation of costs, and the analysis should be carried out from the perspective of the whole society. In the evaluation of clinical effect, the effectiveness and safety indexes should be selected for a comprehensive evaluation, thereby making the evaluation more comprehensive and reliable. At least subgroup analysis based on age stratification should be considered in the relevant economic evaluation.

Applying a simplified economic evaluation approach to evaluate infertility treatments in clinical practice

IVF is the backbone of infertility treatment, but due to its costs, it is not affordable for everyone. The cost of IVF is further escalated by interventions added to the routine treatment, which are claimed to boost pregnancy rates, so-called add-ons. Consequently, it is critical to offset the increased costs of an intervention against a potentially higher benefit. Here, we propose using a simplified framework considering the cost of a standard IVF procedure to create one live-born baby as a benchmark for the cost-effectiveness of other fertility treatments, add-ons inclusive. This framework is a simplified approach to a formal economic evaluation, enabling a rapid assessment of cost effectiveness in clinical settings. For a 30-year-old woman, assuming a 44.6% cumulative live birth rate and a cost of $12 000 per complete cycle, the cost to create one live-born baby would be ∼$27 000 (i.e. willingness to pay). Under this concept, the decision whether to accept or reject a new treatment depends from an economic perspective on the incremental cost per additional live birth from the new treatment/add-on, with the $27 000 per live-born baby as a reference threshold. This threshold can vary with women's age, and other factors such as the economic perspective and risk of side effects can play a role. If a new add-on or treatment costs >$27 000 per live birth, it might be more rational to invest in a new IVF cycle rather than spending on the add-on. With the increasing number of novel technologies in IVF and the lack of a rapid approach to evaluate their cost-effectiveness, this simplified framework will help with a more objective assessment of the cost-effectiveness of infertility treatments, including add-ons.

Good practice recommendations on add-ons in reproductive medicine†

STUDY QUESTION

Which add-ons are safe and effective to be used in ART treatment?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Forty-two recommendations were formulated on the use of add-ons in the diagnosis of fertility problems, the IVF laboratory and clinical management of IVF treatment.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The innovative nature of ART combined with the extremely high motivation of the patients has opened the door to the wide application of what has become known as 'add-ons' in reproductive medicine. These supplementary options are available to patients in addition to standard fertility procedures, typically incurring an additional cost. A diverse array of supplementary options is made available, encompassing tests, drugs, equipment, complementary or alternative therapies, laboratory procedures, and surgical interventions. These options share the common aim of stating to enhance pregnancy or live birth rates, mitigate the risk of miscarriage, or expedite the time to achieving pregnancy.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

ESHRE aimed to develop clinically relevant and evidence-based recommendations focusing on the safety and efficacy of add-ons currently used in fertility procedures in order to improve the quality of care for patients with infertility.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

ESHRE appointed a European multidisciplinary working group consisting of practising clinicians, embryologists, and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of infertility. Patient representatives were included in the working group. To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, recommendations were based on the professional experience and consensus of the working group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 46 independent international reviewers. A total of 272 comments were received and incorporated where relevant.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The multidisciplinary working group formulated 42 recommendations in three sections; diagnosis and diagnostic tests, laboratory tests and interventions, and clinical management.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Of the 42 recommendations, none could be based on high-quality evidence and only four could be based on moderate-quality evidence, implicating that 95% of the recommendations are supported only by low-quality randomized controlled trials, observational data, professional experience, or consensus of the development group.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

These guidelines offer valuable direction for healthcare professionals who are responsible for the care of patients undergoing ART treatment for infertility. Their purpose is to promote safe and effective ART treatment, enabling patients to make informed decisions based on realistic expectations. The guidelines aim to ensure that patients are fully informed about the various treatment options available to them and the likelihood of any additional treatment or test to improve the chance of achieving a live birth.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

All costs relating to the development process were covered from ESHRE funds. There was no external funding of the development process or manuscript production. K.L. reports speakers fees from Merck and was part of a research study by Vitrolife (unpaid). T.E. reports consulting fees from Gynemed, speakers fees from Gynemed and is part of the scientific advisory board of Hamilton Thorne. N.P.P. reports grants from Merck Serono, Ferring Pharmaceutical, Theramex, Gedeon Richter, Organon, Roche, IBSA and Besins Healthcare, speakers fees from Merck Serono, Ferring Pharmaceutical, Theramex, Gedeon Richter, Organon, Roche, IBSA and Besins Healthcare. S.R.H. declares being managing director of Fertility Europe, a not-for-profit organization receiving financial support from ESHRE. I.S. is a scientific advisor for and has stock options from Alife Health, is co-founder of IVFvision LTD (unpaid) and received speakers' fee from the 2023 ART Young Leader Prestige workshop in China. A.P. reports grants from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck A/S, consulting fees from Preglem, Novo Nordisk, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Gedeon Richter, Cryos and Merck A/S, speakers fees from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S, Theramex and Organon, travel fees from Gedeon Richter. The other authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

DISCLAIMER

This Good Practice Recommendations (GPRs) document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and are based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation.ESHRE GPRs should be used for information and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care or bedeemedinclusive of all proper methods of care, or be exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results.Theydo not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, or variations based on locality and facility type.Furthermore, ESHRE GPRs do not constitute or imply the endorsement, or favouring, of any of the included technologies by ESHRE.

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.

Suspension of hostility: Positive interactions between spermatozoa and female reproductive tracts

Interactions between spermatozoa and the female reproductive tract (FRT) are complex, in many cases poorly understood, and likely to contribute to the mechanistic basis of idiopathic infertility. As such, it is not surprising that the FRT was often viewed historically as a "hostile" environment for spermatozoa. The FRT has also been touted as a selective environment to ensure that only the highest quality spermatozoa progress to the oocyte for the opportunity to participate in fertilization. Recent advances, however, are giving rise to a far more nuanced view in which supportive spermatozoa × FRT interactions-in both directions-contribute to beneficial, even essential, effects on fertility. In this perspective article, we discuss several examples of positive spermatozoa × FRT interactions. We believe that these examples, arising in part from studies of taxonomically diverse nonmammalian systems, are useful to efforts to study mammalian spermatozoa × FRT interactions and their relevance to fertility and the advancement of assisted reproductive technologies.

Immune Cell Functionality during Decidualization and Potential Clinical Application

Due to a vast influx in the secretory phase of the menstrual cycle, leukocytes represent 40-50% of the decidua at the time of implantation. Their importance for the implantation, maintenance of pregnancy, and parturition are known yet not fully understood. Thus, in idiopathic infertility, decidual immune-related factors are speculated to be the cause. In this review, the immune cell functions in the decidua were summarized, and clinical diagnostics, as well as interventions, were discussed. There is a rising number of commercially available diagnostic tools. However, the intervention options are still limited and/or poorly studied. In order for us to make big steps towards the proper use of reproductive immunology findings, we need to understand the mechanisms and especially support translational research.

Determinants of Embryo Implantation: Roles of the Endometrium and Embryo in Implantation Success

Both uterine endometrium and embryo contribute to implantation success. However, their relative role in the implantation success is still a matter for debate, as are the roles of endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA), endometrial scratch (ES), endometrial microbiome, and intrauterine or intravenous measures that are currently advocated to improve the implantation success. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the endometrium is more important than the embryo in determining the implantation success and the utility of these measures, especially when euploid embryos are transferred is limited. Although embryo implantation on epithelium other than the endometrium is a very rare event, evidence suggests that embryo implantation and growth is not limited to the endometrium alone. Embryos can implant and develop to result in livebirths on epithelium that lacks the typical endometrial development present at implantation. Currently, the role of embryo euploidy in implantation success is underappreciated. At a minimum, it is the author's opinion that until robust, definitive studies are conducted that demonstrate benefit, reproductive endocrinologists and infertility specialist should be prudent in the way they counsel patients about the utility of ERA, ES, and other measures in improving implantation success.

Live birth is not the only relevant outcome in research assessing assisted reproductive technology

In assisted reproductive technology (ART) research, live birth has been generally accepted as an important outcome, if not the most important one. However, it has been reported inconsistently in the literature and solely focusing on live birth can lead to misinterpretation of research findings. In this review, we provide an overview on the definitions of live birth, including various denominators and numerators use. We present a series of real clinical examples in ART research to demonstrate the impact of variations in live birth on research findings and the importance of other outcomes, including multiple pregnancy, pregnancy loss, time to pregnancy leading to live birth, other short and long term maternal and offspring health outcomes and cost effectiveness measures. We suggest that outcome choices in ART research should be tailored for the research questions. A holistic outcome assessment beyond live birth would provide a full picture to address research questions in ART in terms of effectiveness and safety, and thus facilitate evidence-based decision making.

Recurrent implantation failure: A comprehensive summary from etiology to treatment

Implantation is the first step in human reproduction. Successful implantation depends on the crosstalk between embryo and endometrium. Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) is a clinical phenomenon characterized by a lack of implantation after the transfer of several embryos and disturbs approximately 10% couples undergoing in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Despite increasing literature on RIF, there is still no widely accepted definition or standard protocol for the diagnosis and treatment of RIF. Progress in predicting and preventing RIF has been hampered by a lack of widely accepted definitions. Most couples with RIF can become pregnant after clinical intervention. The prognosis for couples with RIF is related to maternal age. RIF can be caused by immunology, thrombophilias, endometrial receptivity, microbiome, anatomical abnormalities, male factors, and embryo aneuploidy. It is important to determine the most possible etiologies, and individualized treatment aimed at the primary cause seems to be an effective method for increasing the implantation rate. Couples with RIF require psychological support and appropriate clinical intervention. Further studies are required to evaluate diagnostic method and he effectiveness of each therapy, and guide clinical treatment.