1
|
Van Muylder A, D'Hooghe T, Luyten J. Economic Evaluation of Medically Assisted Reproduction: A Methodological Systematic Review. Med Decis Making 2023; 43:973-991. [PMID: 37621143 DOI: 10.1177/0272989x231188129] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/26/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Astrid Van Muylder
- Department Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (AVM, JL); Research Group Reproductive Medicine, Department of Development and Regeneration, Organ Systems, Group Biomedical Sciences, KU Leuven (University of Leuven), Belgium (TD); Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA (TD); Global Medical Affairs Fertility, Research and Development, Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (TD). The review was written at the Leuven Institute for Healthcare Policy. It was presented at the ESHRE 38th Annual Meeting (Milan 2022). The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Astrid Van Muylder and Jeroen Luyten have no conflicting interests to declare. The participation of Thomas D'Hooghe to this publication is part of his academic work; he does not see a conflict of interest as Merck KGaA was not involved in writing this article. The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We acknowledge an internal funding from KU Leuven for this study. The funding agreement ensured the authors' independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. The following authors are employed by the sponsor: Astrid Van Muylder and Jeroen Luyten
| | - Thomas D'Hooghe
- Department Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (AVM, JL); Research Group Reproductive Medicine, Department of Development and Regeneration, Organ Systems, Group Biomedical Sciences, KU Leuven (University of Leuven), Belgium (TD); Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA (TD); Global Medical Affairs Fertility, Research and Development, Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (TD). The review was written at the Leuven Institute for Healthcare Policy. It was presented at the ESHRE 38th Annual Meeting (Milan 2022). The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Astrid Van Muylder and Jeroen Luyten have no conflicting interests to declare. The participation of Thomas D'Hooghe to this publication is part of his academic work; he does not see a conflict of interest as Merck KGaA was not involved in writing this article. The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We acknowledge an internal funding from KU Leuven for this study. The funding agreement ensured the authors' independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. The following authors are employed by the sponsor: Astrid Van Muylder and Jeroen Luyten
| | - Jeroen Luyten
- Department Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (AVM, JL); Research Group Reproductive Medicine, Department of Development and Regeneration, Organ Systems, Group Biomedical Sciences, KU Leuven (University of Leuven), Belgium (TD); Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA (TD); Global Medical Affairs Fertility, Research and Development, Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (TD). The review was written at the Leuven Institute for Healthcare Policy. It was presented at the ESHRE 38th Annual Meeting (Milan 2022). The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Astrid Van Muylder and Jeroen Luyten have no conflicting interests to declare. The participation of Thomas D'Hooghe to this publication is part of his academic work; he does not see a conflict of interest as Merck KGaA was not involved in writing this article. The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We acknowledge an internal funding from KU Leuven for this study. The funding agreement ensured the authors' independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. The following authors are employed by the sponsor: Astrid Van Muylder and Jeroen Luyten
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Birch Petersen K, Pedersen NG, Pedersen AT, Lauritsen MP, la Cour Freiesleben N. Mono-ovulation in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a clinical review on ovulation induction. Reprod Biomed Online 2016; 32:563-83. [PMID: 27151490 DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2016.03.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/23/2015] [Revised: 03/14/2016] [Accepted: 03/15/2016] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) affects 5-10% of women of reproductive age and is the most common cause of anovulatory infertility. The treatment approaches to ovulation induction vary in efficacy, treatment duration and patient friendliness. The aim was to determine the most efficient, evidence-based method to achieve mono-ovulation in women diagnosed with PCOS. Publications in English providing information on treatment, efficacy and complication rates were included until September 2015. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials were favoured over cohort and retrospective studies. Clomiphene citrate is recommended as primary treatment for PCOS-related infertility. It induces ovulation in three out of four patients, the risk of multiple pregnancies is modest and the treatment is simple and inexpensive. Gonadotrophins are highly efficient in a low-dose step-up regimen. Ovulation rates are improved by lifestyle interventions in overweight women. Metformin may improve the menstrual cycle within 1-3 months, but does not improve the live birth rate. Letrozole is effective for ovulation induction, but is an off-label drug in many countries. Ovulation induction in women with PCOS should be individualized with regard to weight, treatment efficacy and patient preferences with the aim of achieving mono-ovulation and subsequently the birth of a singleton baby.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kathrine Birch Petersen
- Fertility Clinic, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
| | - Nina Gros Pedersen
- Department of Gynecology/Obstetrics, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
| | - Anette Tønnes Pedersen
- Fertility Clinic and Department of Gynecology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
| | - Mette Petri Lauritsen
- Department of Gynecology/Obstetrics, Herlev Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev Ringvej 75, 2730 Herlev, Denmark
| | - Nina la Cour Freiesleben
- Fertility Clinic and Department of Gynecology/Obstetrics, Holbæk Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Smedelundsgade 60, 4300 Holbæk, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Abstract
Surgical ovarian wedge resection was the first established treatment for women with anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) but was largely abandoned both due to the risk of postsurgical adhesions and the introduction of medical ovulation induction. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) is an alternative method to induce ovulation in PCOS patients with clomiphene citrate resistance instead of gonadotropins. Surgical therapy with LOD may avoid or reduce the need for gonadotropins or may facilitate their use. However, the procedure, though effective, can be traumatic on the ovaries, which may cause postoperative adhesions and/or diminished ovarian reserve. In over-enthusiastic hands, this day-care procedure might lead to iatrogenic premature ovarian failure in young women. Some trials have compared LOD with gonadotropins, but, because of variations in study design and small sample size, the results are inconsistent and definitive conclusions about the relative efficacy of LOD and gonadotropins cannot be extracted from the individual studies. Today, evidence-based reviews conclude that there is no evidence of a significant difference in rates of clinical pregnancy, live birth or miscarriage in women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS undergoing LOD compared to other medical treatments. The reduction in multiple pregnancy rates in women undergoing LOD is the only pro-LOD argument. However, there are ongoing serious concerns about the long-term effects of LOD on ovarian function.
Collapse
|