Preimplantation genetic testing for BRCA gene mutation carriers: a cost effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Gynecologic oncologists should be aware of the option of conception through IVF/PGT-M for families with high BRCA related morbidity or mortality. Our objective was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of preimplantation genetic testing for selection and transfer of BRCA negative embryo in BRCA mutation carriers compared to natural conception. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness of two strategies, conception through IVF/PGT-M and BRCA negative embryo transfer versus natural conception with a 50% chance of BRCA positive newborn for BRCA mutation carriers was compared using a Markovian process decision analysis model. Costs of the two strategies were compared using quality adjusted life years (QALYs'). All costs were discounted at 3%. Incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) compared to willingness to pay threshold was used for cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: IVF/ PGT-M is cost-effective with an ICER of 150,219 new Israeli Shekels, per QALY gained (equivalent to 44,480 USD), at a 3% discount rate. CONCLUSIONS: IVF/ PGT-M and BRCA negative embryo transfer compared to natural conception among BRCA positive parents is cost effective and may be offered for selected couples with high BRCA mutation related morbidity or mortality. Our results could impact decisions regarding conception among BRCA positive couples and health care providers.

Pregnancy outcome and cost-effectiveness comparisons of artificial cycle-prepared frozen embryo transfer with or without GnRH agonist pretreatment for polycystic ovary syndrome: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the live birth rate and cost effectiveness of artificial cycle-prepared frozen embryo transfer (AC-FET) with or without GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) pretreatment for women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). DESIGN: Open-label, randomised, controlled trial. SETTING: Reproductive centre of a university-affiliated hospital. SAMPLE: A total of 343 women with PCOS, aged 24-40 years, scheduled for AC-FET and receiving no more than two blastocysts. METHODS: The pretreatment group (n = 172) received GnRH-a pretreatment and the control group (n = 171) did not. Analysis followed the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was live birth rate. Secondary outcome measures included clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, early pregnancy loss rate and direct treatment costs per FET cycle. RESULTS: Among the 343 women randomised, 330 (96.2%) underwent embryo transfer and 328 (95.6%) completed the protocols. Live birth rate according to ITT did not differ between the pretreatment and control groups [85/172 (49.4%) versus 92/171 (53.8%), absolute rate difference -4.4%, 95% CI -10.8% to 2.0% (P = 0.45). Implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate and early pregnancy loss rate also did not differ between groups, but median direct cost per FET cycle was significantly higher in the pretreatment group (7799.2 versus 4438.9 RMB, OR = 1.9, 95%CI 1.2-3.4, P < 0.001). Median direct cost per live birth was also significantly higher in the pretreatment group (15663.1 versus 8189.9 RMB, odds ratio [OR] = 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-3.8, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment with GnRH-a does not improve pregnancy outcomes for women with PCOS receiving AC-FET, but significantly increases patient cost. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: For women with PCOS, artificial cycle-prepared FET with GnRH agonist pretreatment provides no pregnancy outcome benefit but incurs higher cost.

Application of embryo biopsy and sex determination via polymerase chain reaction in a commercial equine embryo transfer program in Argentina.

Embryo biopsy for fetal sexing has clinical application, but few reports are available of its use within an active embryo transfer program. We evaluated results on biopsy of 459 embryos over one breeding season. There were no significant differences in pregnancy rate between biopsied and non-biopsied embryos (72% vs 73%) or for biopsied embryos recovered at the centre (73%) compared with those shipped overnight (72%). However, the pregnancy rate decreased significantly in shipped embryos biopsied ≥20h after collection. Overall, 86% of biopsies provided a sex diagnosis. The likelihood of a positive genomic (g) DNA result was significantly higher for biopsies from large blastocysts (96%) than from smaller embryos (70-85%). In total, 38% of biopsies were positive for Y chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) and were diagnosed as male. Subsequently, 95% of Y-DNA-positive embryos were confirmed as male and 78% of Y-DNA-negative embryos were confirmed as female. The accuracy of prediction of female (Y-DNA negative) was significantly higher when the biopsy sample was probed for Y-DNA only compared with probing for both gDNA and Y-DNA. We estimate that by transferring only Y-DNA-negative embryos, 3% of potential female pregnancies may have been lost, and production of male pregnancies was reduced by 72%.

[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.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of freeze-only or fresh embryo transfer in IVF of non-PCOS women.

STUDY QUESTION: Is a freeze-only strategy more cost-effective from a patient perspective than fresh embryo transfer (ET) after one completed In Vitro Fertilization/ Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (IVF/ICSI) cycle in women without polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)? SUMMARY ANSWER: There is a low probability of the freeze-only strategy being cost-effective over the fresh ET strategy for non-PCOS women undergoing IVF/ICSI. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Conventionally, IVF embryos are transferred in the same cycle in which oocytes are collected, while any remaining embryos are frozen and stored. We recently evaluated the effectiveness of a freeze-only strategy compared with a fresh ET strategy in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). There was no difference in live birth rate between the two strategies. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed alongside the RCT to compare a freeze-only strategy with a fresh ET strategy in non-PCOS women undergoing IVF/ICSI. The effectiveness measure for the CEA was the live birth rate. Data on the IVF procedure, pregnancy outcomes and complications were collected from chart review; additional information was obtained using patient questionnaires, by telephone. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: For all patients, we measured the direct medical costs relating to treatment (cryopreservation, pregnancy follow-up, delivery), direct non-medical costs (travel, accommodation) and indirect costs (income lost). The direct cost data were calculated from resources obtained from patient records and prices were applied based on a micro-costing approach. Indirect costs were calculated based on responses to the questionnaire. Patients were followed until all embryos obtained from a single controlled ovarian hyperstimulation cycle were used or a live birth was achieved. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was based on the incremental cost per couple and the incremental live birth rate of the freeze-only strategy compared with the fresh ET strategy. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) were also performed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between June 2015 and April 2016, 782 couples were randomized to a freeze-only (n = 391) or a fresh ET strategy (n = 391). Baseline characteristics including mean age, Body Mass Index (BMI), anti-Mullerian hormone, total dose of Follicle Stimulating Hormone (FSH), number of oocytes obtained, good quality Day 3 embryos, fertility outcomes and treatment complications were comparable between the two groups. The live birth rate (48.6% vs. 47.3%, respectively; risk ratio, 1.03; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 0.89, 1.19; P = 0.78) and the average cost per couple (3906 vs. 3512 EUR, respectively; absolute difference 393.6, 95% CI, -76.2, 863.5; P = 0.1) were similar in the freeze-only group versus fresh ET. Corresponding costs per live birth were 8037 EUR versus 7425 EUR in the freeze-only versus fresh ET group, respectively. The incremental cost for the freeze-only strategy compared with fresh ET was 30 997 EUR per 1% additional live birth rate. The direct non-medical costs and indirect costs of infertility treatment strategies represented ~45-52% of the total cost. PSA shows that the 95% CI of ICERs was -263 901 to 286 681 EUR. Out of 1000 simulations, 44% resulted in negative ICERs, including 13.0% of simulations in which the freeze-only strategy was dominant (more effective and less costly than fresh ET), and 31% of simulations in which the fresh embryo strategy was dominant. In the other 560 simulations with positive ICERs, the 95% CI of ICERs ranged from 2155 to 471 578 EUR. The CEAC shows that at a willingness to pay threshold of 300 000 EUR, the probability of the freeze-only strategy being cost-effective over the fresh ET strategy would be 58%. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Data were collected from a single private IVF center study in Vietnam where there is no public or insurance funding of IVF. Unit costs obtained might not be representative of other settings. Data obtained from secondary sources (medical records, financial and activity reports) could lack authenticity, and recall bias may have influenced questionnaire responses on which direct costs were based. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: In non-PCOS women undergoing IVF/ICSI, the results suggested that the freeze-only strategy was not cost-effective compared with fresh ET from a patient perspective. These findings indicate that other factors could be more important in deciding whether to use a freeze-only versus fresh ET strategy in this patient group. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by My Duc Hospital; no external funding was received. Ben Willem J. Mol is supported by an NHMRC Practioner Fellowship (GNT 1082548) and reports consultancy for Merck, ObsEva and Guerbet. Robert J. Norman has shares in an IVF company and has received support from Merck and Ferring. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Cost-effectiveness modelling of IVF in couples with unexplained infertility.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does delaying IVF for 6 months in couples with unexplained infertility, compared with immediate IVF treatment, decrease the cost of IVF without compromising success rates? DESIGN: Decision modelling was used to evaluate the cost and outcomes of immediate IVF versus delayed IVF for a cohort of women aged <40 years suffering unexplained infertility. Australian data and costs were used in the analysis. For different age groups, three scenarios were tested where 10%, 50% and 90% of couples with unexplained infertility delayed IVF for 6 months if they had a good prognosis for natural conception. The study included a total of 8781 couples aged <40 years, diagnosed with unexplained infertility and who had IVF in 2013. RESULTS: The studied couples underwent 27,648 fresh and frozen embryo transfers, for an estimated total cost of $141 million. Potential out-of-pocket cost savings if 90% of couples delayed IVF ranged from $4.7 to $12.2 million, with Medicare cost savings of up to $15.1 million. The impact on the total pregnancy and live birth rates after 18 months was minimal. CONCLUSIONS: In couples with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis for natural conception, delaying IVF for 6 months could substantially decrease out-of-pocket costs without compromising pregnancy and live birth rates over an 18-month period.

Economic and genetic performance of various combinations of in vitro-produced embryo transfers and artificial insemination in a dairy herd.

The objective of this study was to find the optimal proportions of pregnancies from an in vitro-produced embryo transfer (IVP-ET) system and artificial insemination (AI) so that profitability is maximized over a range of prices for embryos and surplus dairy heifer calves. An existing stochastic, dynamic dairy model with genetic merits of 12 traits was adapted for scenarios where 0 to 100% of the eligible females in the herd were impregnated, in increments of 10%, using IVP-ET (ET0 to ET100, 11 scenarios). Oocytes were collected from the top donors selected for the trait lifetime net merit (NM$) and fertilized with sexed semen to produce IVP embryos. Due to their greater conception rates, first ranked were eligible heifer recipients based on lowest number of unsuccessful inseminations or embryo transfers, and then on age. Next, eligible cow recipients were ranked based on the greatest average estimated breeding values (EBV) of the traits cow conception rate and daughter pregnancy rate. Animals that were not recipients of IVP embryos received conventional semen through AI, except that the top 50% of heifers ranked for EBV of NM$ were inseminated with sexed semen for the first 2 AI. The economically optimal proportions of IVP-ET were determined using sensitivity analysis performed for 24 price sets involving 6 different selling prices of surplus dairy heifer calves at approximately 105 d of age and 4 different prices of IVP embryos. The model was run for 15 yr after the start of the IVP-ET program for each scenario. The mean ± standard error of true breeding values of NM$ of all cows in the herd in yr 15 was greater by $603 ± 2 per cow per year for ET100 when compared with ET0. The optimal proportion of IVP-ET ranged from ET100 (for surplus dairy heifer calves sold for ≥$300 along with an additional premium based on their EBV of NM$ and a ≤$100 embryo price) to as low as ET0 (surplus dairy heifer calves sold at $300 with a $200 embryo price). For the default assumptions, the profit/cow in yr 15 was greater by $337, $215, $116, and $69 compared with ET0 when embryo prices were $50, $100, $150, and $200. The optimal use of IVP-ET was 100, 100, 62, and 36% of all breedings for these embryo prices, respectively. At the input price of $165 for an IVP embryo, the difference in the net present value of yr 15 profit between ET40 (optimal scenario) and ET0 was $33 per cow. In conclusion, some use of IVP-ET was profitable for a wide range of IVP-ET prices and values of surplus dairy heifer calves.

The cost of a euploid embryo identified from preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A): a counseling tool.

PURPOSE: To determine the expected out-of-pocket costs of IVF with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) to attain a 50%, 75%, or 90% likelihood of a euploid blastocyst based on individual age and AMH, and develop a personalized counseling tool. METHODS: A cost analysis was performed and a counseling tool was developed using retrospective data from IVF cycles intended for PGT or blastocyst freeze-all between January 1, 2014 and August 31, 2017 (n = 330) and aggregate statistics on euploidy rates of > 149,000 embryos from CooperGenomics. Poisson regression was used to determine the number of biopsiable blastocysts obtained per cycle, based on age and AMH. The expected costs of attaining a 50%, 75%, and 90% likelihood of a euploid blastocyst were determined via 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations for each age and AMH combination, incorporating age-based euploidy rates and IVF/PGT-A cost assumptions. RESULTS: The cost to attain a 50% likelihood of a euploid blastocyst ranges from approximately $15,000 U.S. dollars (USD) for younger women with higher AMH values (≥ 2 ng/mL) to > $150,000 for the oldest women (44 years) with the lowest AMH values (< 0.1 ng/mL) in this cohort. The cost to attain a 75% versus 90% likelihood of a euploid blastocyst is similar (~ $16,000) for younger women with higher AMH values, but varies for the oldest women with low AMH values (~ $280,000 and > $450,000, respectively). A typical patient (36-37 years, AMH 2.5 ng/mL) should expect to spend ~ $30,000 for a 90% likelihood of attaining a euploid embryo. CONCLUSIONS: This tool can serve as a counseling adjunct by providing individualized cost information for patients regarding PGT-A.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of lifestyle intervention in obese infertile women.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment in obese infertile women? SUMMARY ANSWER: Lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment as compared to prompt infertility treatment in obese infertile women is not a cost-effective strategy in terms of healthy live birth rate within 24 months after randomization, but is more likely to be cost-effective using a longer follow-up period and live birth rate as endpoint. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In infertile couples, obesity decreases conception chances. We previously showed that lifestyle intervention prior to infertility treatment in obese infertile women did not increase the healthy singleton vaginal live birth rate at term, but increased natural conceptions, especially in anovulatory women. Cost-effectiveness analyses could provide relevant additional information to guide decisions regarding offering a lifestyle intervention to obese infertile women. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment compared to prompt infertility treatment was evaluated based on data of a previous RCT, the LIFEstyle study. The primary outcome for effectiveness was the vaginal birth of a healthy singleton at term within 24 months after randomization (the healthy live birth rate). The economic evaluation was performed from a hospital perspective and included direct medical costs of the lifestyle intervention, infertility treatments, medication and pregnancy in the intervention and control group. In addition, we performed exploratory cost-effectiveness analyses of scenarios with additional effectiveness outcomes (overall live birth within 24 months and overall live birth conceived within 24 months) and of subgroups, i.e. of ovulatory and anovulatory women, women <36 years and ≥36 years of age and of completers of the lifestyle intervention. Bootstrap analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS: Infertile women with a BMI of ≥29 kg/m2 (no upper limit) were allocated to a 6-month lifestyle intervention programme preceding infertility treatment (intervention group, n = 290) or to prompt infertility treatment (control group, n = 287). After excluding women who withdrew informed consent or who were lost to follow-up we included 280 women in the intervention group and 284 women in the control group in the analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Total mean costs per woman in the intervention group within 24 months after randomization were €4324 (SD €4276) versus €5603 (SD €4632) in the control group (cost difference of -€1278, P < 0.05). Healthy live birth rates were 27 and 35% in the intervention group and the control group, respectively (effect difference of -8.1%, P < 0.05), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €15 845 per additional percentage increase of the healthy live birth rate. Mean costs per healthy live birth event were €15 932 in the intervention group and €15 912 in the control group. Exploratory scenario analyses showed that after changing the effectiveness outcome to all live births conceived within 24 months, irrespective of delivery within or after 24 months, cost-effectiveness of the lifestyle intervention improved. Using this effectiveness outcome, the probability that lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment was cost-effective in anovulatory women was 40%, in completers of the lifestyle intervention 39%, and in women ≥36 years 29%. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: In contrast to the study protocol, we were not able to perform the analysis from a societal perspective. Besides the primary outcome of the LIFEstyle study, we performed exploratory analyses using outcomes observed at longer follow-up times and we evaluated subgroups of women; the trial was not powered on these additional outcomes or subgroup analyses. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Cost-effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention is more likely for longer follow-up times, and with live births conceived within 24 months as the effectiveness outcome. This effect was most profound in anovulatory women, in completers of the lifestyle intervention and in women ≥36 years old. This result indicates that the follow-up period of lifestyle interventions in obese infertile women is important. The scenario analyses performed in this study suggest that offering and reimbursing lifestyle intervention programmes in certain patient categories may be cost-effective and it provides directions for future research in this field. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was supported by a grant from ZonMw, the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (50-50110-96-518). The department of obstetrics and gynaecology of the UMCG received an unrestricted educational grant from Ferring pharmaceuticals BV, The Netherlands. B.W.J.M. is a consultant for ObsEva, Geneva. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The LIFEstyle RCT was registered at the Dutch trial registry (NTR 1530). http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC = 1530.

A direct healthcare cost analysis of the cryopreserved versus fresh transfer policy at the blastocyst stage.

A cost analysis covering direct healthcare costs relating to IVF freeze-all policy was conducted. Normal- and high- responder patients treated with a freeze-all policy (n = 63) compared with fresh transfer IVF (n = 189) matched by age, body mass index, duration and cause of infertility, predictive factors for IVF (number of oocytes used for fertilization) and study period, according to a 1:3 ratio were included. Total costs per patient (€6952 versus €6863) and mean costs per live birth were similar between the freeze-all strategy (€13,101, 95% CI 10,686 to 17,041) and fresh transfer IVF (€15,279, 95% CI 13,212 to 18,030). A mean per live birth cost-saving of €2178 (95% CI -1810 to 6165) resulted in a freeze-all strategy owing to fewer embryo transfer procedures (1.29 ± 0.5 versus 1.41 ± 0.7); differences were not significant. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the freeze-all strategy remained cost-effective until the live birth rate is either higher or only slightly lower (≥-0.59%) in the freeze-all group compared with fresh cycles. A freeze-all policy does not increase costs compared with fresh transfer, owing to negligible additional expenses, i.e. vitrification, endometrial priming and monitoring, against fewer embryo transfer procedures required to achieve pregnancy.

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

Belgian legislation limiting the number of embryos for transfer has been shown to result in a 50% reduction of the multiple live birth rate (MLBR) per cycle without having a negative impact on the cumulative delivery rate per patient within six cycles or 36 months. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the cost saving associated with a 50% reduction in MLBR. A retrospective cost analysis was performed of 213 couples, who became pregnant and had a live birth after one or more assisted reproductive technology treatment cycles, and their 254 children. The mean cost of a singleton (n = 172) and multiple (n = 41) birth was calculated based on individual hospital invoices. The cost analysis showed a significantly higher total cost (assisted reproductive technology treatment, pregnancy follow-up, delivery, child cost until the age of 2 years) for multiple births (both children: mean €43,397) than for singleton births (mean: €17,866) (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney P < 0.0001). A 50% reduction in MLBR resulted in a significant cost reduction related to hospital care of 13%.

Comparison between an exclusive in vitro-produced embryo transfer system and artificial insemination for genetic, technical, and financial herd performance.

The objective of this study was to implement an in vitro-produced embryo transfer (IVP-ET) system in an existing stochastic dynamic dairy simulation model with multitrait genetics to evaluate the genetic, technical, and financial performance of a dairy herd implementing an exclusive IVP-ET or artificial insemination (AI) system. In the AI system, sexed semen was used on the genetically best heifers only. In the IVP-ET system, all of the animals in the herd were impregnated with female sexed embryos created through in vitro fertilization of oocytes collected from animals of superior genetics for different traits of interest. Each donor was assumed to yield on average 4.25 transferable embryos per collection. The remaining animals in the herd were used as recipients and received either a fresh embryo or a frozen embryo when fresh embryos were not available. Selection of donors was random or based on the greatest estimated breeding value (EBV) of lifetime net merit (NM$), milk yield, or daughter pregnancy rate. For both the IVP-ET and AI systems, culling of surplus heifer calves not needed to replace culled cows was based on the lowest EBV for the same traits. A herd of 1,000 milking cows was simulated 15 yr over time after the start of the IVP-ET system. The default cost to produce and transfer 1 embryo was set at $165. Prices of fresh embryos at which an exclusive IVP-ET system financially breaks even with the comparable AI system in yr 15 and for an investment period of 15 yr were also estimated. More surplus heifer calves were sold from the IVP-ET systems than from the comparable AI systems. The surplus calves from the IVP-ET systems were also genetically superior to the surplus calves from the comparable AI systems, which might be reflected in their market value as a premium price. The most profitable scenario among the 4 IVP-ET scenarios in yr 15 was the one in which NM$ was maximized in the herd. This scenario had an additional profit of $8/cow compared with a similar AI scenario that maximized NM$, provided that surplus heifer calves could be sold at a premium price based on the superiority of the EBV of NM$. For the IVP-ET system to be at least as profitable as the comparable AI system during a 15-yr investment period, the surplus calves from the IVP-ET system needed to be sold at the premium prices. The break-even price of fresh embryos was estimated to be $84 for the exclusive IVP-ET system. This resulted in the same profit as the AI system, which maximized NM$ for a 15-yr investment period and in which heifer calves were sold at a premium price.

Cost-effectiveness of preimplantation genetic screening for women older than 37 undergoing in vitro fertilization.

PURPOSE: Adding preimplantation genetic screening to in vitro fertilization has been shown to increase live birth rate in women older than 37. However, preimplantation genetic screening is an expensive procedure. Information on the cost-effectiveness of preimplantation genetic screening can help inform clinical decision making. METHODS: We constructed a decision analytic model for a hypothetical fresh, autologous in vitro fertilization cycle (with versus without preimplantation genetic screening) for women older than age 37 who had a successful oocyte retrieval and development of at least one blastocyst. The model incorporated probability and cost estimates of relevant clinical events based on data from published literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the impact of changes in model input parameters. RESULTS: In base-case analysis, IVF-PGS offered a 4.2 percentage point increase in live birth rate for an additional cost of $4509, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $105,489 per additional live birth. This ICER was below the expected cost of $145,063 for achieving one live birth with IVF (assuming an average LBR of 13.4% and $19,415 per cycle for this patient population). Sensitivity analysis suggested that ICER improved substantially with decreases in PGS cost and increases in PGS effectiveness. Monte Carlo simulation showed PGS to be cost-effective in 93.9% of iterations at an acceptability cutoff of $145,063. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the expected cost of achieving one live birth with IVF, PGS is a cost-effective strategy for women older than 37 undergoing IVF. Additional research on patients' willingness-to-pay per live birth would further inform our understanding regarding the cost-effectiveness of PGS.

A randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial of modified natural versus artificial cycle for cryo-thawed embryo transfer.

STUDY QUESTION: Are live birth rates (LBRs) after artificial cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer (AC-FET) non-inferior to LBRs after modified natural cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer (mNC-FET)? SUMMARY ANSWER: AC-FET is non-inferior to mNC-FET with regard to LBRs, clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates (OPRs) but AC-FET does result in higher cancellation rates. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: Pooling prior retrospective studies of AC-FET and mNC-FET results in comparable pregnancy and LBRs. However, these results have not yet been confirmed by a prospective randomized trial. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION: In this non-inferiority prospective randomized controlled trial (acronym 'ANTARCTICA' trial), conducted from February 2009 to April 2014, 1032 patients were included of which 959 were available for analysis. The primary outcome of the study was live birth. Secondary outcomes were clinical and ongoing pregnancy, cycle cancellation and endometrium thickness. A cost-efficiency analysis was performed. PARTICIPANT/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: This study was conducted in both secondary and tertiary fertility centres in the Netherlands. Patients included in this study had to be 18-40 years old, had to have a regular menstruation cycle between 26 and 35 days and frozen-thawed embryos to be transferred had to derive from one of the first three IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment cycles. Patients with a uterine anomaly, a contraindication for one of the prescribed medications in this study or patients undergoing a donor gamete procedure were excluded from participation. Patients were randomized based on a 1:1 allocation to either one cycle of mNC-FET or AC-FET. All embryos were cryopreserved using a slow-freeze technique. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: LBR after mNC-FET was 11.5% (57/495) versus 8.8% in AC-FET (41/464) resulting in an absolute difference in LBR of -0.027 in favour of mNC-FET (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.065-0.012; P = 0.171). Clinical pregnancy occurred in 94/495 (19.0%) patients in mNC-FET versus 75/464 (16.0%) patients in AC-FET (odds ratio (OR) 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.1, P = 0.25). 57/495 (11.5%) mNC-FET resulted in ongoing pregnancy versus 45/464 (9.6%) AC-FET (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-1.1, P = 0.15). χ(2) test confirmed the lack of superiority. Significantly more cycles were cancelled in AC-FET (124/464 versus 101/495, OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.9, P = 0.02). The costs of each of the endometrial preparation methods were comparable (€617.50 per cycle in NC-FET versus €625.73 per cycle in AC-FET, P = 0.54). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The minimum of 1150 patients required for adequate statistical power was not achieved. Moreover, LBRs were lower than anticipated in the sample size calculation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: LBRs after AC-FET were not inferior to those achieved by mNC-FET. No significant differences in clinical and OPR were observed. The costs of both treatment approaches were comparable. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: An educational grant was received during the conduct of this study. Merck Sharpe Dohme had no influence on the design, execution and analyses of this study. E.R.G. received an education grant by Merck Sharpe Dohme (MSD) during the conduct of the present study. B.J.C. reports grants from MSD during the conduct of the study. A.H. reports grants from MSD and Ferring BV the Netherlands and personal fees from MSD. Grants from ZonMW, the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development. J.S.E.L. reports grants from Ferring, MSD, Organon, Merck Serono and Schering-Plough during the conduct of the study. F.J.M.B. receives monetary compensation as member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, consultancy work for Gedeon Richter, educational activities for Ferring BV, research cooperation with Ansh Labs and a strategic cooperation with Roche on automated anti Mullerian hormone assay development. N.S.M. reports receiving monetary compensations for external advisory and speaking work for Ferring BV, MSD, Anecova and Merck Serono during the conduct of the study. All reported competing interests are outside the submitted work. No other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands trial register, number NTR 1586. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 13 January 2009. FIRST PATIENT INCLUDED: 20 April 2009.

Cost-effectiveness of embryo transfer strategies: a decision analytic model using long-term costs and consequences of singletons and multiples born as a consequence of IVF.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the cost-effectiveness of elective single embryo transfer (eSET) versus double embryo transfer (DET) strategies from a societal perspective, when applying a time horizon of 1, 5 and 18 years? SUMMARY ANSWER: From a short-term perspective (1 year) it is cost-effective to replace DET with single embryo transfer; however when intermediate- (5 years) and long-term (18 years) costs and consequences are incorporated, DET becomes the most cost-effective strategy, given a ceiling ratio of €20 000 per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: According to previous cost-effectiveness research into embryo transfer strategies, DET is considered cost-effective if society is willing to pay around €20 000 for an extra live birth. However, interpretation of those studies is complicated, as those studies fail to incorporate long-term costs and outcomes and used live birth as a measure of effectiveness instead of QALYs. With this outcome, both multiple and singletons were valued as one live birth, whereas costs of all children of a multiple were incorporated. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A Markov model (cycle length: 1 year; time horizon: 1, 5 and 18 years) was developed comparing a maximum of: (i) three cycles of eSET in all patients; (ii) four cycles of eSET in all patients; (iii) five cycles of eSET in all patients; (iv) three cycles of standard treatment policy (STP), i.e. eSET in women <38 years with a good quality embryo, and DET in all other women; and (v) three cycles of DET in all patients. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Expected life years (LYs), child QALYs and costs were estimated for all comparators. Input parameters were derived from a retrospective cohort study, in which hospital resource data were collected (n=580) and a parental questionnaire was sent out (431 respondents). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (5000 iterations) was performed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: With a time horizon of 18 years, DETx3 is most effective (0.54 live births, 10.2 LYs and 9.8 QALYs) and expensive (€37 871) per couple starting IVF. Three cycles of eSET are least effective (0.43 live births, 7.1 LYs and 6.8 QALYs) and expensive (€25 563). We assumed that society is willing to pay €20 000 per QALY gained. With a time horizon of 1 year, eSETx3 was the most cost-effective embryo transfer strategy with a probability of being cost-effective of 99.9%. With a time horizon of 5 or 18 years, DETx3 was most cost-effective, with probabilities of being cost-effective of 77.3 and 93.2%, respectively. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This is the first study to use QALYs generated by the children in the economic evaluation of embryo transfer strategies. There remains some disagreement on whether QALYs generated by new life should be used in economic evaluations of fertility treatment. A further limitation is that treatment ends when it results in live birth and that only child QALYs were considered as measure of effectiveness. The results for the time horizon of 18 years might be less solid, as the data beyond the age of 8 years are based on extrapolation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The current Markov model indicates that when child QALYs are used as measure of outcome it is not cost-effective on the long term to replace DET with single embryo transfer strategies. However, for a balanced approach, a family-planning perspective would be preferable, including additional treatment cycles for couples who wish to have another child. Furthermore, the analysis should be extended to include QALYs of family members. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was supported by a research grant (grant number 80-82310-98-09094) from the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw). There are no conflicts of interest in connection with this article. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

IVF cycle cost estimation using Activity Based Costing and Monte Carlo simulation.

The Authors present a new methodological approach in stochastic regime to determine the actual costs of an healthcare process. The paper specifically shows the application of the methodology for the determination of the cost of an Assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment in Italy. The reason of this research comes from the fact that deterministic regime is inadequate to implement an accurate estimate of the cost of this particular treatment. In fact the durations of the different activities involved are unfixed and described by means of frequency distributions. Hence the need to determine in addition to the mean value of the cost, the interval within which it is intended to vary with a known confidence level. Consequently the cost obtained for each type of cycle investigated (in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection), shows tolerance intervals around the mean value sufficiently restricted as to make the data obtained statistically robust and therefore usable also as reference for any benchmark with other Countries. It should be noted that under a methodological point of view the approach was rigorous. In fact it was used both the technique of Activity Based Costing for determining the cost of individual activities of the process both the Monte Carlo simulation, with control of experimental error, for the construction of the tolerance intervals on the final result.

Is IVF-served two different ways-more cost-effective than IUI with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation?

STUDY QUESTION: What is the cost-effectiveness of in vitro fertilization (IVF) with conventional ovarian stimulation, single embryo transfer (SET) and subsequent cryocycles or IVF in a modified natural cycle (MNC) compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (IUI-COH) as a first-line treatment in couples with unexplained subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis on natural conception?. SUMMARY ANSWER: Both IVF strategies are significantly more expensive when compared with IUI-COH, without being significantly more effective. In the comparison between IVF-MNC and IUI-COH, the latter is the dominant strategy. Whether IVF-SET is cost-effective depends on society's willingness to pay for an additional healthy child. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IUI-COH and IVF, either after conventional ovarian stimulation or in a MNC, are used as first-line treatments for couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility. As IUI-COH is less invasive, this treatment is usually offered before proceeding to IVF. Yet, as conventional IVF with SET may lead to higher pregnancy rates in fewer cycles for a lower multiple pregnancy rate, some have argued to start with IVF instead of IUI-COH. In addition, IVF in the MNC is considered to be a more patient friendly and less costly form of IVF. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized noninferiority trial. Between January 2009 and February 2012, 602 couples with unexplained infertility and a poor prognosis on natural conception were allocated to three cycles of IVF-SET including frozen embryo transfers, six cycles of IVF-MNC or six cycles of IUI-COH. These couples were followed until 12 months after randomization. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We collected data on resource use related to treatment, medication and pregnancy from the case report forms. We calculated unit costs from various sources. For each of the three strategies, we calculated the mean costs and effectiveness. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH and for IVF-MNC compared with IUI-COH. Nonparametric bootstrap resampling was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in our estimates. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There were 104 healthy children (52%) born in the IVF-SET group, 83 (43%) the IVF-MNC group and 97 (47%) in the IUI-COH group. The mean costs per couple were €7187 for IVF-SET, €8206 for IVF-MNC and €5070 for IUI-COH. Compared with IUI-COH, the costs for IVF-SET and IVF-MNC were significantly higher (mean differences €2117; 95% CI: €1544-€2657 and €3136, 95% CI: €2519-€3754, respectively).The ICER for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH was €43 375 for the birth of an additional healthy child. In the comparison of IVF-MNC to IUI-COH, the latter was the dominant strategy, i.e. more effective at lower costs. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We only report on direct health care costs. The present analysis is limited to 12 months. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since we found no evidence in support of offering IVF as a first-line strategy in couples with unexplained and mild subfertility, IUI-COH should remain the treatment of first choice. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study was supported by a grant from ZonMw, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, (120620027) and a grant from Zorgverzekeraars Nederland, the Netherlands' association of health care insurers (09-003). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52843371; Nederlands Trial Register NTR939.

Economic aspects of infertility care: a challenge for researchers and clinicians.

Infertility care has improved remarkably over the last few decades and has received growing attention from health care providers. Several treatments, including expensive options such as Assisted Reproductive Techniques, are now widely available for routine clinical use. In most cases, adoption of these treatments has occurred without robust cost-effective analyses. IVF for unexplained infertility and ICSI in the absence of semen abnormalities are two examples of this gradual technology creep. More in-depth economic analyses in the field of infertility are undoubtedly warranted. However, performing these analyses is challenging because infertility care poses a number of unique challenges. Studies of cost-effectiveness are open to criticism because there is a lack of consensus about the outcomes of choice and the appropriate perspective. The use of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) to allow comparisons with other clinical conditions is also controversial because the value associated with infertility care cannot be easily captured in QALYs. Moreover, their use triggers the crucial question of whose QALYs merit consideration-an individual's, a couple's or a child's. In conclusion, economic analysis in infertility represents a peculiar but crucial challenge. If management of infertility is to become an integral part of publicly or privately funded health care systems worldwide, better quality data and a shared vision about the costs and benefits of infertility treatments are needed.

Is the Production of Embryos in Small-Scale Farming an Economically Feasible Enterprise?

The present assay attempts to evaluate the feasibility of using embryo transfer in small community farmers by in vivo study and by modelling the results obtained. From the total of 59 donor cows, 62.7% responded to treatment, with a significant difference (p = 0.002) in the percentage of the response between breeds, being 90.5% (19/21) in Holstein and 47.4% (18/38) in Brahman. A total of 283 embryos were graded as transferable, while 141 as non-transferable, without difference in the percentage of transferable embryo by breed (p = 0.18). The mean of transferable embryos graded as class I and II was not different between Holstein and Brahman (p = 0.96 and p = 0.92, respectively); besides, no differences were observed in the other grades (non-transferable). The highest difference in costs, regardless of its quality by breed, was seen in the lower levels of probable fertility of the embryo transferred, even reaching several hundred dollars. When modelling the expected costs for embryo produced and transferred, values can reach nearly $2000.00 when the probable fertility is only 10%. However, when the probable fertility was 60%, embryo cost was close to $300.00. This technology seems to be viable on average or high-scale systems, having a superovulatory response between 60 and 80% with 4-6 transferrable embryos. Yet, in small-scale farming, due to the reduced number of donors and/or recipients, the costs surpass the economical feasibility of the technique.

On the cost and prevention of iatrogenic multiple pregnancies.

Multiple pregnancies are an undesirable complication of IVF and of ovulation induction and/or ovulation enhancement without IVF. Studies based on published population data and data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that savings from the mitigation of iatrogenic multiples would save money in the billions (10(9)) of US dollars on a national basis. The aim of this study was to determine whether, using real data from a major regional insurance carrier for the interval 2005-2009 covering obstetric costs requiring hospitalization and neonatal costs through the first year, it was possible to show that the cost saved by eliminating iatrogenic multiple births would be adequate to fund a protocol to minimize iatrogenic multiple births. The net savings on an annual basis for the study group of 13,478 was about US$4.4 million. Applying the regional findings to national data suggests savings of approximately US$6.3 billion if national iatrogenic multiples were eliminated. These findings indicate that the health insurance industry should be able to offer infertility coverage at a lower rate by requiring a treatment algorithm designed to essentially eliminate iatrogenic multiple pregnancies. It is concluded that efforts should be made to assure a singleton birth when treating infertility.