Preimplantation genetic testing for sickle cell disease: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disease (IVF + PGT-M) in the conception of a nonsickle cell disease (non-SCD) individual compared with standard of care treatment for a naturally conceived, sickle cell disease (SCD)-affected individual. Design: A Markov simulation model was constructed to evaluate a one-time IVF + PGT-M treatment compared with the lifetime standard of care costs of treatment for an individual potentially born with SCD. Using an annual discount rate of 3% for cost and outcome measures, quality-adjusted life years were constructed from utility weights and life expectancy values and then used as the effectiveness measurement. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated for both treatment arms, and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year was assumed. Setting: Tertiary care or university medical center. Patients: A hypothetical cohort of 10,000 patients was analzyed over a lifetime horizon using yearly cycles. Interventions: In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disease use in conception of a non-SCD individual. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcomes of interest were the incremental cost and effectiveness of an IVF+PGT-M conception compared with the SOC treatment of an SCD-affected individual. Results: In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disease was the optimal strategy in 93.17% of the iterations. An incremental savings of $137,594 was demonstrated with a gain of 1.96 QALYs and 3.69 life years over a lifetime. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that SOC treatment never met equivalent cost-effectiveness. Conclusions: Our model demonstrates that IVF + PGT-M for selection against SCD, compared with lifetime SOC treatment for those affected, is the most cost-effective strategy within the United States healthcare sector.

Inconsistent Mandated Access to Fertility Preservation: A Review of Relevant State Legislation.

With improvement in cancer therapies, there has been an increasing emphasis on survivorship, including options for fertility preservation. Fertility preservation is the process of either protecting or saving gametes or reproductive tissues for potential future procreation. Methods and outcomes of fertility preservation have similarly been rapidly advancing. Before initiation of gonadotoxic therapy, health care providers must consider future fertility of patients and provide options for fertility preservation. Nonetheless, the cost of fertility preservation can be prohibitory. Depending on a patient's state of residence, insurance may be mandated to cover, or offer to cover, the cost of fertility preservation. State legislation continues to change; however, legislation at the federal level has been proposed to make this coverage more cohesive. This commentary reviews current state legislation regarding mandates to cover the cost of fertility preservation for patients at risk for iatrogenic infertility and outlines the importance of developing federal legislation to improve patient access to care.

Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of ovulation suppression with progestins compared with GnRH analogs in assisted reproduction cycles.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Is ovulation suppression with progestins, requiring a freeze-all approach and subsequent frozen embryo transfer resulting from progestenic endometrial changes, cost-effective compared with gonadotropin releasing hormone analogues (GnRH) during assisted reproduction cycles. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis derived from a PubMed literature search of average US costs of GnRH agonist and antagonist IVF cycles. RESULTS: In all fresh IVF cycle models, progestin cycles were more expensive owing to the additional costs of increased gonadotropin use, embryo freezing and subsequent frozen embryo transfer (FET). The average cost per live birth with progestins ($32,466-$56,194) was higher than fresh IVF cycles with short (flare) GnRH agonist ($4,447-$12,797 higher) and GnRH antagonist ($1,542-$9,893 higher). When analyzing an initial embryo transfer plus additional FET in patients not initially pregnant, progestin cycles were still more expensive per live birth compared with conventional protocols. When planned freeze only cycles were analyzed, progestins became more cost-effective per live birth compared with antagonist cycles ($2,079 lower) but remained more expensive than short agonist cycles ($823 more expensive). CONCLUSIONS: Ovulation inhibition in IVF using progestins requires a freeze-only approach of embryos, and thus progestin use was not cost-effective compared with fresh embryo transfer cycles. Progestins, however, may be cost-effective compared with GnRH antagonist in planned freeze only cycles such as in preimplantation genetic testing or fertility preservation.

Defining thresholds for abnormal premature progesterone levels during ovarian stimulation for assisted reproduction technologies.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate methodologies to establish abnormal progesterone (P) levels on the day of trigger for recommending freeze only cycles. DESIGN: Threshold analysis and cost analysis. SETTING: Private ART practice. PATIENT(S): Fresh autologous ART. INTERVENTIONS(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Live birth. RESULT(S): Fourteen established statistical methodologies for generating clinical thresholds were evaluated. These methods were applied to 7,608 fresh ART transfer cycles to generate various P thresholds which ranged widely from 0.4 to 3.0 ng/mL. Lower thresholds ranged from 0.4 to 1 ng/mL and classified the majority of cycles as abnormal as well as required very large number needed to treat (NNT) to increase one live birth. Frozen embryo transfer was cost-effective when P was ≥1.5 ng/mL, with 12% of the population having an abnormal test result and an NNT of 13. Statistical and cost-effective thresholds clustered between 1.5 and 2.0 ng/mL. CONCLUSION(S): Statistically significant thresholds for P were demonstrated as low as 0.4 ng/mL but resulted in a very large NNT to increase one live birth. A clinical benefit to a freeze-only approach was demonstrated above P thresholds ranging from 1.5 to 2.0 ng/dL. At these thresholds, elevated P has a demonstrable and clinically significant negative effect and captures a smaller percentage of the patient population at higher risk for fresh transfer failure, thus making freeze-only a cost-effective option.

Does elevated progesterone on day of oocyte maturation play a role in the racial disparities in IVF outcomes?

The aim of this study was to evaluate if premature progesterone elevation on the last day of assisted reproduction technique stimulation contributes to racial disparities in IVF outcome. A total of 3289 assisted reproduction technique cycles were evaluated in Latino, Asian, African American, and white women. Live birth was more likely in white women (42.6%) compared with Asian (34.8%) and African American women (36.3%), but was similar to Latino women (40.7%). In all racial groups, progesterone was negatively associated with live birth and the negative effect of progesterone persisted when adjusting for confounders. Although the effect of elevated progesterone was similar in all racial groups, the prevalence of elevated progesterone differed. Progesterone > 1.5 ng/ml occurred in only 10.6% of cycles in white women compared with 18.0% in Latino and 20.2% in Asian women. Progesterone > 2 ng/ml occurred in only 2.3% of cycles in white women compared with 6.3% in Latino, 5.9% in Asian and 4.4% in African American women. The increased prevalence of premature elevated progesterone persisted when controlling for IVF stimulation parameters. In conclusion, premature progesterone elevation had a negative effect on live birth in all racial groups studied. The prevalence of elevated progesterone was higher in racial minorities.

Is Myomectomy Prior to Assisted Reproductive Technology Cost Effective in Women with Intramural Fibroids?

AIM: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of surgery to remove intramural (IM) fibroids prior to assisted reproductive technology (ART). METHODS: The decision tree mathematical model along with sensitivity analysis was performed to analyze cost effectiveness of: (1) myomectomy followed by ART or (2) ART with IM myoma(s) in situ. RESULTS: At the median ongoing pregnancy (OP) rate (OPR) reported in the literature for a fresh, autologous ART cycle with IM fibroids in situ vs. post-IM myomectomy, average cost per OP was $72,355 vs. 66,075, indicating a cost savings with myomectomy. Sensitivity analysis over the range of reported OPRs demonstrated that pre-ART IM myomectomy was always cost effective when OPR among women with in situ myomas was <15.4%. However, for OPRs ≥15.4%, pre-ART IM myomectomy was only cost effective if it increased OPR by at least 9.6%. At the high end of OPRs reported for patients with IM myomas in situ (31.4%), a 19.5% improvement in OPR was needed to justify IM myomectomy from a cost perspective. CONCLUSION: Myomectomy should be used sparingly in cases where the goal of surgery is to achieve improvement in the outcomes of ART.

Is Anti-Müllerian Hormone Associated With Fecundability? Findings From the EAGeR Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate whether anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) is associated with fecundability among women with proven fecundity and a history of pregnancy loss. DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort study within a multicenter, block-randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial ( clinicaltrials.gov , number NCT00467363). SETTING: The study was conducted at four US medical centers (2006-2012). PARTICIPANTS: Participating women were aged 18-40 years, with a history of one to two pregnancy losses who were actively attempting pregnancy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to human chorionic gonadotropin detected and clinical pregnancy were assessed using Cox proportional hazard regression models to estimate fecundability odds ratios (fecundability odds ratios with 95% confidence interval [CI]) adjusted for age, race, body mass index, income, low-dose aspirin treatment, parity, number of previous losses, and time since most recent loss. Analyses examined by preconception AMH levels: low (<1.00 ng/mL, n = 124); normal (referent 1.00-3.5 ng/mL, n = 595); and high (>3.5 ng/mL, n = 483). RESULTS: Of the 1202 women with baseline AMH levels, 82 women with low AMH (66.1%) achieved an human chorionic gonadotropin detected pregnancy, compared with 383 with normal AMH (65.2%) and 315 with high AMH level (65.2%). Low or high AMH levels relative to normal AMH (referent) were not associated with fecundability (low AMH: fecundability odds ratios 1.13, 95% CI 0.85-1.49; high AMH: FOR 1.04, 95% CI 0.87-1.24). CONCLUSIONS: Lower and higher AMH values were not associated with fecundability in unassisted conceptions in a cohort of fecund women with a history of one or two prior losses. Our data do not support routine AMH testing for preconception counseling in young, fecund women.

How Obamacare will impact reproductive health.

For many years, health care delivery in the United States was accomplished through a complicated and evolving series of publicly and privately available insurance programs. In recent years, the increasing cost of health care as well as the relatively large number of individuals without any health care insurance coverage has prompted repeated attempts to modify or overhaul the current health care delivery paradigm. The largest legislative change to this system occurred on March 23, 2010, when President Barack Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).The PPACA is a multifaceted and sweeping piece of legislation. The law introduces a myriad number of changes into both public and private health insurance. Understanding the law, its implications, and how to navigate through these changes is essential to provide high-quality health care to patients. Although the law or parts of it are still at risk of being modified either through judicial or political action, it is important to recognize the current aspects of the law to understand any future modifications. Providing health care coverage in the United States is sure to be as it has always been: a constantly changing and evolving set of private and public policies that carry with them significant complexities and challenges. Health care providers must constantly strive to maximize access to and quality of medical care in whatever paradigm evolves in the future.