Oil-based or water-based contrast for hysterosalpingography in infertile women: a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost effectiveness of the use of oil-based versus water-based contrast in infertile women undergoing hysterosalpingography (HSG). DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a multicenter randomized trial. SETTING: Hospitals. PATIENT(S): Infertile women with an ovulatory cycle, 18-39 years of age, low risk of tubal pathology. INTERVENTION(S): Use of oil-based versus water-based contrast during HSG. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Costs per additional ongoing pregnancy and per live birth within 6 months of randomization, incremental cost-effective ratios (ICERs). RESULT(S): A total of 1,119 women were randomized to HSG (oil-based contrast, n = 557; water-based contrast, n = 562). After HSG, most women had no additional treatment; a minority had IUI or IVF. In the oil group, 39.7% women had an ongoing pregnancy within 6 months of randomization versus 29.1% women in the water group. There was a 10.7% increase in the live birth rate in the oil group. For ongoing pregnancy, the mean costs per couple were US$2,014 in the oil group and US$1,144 in the water group, with a corresponding ICER of US$8,198 per additional ongoing pregnancy. For live birth, the mean costs per couple were US$11,532 in the oil group and US$8,310 in the water group, with a corresponding ICER of US$30,112 per additional live birth. CONCLUSION(S): Hysterosalpingography with oil-based contrast results in higher 6-month ongoing pregnancy and live birth rate. If society is willing to pay US$8,198 for an additional ongoing pregnancy, HSG with oil-based contrast is a cost-effective strategy compared with HSG with water-based contrast for infertile, ovulatory women at low risk for tubal pathology. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register, NTR 6577 (www.trialregister.nl).

Cost-effectiveness of single versus double embryo transfer in IVF in relation to female age.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of single embryo transfer followed by an additional frozen-thawed single embryo transfer, if more embryos are available, as compared to double embryo transfer in relation to female age. STUDY DESIGN: We used a decision tree model to evaluate the costs from a healthcare provider perspective and the pregnancy rates of two embryo transfer policies: one fresh single embryo transfer followed by an additional frozen-thawed single embryo transfer, if more embryos are available (strategy I), and double embryo transfer (strategy II). The analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Sensitivity analyses were carried out to evaluate the robustness of our model and to identify which model parameters had the strongest impact on the results. RESULTS: SET followed by an additional frozen-thawed single embryo transfer if available was dominant, less costly and more effective, over DET in women under 32 years. In women aged 32 or older DET was more effective than SET followed by an additional frozen-thawed single embryo transfer if available but also more costly. CONCLUSION: SET followed by an additional frozen-thawed single embryo transfer should be the preferred strategy in women under 32 undergoing IVF. The choice for SET followed by an additional frozen-thawed single embryo transfer or DET in women aged 32 or older depends on individual patient preferences and on how much society is willing to pay for an extra child. There is a strong need for a randomized clinical trial comparing the cost and effects of SET followed by an additional frozen-thawed single embryo transfer and DET in the latter category of women.

Cost-effectiveness of assisted conception for male subfertility.

Intrauterine insemination (IUI), with or without ovarian stimulation, IVF and intracytoplasmatic sperm injection (ICSI) are frequently used treatments for couples with male subfertility. No consensus has been reached on specific cut-off values for semen parameters, at which IVF would be advocated over IUI and ICSI over IVF. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of interventions for male subfertility according to total motile sperm count (TMSC). A computer-simulated cohort of subfertile women aged 30 years with a partner was analysed with a pre-wash TMSC of 0 to 10 million. Three treatments were evaluated: IUI with and without controlled ovarian stimulation; IVF; and ICSI. Main outcome was expected live birth; secondary outcomes were cost per couple and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The choice of IVF over IUI with ovarian stimulation and ICSI over IVF depends on the willingness to pay for an extra live birth. If only cost per live birth is considered for each treatment, above a pre-wash TMSC of 3 million, IUI is less costly than IVF and, below a pre-wash, TMSC of 3 million ICSI is less costly. Effectiveness needs to be confirmed in a large randomized controlled trial.

IVF with planned single-embryo transfer versus IUI with ovarian stimulation in couples with unexplained subfertility: an economic analysis.

Couples with unexplained subfertility are often treated with intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian stimulation, which carries the risk of multiple pregnancies. An explorative randomized controlled trial was performed comparing one cycle of IVF with elective single-embryo transfer (eSET) versus three cycles of IUI-ovarian stimulation in couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, to assess the economic burden of the treatment modalities. The main outcome measures were ongoing pregnancy rates and costs. This study randomly assigned 58 couples to IVF-eSET and 58 couples to IUI-ovarian stimulation. The ongoing pregnancy rates were 24% in with IVF-eSET versus 21% with IUI-ovarian stimulation, with two and three multiple pregnancies, respectively. The mean cost per included couple was significantly different: €2781 with IVF-eSET and €1876 with IUI-ovarian stimulation (P<0.01). The additional costs per ongoing pregnancy were €2456 for IVF-eSET. In couples with unexplained subfertility, one cycle of IVF-eSET cost an additional €900 per couple compared with three cycles of IUI-ovarian stimulation, for no increase in ongoing pregnancy rates or decrease in multiple pregnancies. When IVF-eSET results in higher ongoing pregnancy rates, IVF would be the preferred treatment. Couples that have been trying to conceive unsuccessfully are often treated with intrauterine insemination (IUI) and medication to improve egg production (ovarian stimulation). This treatment carries the risk of multiple pregnancies like twins. We performed an explorative study among those couples that had a poor prognosis for natural conception. One cycle of IVF with transfer of one selected embryo (elective single-embryo transfer, eSET) was compared with three cycles of IUI-ovarian stimulation. The aim of this study was to assess the economic burden of both treatments. The Main outcome measures were number of good pregnancies above 12weeks and costs. We randomly assigned 58 couples to IVF-eSET and 58 couples to IUI-ovarian stimulation. The ongoing pregnancy rates were comparable: 24% with IVF-eSET versus 21% with IUI-ovarian stimulation. There were two multiple pregnancies with IVF-eSET and three multiple pregnancies with IUI-ovarian stimulation. The mean cost per included couple was significantly different, €2781 with IVF-eSET and €1876 with IUI-ovarian stimulation. The additional costs per ongoing pregnancy were €2456 for IVF-eSET. In couples with unexplained subfertility, one cycle of IVF-eSET costed an additional €900 per couple compared to three cycles of IUI-ovarian stimulation, for no increase in ongoing pregnancy rates or decrease in multiple pregnancies. We conclude that IUI-ovarian stimulation is the preferred treatment to start with. When IVF-eSET results in a higher ongoing pregnancy rate (>38%), IVF would be the preferred treatment.

Long term outcome in subfertile couples with isolated cervical factor.

OBJECTIVE: A previous randomized clinical trial (RCT) compared immediate treatment with intrauterine insemination (IUI) to expectant management for six months in subfertile couples with an isolated cervical factor. That study showed higher ongoing pregnancy rates in couples receiving intrauterine insemination. The current study compared the long-term effectiveness and costs of this intervention. STUDY DESIGN: We followed all couples (N=99) who were previously included in the RCT for three years after randomization and registered pregnancies and treatments. After the initial trial period, couples in both groups were offered further treatment according to local protocol. The primary outcome was an ongoing pregnancy after three years. RESULTS: After three years, there were 36 ongoing pregnancies in the immediate IUI group (N=51 couples) and 38 ongoing pregnancies in the expectant management group (N=48 couples). The ongoing pregnancy rates were 71% and 79% respectively (RR 0.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7-1.1)). CONCLUSIONS: In couples with an isolated cervical factor, a treatment strategy including immediate treatment with IUI does not result in higher ongoing pregnancy rates on the long term. Initial expectant management is therefore justified in these couples and identifying a cervical factor by a post-coital test is unnecessary.

Improving the implementation of tailored expectant management in subfertile couples: protocol for a cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic models in reproductive medicine can help to identify subfertile couples who would benefit from fertility treatment. Expectant management in couples with a good chance of natural conception, i.e., tailored expectant management (TEM), prevents unnecessary treatment and is therefore recommended in international fertility guidelines. However, current implementation is not optimal, leaving room for improvement. Based on barriers and facilitators for TEM that were recently identified among professionals and subfertile couples, we have developed a multifaceted implementation strategy. The goal of this study is to assess the effects of this implementation strategy on the guideline adherence on TEM. METHODS/DESIGN: In a cluster randomized trial, 25 clinics and their allied practitioners units will be randomized between the multifaceted implementation strategy and care as usual. Randomization will be stratified for in vitro fertilization (IVF) facilities (full licensed, intermediate/no IVF facilities). The effect of the implementation strategy, i.e., the percentage guideline adherence on TEM, will be evaluated by pre- and post-randomization data collection. Furthermore, there will be a process and cost evaluation of the strategy. The implementation strategy will focus on subfertile couples and their care providers i.e., general practitioners (GPs), fertility doctors, and gynecologists. The implementation strategy addresses three levels: patient level: education materials in the form of a patient information leaflet and a website; professional level: audit and feedback, educational outreach visit, communication training, and access to a digital version of the prognostic model of Hunault on a website; organizational level: providing a protocol based on the guideline. The primary outcome will be the percentage guideline adherence on TEM. Additional outcome measures will be treatment-, patient-, and process-related outcome measures. DISCUSSION: This study will provide evidence about the effectiveness and costs of a multifaceted implementation strategy to improve guideline adherence on TEM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.trialregister.nlNTR3405. This study is sponsored by ZonMW.

Long-term outcome in couples with unexplained subfertility and an intermediate prognosis initially randomized between expectant management and immediate treatment.

BACKGROUND: We recently reported that treatment with intrauterine insemination and controlled ovarian stimulation (IUI-COS) did not increase ongoing pregnancy rates compared with expectant management (EM) in couples with unexplained subfertility and intermediate prognosis of natural conception. Long-term cost-effectiveness of a policy of initial EM is unknown. We investigated whether the recommendation not to treat during the first 6 months is valid, regarding the long-term effectiveness and cumulative costs. METHODS: Couples with unexplained subfertility and intermediate prognosis of natural conception (n=253, at 26 public clinics, the Netherlands) were randomly allocated to 6 months EM or immediate start with IUI-COS. The couples were then treated according to local protocol, usually IUI-COS followed by IVF. We followed couples until 3 years after randomization and registered pregnancies and resources used. Primary outcome was time to ongoing pregnancy. Secondary outcome was treatment costs. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Economic evaluation was performed from the perspective of the health care institution. RESULTS: Time to ongoing pregnancy did not differ between groups (log-rank test P=0.98). Cumulative ongoing pregnancy rates were 72-73% for EM and IUI-COS groups, respectively [relative risk 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85-1.1)]. Estimated mean costs per couple were € 3424 (95% CI € 880-€ 5968) in the EM group and € 6040 (95% CI € 4055-€ 8125) in the IUI-COS group resulting in an estimated saving of € 2616 per couple (95% CI € 385-€ 4847) in favour of EM. CONCLUSIONS: In couples with unexplained subfertility and an intermediate prognosis of natural conception, initial EM for 6 months results in a considerable cost-saving with no delay in achieving pregnancy or jeopardizing the chance of pregnancy. Further comparisons between aggressive and milder forms of ovarian stimulation should be performed.

Non-invasive viability assessment of day-4 frozen-thawed human embryos using near infrared spectroscopy.

This study investigated if metabolomic profiling of culture media using near infrared (NIR) spectroscopy was related to live-birth rates after single-embryo transfer of frozen-thawed embryos. Analysis of culture media of frozen-thawed embryos was performed by NIR spectroscopy. A viability score was calculated using a predictive multivariate algorithm of fresh day-5 embryos with known pregnancy outcomes. This algorithm generated with fresh day-5 embryos could help to identify the live-birth group from the no live-birth group. Multivariable regression models that tested the predictive ability of the viability score for live birth showed an odds ratio in the crude analysis of 1.50 (P=0.008), after adjustment for embryo morphology, 1.44 (P=0.022), and after adjustment for all variables, 1.71 (P=0.005); based on a 0.1 step increase in viability scores. In conclusion, higher viability scores resulted in higher live-birth rates. An algorithm generated from fresh embryos might be used to predict viability of frozen-thawed embryos. Frozen-thawed embryos have different metabolic activity which is related to implantation potential. Therefore, this method might be useful to select the best embryo for transfer within a group of embryos with similar morphology.

Cost effectiveness of ovarian reserve testing in in vitro fertilization: a Markov decision-analytic model.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost effectiveness of ovarian reserve testing in in vitro fertilization (IVF). DESIGN: A Markov decision model based on data from the literature and original patient data. SETTING: Decision analytic framework. PATIENT(S): Computer-simulated cohort of subfertile women aged 20 to 45 years who are eligible for IVF. INTERVENTION(S): [1] No treatment, [2] up to three cycles of IVF limited to women under 41 years and no ovarian reserve testing, [3] up to three cycles of IVF with dose individualization of gonadotropins according to ovarian reserve, and [4] up to three cycles of IVF with ovarian reserve testing and exclusion of expected poor responders after the first cycle, with no treatment scenario as the reference scenario. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Cumulative live birth over 1 year, total costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULT(S): The cumulative live birth was 9.0% in the no treatment scenario, 54.8% for scenario 2, 70.6% for scenario 3 and 51.9% for scenario 4. Absolute costs per woman for these scenarios were €0, €6,917, €6,678, and €5,892 for scenarios 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for scenarios 2, 3, and 4 were €15,166, €10,837, and €13,743 per additional live birth. Sensitivity analysis showed the model to be robust over a wide range of values. CONCLUSION(S): Individualization of the follicle-stimulating hormone dose according to ovarian reserve is likely to be cost effective in women who are eligible for IVF, but this effectiveness needs to be confirmed in randomized clinical trials.

The LIFESTYLE study: costs and effects of a structured lifestyle program in overweight and obese subfertile women to reduce the need for fertility treatment and improve reproductive outcome. A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, 30% of subfertile women are overweight or obese, and at present there is no agreement on fertility care for them. Data from observational and small intervention studies suggest that reduction of weight will increase the chances of conception, decrease pregnancy complications and improve perinatal outcome, but this has not been confirmed in randomised controlled trials. This study will assess the cost and effects of a six-months structured lifestyle program aiming at weight reduction followed by conventional fertility care (intervention group) as compared to conventional fertility care only (control group) in overweight and obese subfertile women. We hypothesize that the intervention will decrease the need for fertility treatment, diminish overweight-related pregnancy complications, and will improve perinatal outcome. METHODS/DESIGN: Multicenter randomised controlled trial in subfertile women (age 18-39 year) with a body mass index between 29 and 40 kg/m2. Exclusion criteria are azoospermia, use of donor semen, severe endometriosis, premature ovarian failure, endocrinopathies or pre-existent hypertensive disorders.In the intervention group the aim is a weight loss of at least 5% to10% in a six-month period, to be achieved by the combination of a diet, increase of physical activity and behavioural modification. After six months, in case no conception has been achieved, these patients will start fertility treatment according to the Dutch fertility guidelines. In the control group treatment will be started according to Dutch fertility guidelines, independently of the patient's weight. OUTCOME MEASURES AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcome measure is a healthy singleton born after at least 37 weeks of gestation after vaginal delivery. Secondary outcome parameters including pregnancy outcome and complications, percentage of women needing fertility treatment, clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates, body weight, quality of life and costs.Data will be analysed according to the intention to treat principle, and cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed to compare the costs and health effects in the intervention and control group. DISCUSSION: The trial will provide evidence for costs and effects of a lifestyle intervention aiming at weight reduction in overweight and obese subfertile women and will offer guidance to clinicians for the treatment of these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register NTR1530.

Investigation of the infertile couple: a basic fertility work-up performed within 12 months of trying to conceive generates costs and complications for no particular benefit.

The current approach of the basic fertility work-up has been questioned recently in this journal. Based on new data on human fecundity, the authors advocated starting the fertility work-up after just 6 months of trying to conceive instead of the usual 12 months. In women younger than 39 years and with a regular cycle, there are several arguments why the basic fertility work-up should not be done earlier than after 12 months of child wish. Firstly, 50% of couples who have tried to conceive for 6 months without success will conceive in the next 6 months without any treatment. Secondly, the prevalence of fertility diseases is lower in couples who have been trying to conceive for 6 months as compared with those who have been trying for 12 months. Performance of a fertility work-up at this stage will lead to an increase in false-positive diagnoses compared with performing them at 12 months of subfertility. Thirdly, fertility treatment will have fewer additional effects in couples with good spontaneous conception prospects (6-12 months child wish), compared with subfertile couples who have poor prospects. At present, none of the available fertility treatments have success rates comparable with no intervention in these women, and postponement of treatment in such couples will prevent complications such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and multiple pregnancies. We argue that the fertility work-up should not be offered to couples with a duration of child wish of <12 months, except for women with ovulation disorders and women of 39 years and older.