Minimising twins in in vitro fertilisation: a modelling study assessing the costs, consequences and cost-utility of elective single versus double embryo transfer over a 20-year time horizon.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cumulative costs and consequences of double embryo transfer (DET) or elective single embryo transfer (eSET) in women commencing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment aged 32, 36 and 39 years. DESIGN: Microsimulation model. SETTING: Three assisted reproduction centres in Scotland. SAMPLE: A total of 6153 women undergoing treatment at one of three Scottish IVF clinics, between January 1997 and June 2007. METHODS: A microsimulation model, populated using data inputs derived from a large clinical data set and published literature, was developed to compare the costs and consequences of using eSET or DET over multiple treatment cycles. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Disability-free live births; twin pregnancy rate; women's quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); health service costs. RESULTS: Not only did DET produce a higher cumulative live birth rate compared with eSET for women of all three ages, but also a higher twin pregnancy rate. Compared with eSET, DET ranged from costing an additional £ 27,356 per extra live birth in women commencing treatment aged 32 years, to costing £ 15,539 per extra live birth in 39-year-old women. DET cost ∼ £ 28,300 and ∼ £ 20,300 per additional QALY in women commencing treatment aged 32 and 39 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the high twin pregnancy rate associated with DET, coupled with uncertainty surrounding QALY gains, eSET is likely to be the preferred option for most women aged ≤ 36 years. The cost-effectiveness of DET improves with age, and may be considered cost-effective in some groups of older women. The decision may best be considered on a case-by-case basis for women aged 37-39 years.

Clomifene citrate and intrauterine insemination as first-line treatments for unexplained infertility: are they cost-effective?

BACKGROUND: First-line treatments for unexplained infertility traditionally include clomifene citrate (CC) or unstimulated intrauterine insemination (IUI). A recently published randomized controlled trial considered the effectiveness of CC and IUI in patients with unexplained infertility and found that neither treatment offered a superior live birth rate when compared with expectant management (EM). This paper reports the economic evaluation conducted alongside this trial in order to assess whether health care providers are gaining value for money in this clinical area. METHODS: Five hundred and eighty women across five Scottish hospitals were randomized to either EM, CC or IUI for 6 months. The primary outcome measure was live births. Resource-use data were collected during the trial and costs were calculated from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated, expressed as cost per live birth, in order to compare the cost-effectiveness of CC and IUI with that of EM to treat unexplained infertility. RESULTS: Live birth rates in the three randomized groups were: EM = 32/193 (17%), CC = 26/194 (13%) and IUI = 43/193 (22%). The mean (standard deviation) costs per treatment cycle were £0 for EM, £83 (£17) for CC and £98 (£31) for IUI. The mean treatment costs per patient for EM, CC and IUI were £12 (£117), £350 (£220) and £331 (£222), respectively. The cost per live birth for EM, CC and IUI was £72 (95% confidence interval £0-£206), £2611 (£1870-£4166) and £1487 (£1116-£2155), respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for IUI versus EM was £5604 (-£12204 to £2227), with CC dominated by IUI. CONCLUSIONS: Despite being more expensive, existing treatments such as empirical CC and unstimulated IUI do not offer superior live birth rates compared with EM of unexplained infertility. They are unlikely to be a cost-effective use of limited NHS resources. The study's main limitation is that it did not consider the psychological effects on couples. ISRCT Number: 71762042.

Clomifene citrate or unstimulated intrauterine insemination compared with expectant management for unexplained infertility: pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of clomifene citrate and unstimulated intrauterine insemination with expectant management for the treatment of unexplained infertility. DESIGN: Three arm parallel group, pragmatic randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Four teaching hospitals and a district general hospital in Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: Couples with infertility for over two years, confirmed ovulation, patent fallopian tubes, and motile sperm. INTERVENTION: Expectant management, oral clomifene citrate, and unstimulated intrauterine insemination. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was live birth. Secondary outcome measures included clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, and acceptability. RESULTS: 580 women were randomised to expectant management (n=193), oral clomifene citrate (n=194), or unstimulated intrauterine insemination (n=193) for six months. The three randomised groups were comparable in terms of age, body mass index, duration of infertility, sperm concentration, and motility. Live birth rates were 32/193 (17%), 26/192 (14%), and 43/191 (23%), respectively. Compared with expectant management, the odds ratio for a live birth was 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.45 to 1.38) after clomifene citrate and 1.46 (0.88 to 2.43) after unstimulated intrauterine insemination. More women randomised to clomifene citrate (159/170, 94%) and unstimulated intrauterine insemination (155/162, 96%) found the process of treatment acceptable than those randomised to expectant management (123/153, 80%) (P=0.001 and P<0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: In couples with unexplained infertility existing treatments such as empirical clomifene and unstimulated intrauterine insemination are unlikely to offer superior live birth rates compared with expectant management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCT No: 71762042.

GnRH analogue in everyday gynecology: is it possible to rationalize its use?

BACKGROUND: The study was an audit of patients who attended the Menstrual Disorders Clinic at Glasgow Royal Infirmary over a five year period, and received gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analog (GnRHa). We aimed to identify the clinical indications for the use of GnRHa, and the effect of the latter in terms of symptom resolution and ultimate outcome. We aim to use this information to formulate a strategy for the use of GnRHa by targeting this expensive therapy to those situations where maximum benefit will be achieved. METHODS: A retrospective case review analysis of 201 patients. RESULTS: Thirty-eight percent of women presented with pelvic pain, 33% with disordered menstruation and 26% with premenstrual symptomatology. Overall, 74% of patients reported a beneficial effect of GnRHa. In the non-cyclical pelvic pain group, those patients with adhesions constituted a much greater proportion of those who did not derive benefit from GnRHa than those who did (43% vs. 16%; p<0.05; data not shown). In those patients with disordered menses, there was no difference between the diagnosis in those who did or did not derive benefit from GnRHa. Also with the exception of endometrial preparation prior to ablation and in the correction of anemia, the ultimate outcome was no different in the two groups. Of the patients with premenstrual symptomatology, the greatest proportion of those deriving benefit from GnRHa (41%) ultimately had an operative resolution. CONCLUSIONS: Our results enable us to use GnRHa as a first line in those clinical situations where maximum benefit will be achieved, either in terms of symptom resolution or as a tool to identify the most appropriate therapeutic option. We can therefore rationalize our prescribing both to the benefit of the patient and to our budget.

Should sperm donors be paid? A survey of the attitudes of the general public.

Gamete donation in assisted reproduction is an accepted treatment option for certain infertile couples. Traditionally, men donating spermatozoa have been paid a nominal fee, whilst women donating oocytes have not. The issue of payment for sperm donors has recently attracted attention following the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's (HFEA) suggestion that such payment may be withdrawn. Prior to the final meeting of the HFEA working party which is examining this issue, here we report the results of a survey designed to solicit opinion on whether sperm donors should be paid, to identify social or other factors which influence this opinion, and to examine the influence of financial incentive on potential donors. We surveyed 717 individuals in three distinct groups: the general public, students (potential donors), and infertility patients (potential recipients). The majority of the potential donor group (students) was in favour of paying sperm donors, as were infertility patients. In contrast the general public was not. The opinion of the general public on this issue was influenced by their prior knowledge of whether donors were paid: those of the general public favouring the payment of sperm donors had a prior awareness that such payments were made. Although not in favour of paying sperm donors, the general public overwhelmingly approved of the use of donated spermatozoa for the treatment of infertile couples, and thought that ways should be sought to increase the availability of donor spermatozoa for the treatment of infertility and for research purposes. Within the potential donor group (students), the majority indicated that financial reward was an important factor which would influence their decision to donate spermatozoa. As the majority of both the potential recipients and potential donors feels that sperm donors should be paid, perhaps the views of these groups should carry significant weight when the decision whether or not to withdraw payment is taken. This is especially the case in view of the fact that the majority of the general public is in favour of the use of donated spermatozoa for the treatment of infertile couples.