Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography versus hysterosalpingography during fertility work-up: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the costs and effects of tubal patency testing by hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) compared to hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile women during the fertility work-up? SUMMARY ANSWER: During the fertility work-up, clinical management based on the test results of HyFoSy leads to slightly lower, though not statistically significant, live birth rates, at lower costs, compared to management based on HSG results. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Traditionally, tubal patency testing during the fertility work-up is performed by HSG. The FOAM trial, formally a non-inferiority study, showed that management decisions based on the results of HyFoSy resulted in a comparable live birth rate at 12 months compared to HSG (46% versus 47%; difference -1.2%, 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%; P = 0.27). Compared to HSG, HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain, it lacks ionizing radiation and exposure to iodinated contrast medium. Moreover, HyFoSy can be performed by a gynaecologist during a one-stop fertility work-up. To our knowledge, the costs of both strategies have never been compared. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an economic evaluation alongside the FOAM trial, a randomized multicenter study conducted in the Netherlands. Participating infertile women underwent, both HyFoSy and HSG, in a randomized order. The results of both tests were compared and women with discordant test results were randomly allocated to management based on the results of one of the tests. The follow-up period was twelve months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied 1160 infertile women (18-41 years) scheduled for tubal patency testing. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth. The economic evaluation compared costs and effects of management based on either test within 12 months. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the difference in total costs and chance of live birth. Data were analyzed using the intention to treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 of the 1160 women underwent both tubal tests and had data available: 747 women with concordant results (48% live births), 136 with inconclusive results (40% live births), and 143 with discordant results (41% had a live birth after management based on HyFoSy results versus 49% with live birth after management based on HSG results). When comparing the two strategies-management based on HyfoSy results versus HSG results-the estimated chance of live birth was 46% after HyFoSy versus 47% after HSG (difference -1.2%; 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%). For the procedures itself, HyFoSy cost €136 and HSG €280. When costs of additional fertility treatments were incorporated, the mean total costs per couple were €3307 for the HyFoSy strategy and €3427 for the HSG strategy (mean difference €-119; 95% CI: €-125 to €-114). So, while HyFoSy led to lower costs per couple, live birth rates were also slightly lower. The ICER was €10 042, meaning that by using HyFoSy instead of HSG we would save €10 042 per each additional live birth lost. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: When interpreting the results of this study, it needs to be considered that there was a considerable uncertainty around the ICER, and that the direct fertility enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests was not incorporated as women underwent both tubal patency tests in this study. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS: Compared to clinical management based on HSG results, management guided by HyFoSy leads to slightly lower live birth rates (though not statistically significant) at lower costs, less pain, without ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast exposure. Further research on the comparison of the direct fertility-enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): FOAM trial was an investigator-initiated study, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm®-FOAM kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel-and speakers fees from Guerbet and her department received research grants from Guerbet outside the submitted work. H.R.V. received consulting-and travel fee from Ferring. A.M.v.P. reports received consulting fee from DEKRA and fee for an expert meeting from Ferring, both outside the submitted work. C.H.d.K. received travel fee from Merck. F.J.M.B. received a grant from Merck and speakers fee from Besins Healthcare. F.J.M.B. is a member of the advisory board of Merck and Ferring. J.v.D. reported speakers fee from Ferring. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda and consultancy for Sanofi on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford Press in the role of deputy editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a DSMB as independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. B.W.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC GNT1176437. B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Guerbet, iGenomix, and Merck KGaA and travel support from Merck KGaA. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck, and Ferring and travel and speakers fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746.

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.

Oocyte cryopreservation versus ovarian tissue cryopreservation for adult female oncofertility patients: a cost-effectiveness study.

PURPOSE: In December 2019, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine designated ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) as no longer experimental and an alternative to oocyte cryopreservation (OC) for women receiving gonadotoxic therapy. Anticipating increased use of OTC, we compare the cost-effectiveness of OC versus OTC for fertility preservation in oncofertility patients. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model to compare OC versus OTC was built from a payer perspective. Costs and probabilities were derived from the literature. The primary outcome for effectiveness was the percentage of patients who achieved live birth. Strategies were compared using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). All inputs were varied widely in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the base case, the estimated cost for OC was $16,588 and for OTC $10,032, with 1.56% achieving live birth after OC, and 1.0% after OTC. OC was more costly but more effective than OTC, with an ICER of $1,163,954 per live birth. In sensitivity analyses, OC was less expensive than OTC if utilization was greater than 63%, cost of OC prior to chemotherapy was less than $8100, cost of laparoscopy was greater than $13,700, or standardized discounted costs were used. CONCLUSIONS: With current published prices and utilization, OC is more costly but more effective than OTC. OC becomes cost-saving with increased utilization, when cost of OC prior to chemotherapy is markedly low, cost of laparoscopy is high, or standardized discounted oncofertility pricing is assumed. We identify the critical thresholds of OC and OTC that should be met to deliver more cost-effective care for oncofertility patients.

Septate uterus according to ESHRE/ESGE, ASRM and CUME definitions: association with infertility and miscarriage, cost and warnings for women and healthcare systems.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the differences in frequency of diagnosis of septate uterus using three different definitions and determine whether these differences are significant in clinical practice, and to examine the association between diagnosis of septate uterus, using each of the three definitions, and infertility and/or previous miscarriage as well as the cost of allocation to surgery. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of data from a prospective study of 261 consecutive women of reproductive age attending a private clinic focused on the diagnosis and treatment of congenital uterine malformations. Reanalysis of the datasets was performed according to three different means of defining septate uterus: following the recommendations of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), a 2016 update of those of the American Fertility Society from 1988 (ASRM-2016: internal fundal indentation depth ≥ 1.5 cm, angle of internal indentation < 90° and external indentation depth < 1 cm); following the recommendations of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology/European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESHRE/ESGE), published in 2013 and reaffirmed in 2016 (ESHRE/ESGE-2016: internal fundal/uterine indentation depth > 50% of uterine-wall thickness and external indentation depth < 50% of uterine-wall thickness, with uterine-wall thickness measured above interostial/intercornual line); and using a definition published last year which was based on the decision made most often by a group of experts (Congenital Uterine Malformation by Experts; CUME) (CUME-2018: internal fundal indentation depth ≥ 1 cm and external fundal indentation depth < 1 cm). We compared the rate of diagnosis of septate uterus using each of these three definitions and, for each, we estimated the association between the diagnosis and infertility and/or previous miscarriage, and anticipated the costs associated with their implementation using a guesstimation method. RESULTS: Although 32.6% (85/261) of the subjects met the criteria for one of the three definitions of septate uterus, only 2.7% (7/261) of them were defined as having septate uterus according to all three definitions. We diagnosed significantly more cases of septate uterus using ESHRE/ESGE-2016 than using ASRM-2016 (31% vs 5%, relative risk (RR) = 6.7, P < 0.0001) or CUME-2018 (31% vs 12%, RR = 2.6, P < 0.0001) criteria. We also observed frequent cases that could not be classified definitively by ASRM-2016 (gray zone: neither normal/arcuate nor septate; 6.5%). There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) in the prevalence of septate uterus in women with vs those without infertility according to ASRM-2016 (5% vs 4%), ESHRE/ESGE-2016 (35% vs 28%) or CUME-2018 (11% vs 12%). Septate uterus was diagnosed significantly more frequently in women with vs those without previous miscarriage according to ASRM-2016 (11% vs 3%; P = 0.04) and CUME-2018 (22 vs 10%; P = 0.04), but not according to ESHRE/ESGE-2016 (42% vs 28%; P = 0.8) criteria. Our calculations showed that global costs to the healthcare system would be highly dependent on the criteria used in the clinical setting to define septate uterus, with the costs associated with the ESHRE/ESGE-2016 definition potentially being an extra US$ 100-200 billion over 5 years in comparison to ASRM-2016 and CUME-2018 definitions. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of septate uterus according to ESHRE/ESGE-2016, ASRM-2016 and CUME-2018 definitions differs considerably. An important limitation of the ASRM classification, which needs to be addressed, is the high proportion of unclassifiable cases originally named, by us, the 'gray zone'. The high rate of overdiagnosis of septate uterus according to ESHRE/ESGE-2016 may lead to unnecessary surgery and therefore unnecessary risk in these women and may impose a considerable financial burden on healthcare systems. Efforts to define clinically meaningful and universally applicable criteria for the diagnosis of septate uterus should be encouraged. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Útero septo según las definiciones de ESHRE/ESGE, ASRM y CUME: la relación con la infertilidad y el aborto espontáneo, el costo y advertencias para las mujeres y los sistemas de salud OBJETIVO: Evaluar el rendimiento de la velocidad sistólica máxima de la arteria cerebral media fetal (MCA-PSV, por sus siglas en inglés) ≥1,5 múltiplos de la mediana (MdM) para la predicción de la anemia moderada-severa en fetos sometidos a transfusión y no sometidos. MÉTODOS: Se realizó una búsqueda sistemática para identificar estudios observacionales relevantes reportados en el período 2008-2018 que evaluaron el rendimiento de la MCA-PSV, utilizando un umbral de 1,5MdM para la predicción de la anemia fetal. El diagnóstico de la anemia fetal mediante la toma de muestras de sangre fue el estándar de referencia. Se utilizaron modelos de efectos aleatorios para la elaboración de una curva jerárquica resumen de las características operativas del receptor (hSROC, por sus siglas en inglés). Se realizaron análisis de subgrupos y metarregresión, según el número de transfusiones intrauterinas previas. RESULTADOS: En el metaanálisis se incluyeron doce estudios y 696 fetos. El área bajo la curva (ABC) hSROC para la anemia moderada-severa fue del 83%. La sensibilidad y especificidad agrupadas (IC 95%) fueron del 79% (70-86%) y 73% (62-82%), respectivamente, y los cocientes de verosimilitud positivos y negativos fueron 2,94 (IC 95%: 2,13-4,00) y 0,272 (IC 95%: 0,188-0,371). Cuando solo se consideraron los fetos no sometidos a transfusión, la predicción mejoró, pues se logró un ABC del 87%, una sensibilidad del 86% (IC 95%: 75-93%) y una especificidad del 71% (IC 95%: 49-87%). Se observó una disminución en la sensibilidad de la predicción de la anemia moderada-severa mediante la MCA-PSV ≥1.5MdM (estimación, -5,5% (IC 95%: -10,7 a -0,3%), P=0,039) en función del aumento del número de transfusiones previas. CONCLUSIONES: El uso de la MCA-PSV ≥1.5MdM para la predicción de la anemia moderada-severa en fetos no sometidos a transfusión muestra una precisión moderada (86% de sensibilidad y 71% de especificidad), que disminuye con el aumento del número de transfusiones intrauterinas.

Is infertility a disease and does it matter?

Claims about whether or not infertility is a disease are sometimes invoked to defend or criticize the provision of state-funded treatment for infertility. In this paper, I suggest that this strategy is problematic. By exploring infertility through key approaches to disease in the philosophy of medicine, I show that there are deep theoretical disagreements regarding what subtypes of infertility qualify as diseases. Given that infertility's disease status remains unclear, one cannot uncontroversially justify or undermine its claim to medical treatment by claiming that it is or is not a disease. Instead of focusing on disease status, a preferable strategy to approach the debate about state-funded treatment is to explicitly address the specific ethical considerations raised by infertility. I show how this alternative strategy can be supported by a recent theoretical framework in the philosophy of medicine which avoids the problems associated with the concepts of health and disease.

Health Care Access, Costs, and Treatment Dynamics: Evidence from In Vitro Fertilization.

We study public policies designed to improve access and reduce costs for in vitro fertilization (IVF). High out-of-pocket prices can deter potential patients from IVF, while active patients have an incentive to risk costly high-order pregnancies to improve their odds of treatment success. We analyze IVF's rich choice structure by estimating a dynamic model of patients' choices within and across treatments. Policy simulations show that insurance mandates for treatment or hard limits on treatment aggressiveness can improve access or costs, but not both. Insurance plus price-based incentives against risky treatment, however, can together improve patient welfare and reduce medical costs.

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.

Chlamydia sequelae cost estimates used in current economic evaluations: does one-size-fit-all?

BACKGROUND: Current evidence suggests that chlamydia screening programmes can be cost-effective, conditional on assumptions within mathematical models. We explored differences in cost estimates used in published economic evaluations of chlamydia screening from seven countries (four papers each from UK and the Netherlands, two each from Sweden and Australia, and one each from Ireland, Canada and Denmark). METHODS: From these studies, we extracted management cost estimates for seven major chlamydia sequelae. In order to compare the influence of different sequelae considered in each paper and their corresponding management costs on the total cost per case of untreated chlamydia, we applied reported unit sequelae management costs considered in each paper to a set of untreated infection to sequela progression probabilities. All costs were adjusted to 2013/2014 Great British Pound (GBP) values. RESULTS: Sequelae management costs ranged from £171 to £3635 (pelvic inflammatory disease); £953 to £3615 (ectopic pregnancy); £546 to £6752 (tubal factor infertility); £159 to £3341 (chronic pelvic pain); £22 to £1008 (epididymitis); £11 to £1459 (neonatal conjunctivitis) and £433 to £3992 (neonatal pneumonia). Total cost of sequelae per case of untreated chlamydia ranged from £37 to £412. CONCLUSIONS: There was substantial variation in cost per case of chlamydia sequelae used in published chlamydia screening economic evaluations, which likely arose from different assumptions about disease management pathways and the country perspectives taken. In light of this, when interpreting these studies, the reader should be satisfied that the cost estimates used sufficiently reflect the perspective taken and current disease management for their respective context.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Hysteroscopic Polypectomy Before Controlled Ovarian Hyperstimulation and Intrauterine Insemination in Infertile Women.

Objective: To examine the cost benefit of performing hysteroscopic polypectomy (HP) in infertile women with endometrial polyp(s) before controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with intrauterine insemination (COH/IUI). Study Design: Decision analytic model comparing costs and clinical outcomes. Results: HP and COH/IUI costs ranged from $537­$12,530 and $800­$7,600, respectively. Performing an HP before COH/IUI lowered fertility cost by $7,652 per clinical pregnancy. When COH/IUI costs remained constant, HP was most cost beneficial when the cost of HP was below a threshold value of $9,452. When HP costs remained constant, the threshold value at which HP was no longer cost beneficial was at COH/IUI costs below $704. The cost benefit was greatest when an office-based HP is performed. Conclusion: HP before COH/IUI is more cost beneficial than fertility treatment alone, particularly when office-based hysteroscopy is performed.

There is a Positive Correlation Between Socioeconomic Status and Ovarian Reserve in Women of Reproductive Age.

BACKGROUND The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential association between socioeconomic status and ovarian reserve, anti-Mullerian hormone level, antral follicle count, and follicle stimulating hormone level in women of reproductive age. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 101 married women between 20-35 years of age who presented to the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Health Research System In Vitro Fertilization (HRS IVF) Center between October 2014 and November 2015 and met the inclusion criteria were included in this study. The participants were divided into three socioeconomic groups using Kuppuswamy's socioeconomic status scale. Thirty-one participants were assigned to the low socioeconomic status group, 37 to the middle socioeconomic status group, and 33 to the high socioeconomic status group. On days 3-6 of the menstrual cycle, 10 mL of blood was collected from the participants for follicle stimulating hormone and anti-Mullerian hormone measurements. Transvaginal ultrasonography was performed for both ovaries for the purpose of counting antral follicles measuring 2-10 mm in diameter. RESULTS Both ovarian reserve parameters, namely anti-Mullerian hormone level and antral follicle count, exhibited a significant association with socioeconomic status (p=0.000 and p=0.000, respectively). The association between follicle stimulating hormone level and socioeconomic status was also significant (p=0.000). CONCLUSIONS A low socioeconomic status aggravated by sources of stress such as undernutrition and financial hardships affects ovarian reserve, which should be remembered in approaching infertile patients.

Should uterus transplants be publicly funded?

Since 2000, 11 human uterine transplantation procedures (UTx) have been performed across Europe and Asia. Five of these have, to date, resulted in pregnancy and four live births have now been recorded. The most significant obstacles to the availability of UTx are presently scientific and technical, relating to the safety and efficacy of the procedure itself. However, if and when such obstacles are overcome, the most likely barriers to its availability will be social and financial in nature, relating in particular to the ability and willingness of patients, insurers or the state to pay. Thus, publicly funded healthcare systems such as the UK's National Health Service (NHS) will eventually have to decide whether UTx should be funded. With this in mind, we seek to provide an answer to the question of whether there exist any compelling reasons for the state not to fund UTx. The paper proceeds as follows. It assumes, at least for the sake of argument, that UTx will become sufficiently safe and cost-effective to be a candidate for funding and then asks, given that, what objections to funding there might be. Three main arguments are considered and ultimately rejected as providing insufficient reason to withhold funding for UTx. The first two are broad in their scope and offer an opportunity to reflect on wider issues about funding for infertility treatment in general. The third is narrower in scope and could, in certain forms, apply to UTx but not other assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs). The first argument suggests that UTx should not be publicly funded because doing so would be inconsistent with governments' obligations to prevent climate change and environmental pollution. The second claims that UTx does not treat a disorder and is not medically necessary. Finally, the third asserts that funding for UTx should be denied because of the availability of alternatives such as adoption and surrogacy.

A retrospective evaluation of prognosis and cost-effectiveness of IVF in poor responders according to the Bologna criteria.

STUDY QUESTION: Do the Bologna criteria for poor responders successfully identify women with poor IVF outcome? SUMMARY ANSWER: The Bologna criteria effectively identify a population with a uniformly low chance of success. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: Women undergoing IVF who respond poorly to ovarian hyper-stimulation have a low chance of success. Even if improving IVF outcome in this population represents a main priority, the lack of a unique definition of the condition has hampered research in this area. To overcome this impediment, a recent expert meeting in Bologna proposed a new definition of poor responders ('Bologna criteria'). However, data supporting the relevance of this definition in clinical practice are scanty. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Retrospective study of women undergoing IVF-ICSI between January 2010 and December 2012 in two independent infertility units. Women could be included if they fulfilled the definition of poor ovarian response (POR) according to Bologna criteria prior to initiation of the cycle. Women were included only for one cycle. The main outcome was the live birth rate per started cycle. The perspective of the cost analysis was the one of the health provider. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Three-hundred sixty-two women from two independent Infertility Units were selected. A binomial distribution model was used to calculate the 95% CI of the rate of success. Characteristics of women who did and did not obtain a live birth were compared. A logistic regression model was used to adjust for confounders. The economic analysis included costs for pharmacological compounds and for the IVF procedure. The benefits were estimated on quality-adjusted life years (QALY). To develop the model, we used the local life-expectancy tables, we applied a 3% discount of life years gained and we used a 0.07 improvement in quality of life associated with parenthood. Sensitivity analyses were performed varying the improvement of the quality of life and including/excluding the male partner. The reference values for cost-effectiveness were the Italian and the local (Lombardy) gross domestic product (GDP) pro capita per year in the studied period and the upper and lower limits suggested by NICE. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Overall, 23 women had a live birth (6%, 95% CI: 4-9%), in line with the previous evidence. This proportion did not significantly differ in the different subgroups of poor responders. Positive predictive factors of success were previous deliveries (adjusted OR = 3.0, 95% CI: 1.1-8.7, P = 0.039) and previous chemotherapy (adjusted OR = 13.9, 95% CI: 2.5-77.2, P = 0.003). Age, serum AMH, serum FSH and antral follicle count were not significantly associated with live birth. The total cost per live birth was 87 748 Euros, corresponding to 49 919 Euros per QALY. This is above both the limits suggested by NICE for cost-effectiveness and the Italian and local GDP pro capita. Sensitivity analyses mainly support the robustness of the conclusion. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We lack a control group and we cannot thus exclude that an alternative definition of poor responders may be equally if not more valid. Moreover, independent validations are warranted prior to concluding that IVF is not cost-effective. Women should thus not be denied treatment based on our findings. Noteworthy, there is also not yet a consensus on the most appropriate economic model to be used. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We recommend the use of the Bologna criteria when designing future studies on poor responders. Large multi-centred international studies are now required to draw definite conclusions on the economic profile of IVF in this situation.

Gonadotropin Therapy versus Laparoscopic Ovarian Drilling in Clomiphene Citrate-Resistant Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Patients: A Retrospective Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Gonadotropin therapy and laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) are treatment options for ovulation induction (OI) in clomiphene citrate (CC)-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) patients. The current evidence of the cost-effectiveness of both treatments is scarce, conflicting and performed from different health-economic perspectives. METHODS: A retrospective health-economic evaluation was performed from a societal perspective in which human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) therapy (n = 43) was compared with LOD (n = 35), followed by OI with CC and/or hMG if spontaneous ovulation did not occur within 2 months. Data were collected until the patients were pregnant, with a time limit of 6 months after the onset of treatment. Outcomes were expressed as ongoing pregnancy rate and number of live-born children. RESULTS: The ongoing pregnancy rate was 21/35 (60%) after LOD and 30/43 (69.8%) after hMG treatment (relative risk 0.85, 95% CI 0.61-1.19). The societal cost per patient, up to an ongoing pregnancy, was significantly higher after LOD versus hMG treatment (adjusted mean difference EUR 1,073, 95% CI 180-1,967). CONCLUSION: This economic evaluation based on real-life data shows that the societal cost up to an ongoing pregnancy is less after hMG treatment when compared with LOD surgery in CC-resistant PCOS patients.

ACCESS OF SINGLE WOMEN TO FERTILITY TREATMENT: A CASE OF INCIDENTAL DISCRIMINATION?

The purpose of this article is to evaluate the extent to which single women have access to publicly funded fertility treatment. It claims that, despite the fact that great progress has been made in removing gender inequalities in the area of assisted reproduction in England and Wales in recent years, there are points in the regulatory framework that still allow for discrimination against single women. The article builds on recent studies concerning the reforms brought about by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA 2008). However, it focusses on publicly funded treatment, thus directing scholarly attention away from the controversies over the amended s 13(5) HFEA 1990. It argues that the primary reason for remaining inequalities can be traced back to (a) the limitations of the current legislative framework; (b) the ambiguities inherent in the regulatory framework, which in the context of publicly funded fertility treatment is determined by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines and Clinical Commissioning Groups and Health Boards' resource allocation policies; and (c) the remaining confusion about the relationship between 'welfare of the child' assessments and eligibility criteria in National Health Service rationing decisions. The article argues that the current regulation does not go far enough in acknowledging the inability of single women to conceive naturally, but at the same time that it struggles to address the fluidity of contemporary familial relationships. The analysis presents an opportunity to contribute to debates about the role of law in shaping the scope of reproductive autonomy, gender equality and social justice.

Out-of-pocket fertility patient expense: data from a multicenter prospective infertility cohort.

PURPOSE: The high costs of fertility care may deter couples from seeking care. Urologists often are asked about the costs of these treatments. To our knowledge previous studies have not addressed the direct out-of-pocket costs to couples. We characterized these expenses in patients seeking fertility care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Couples were prospectively recruited from 8 community and academic reproductive endocrinology clinics. Each participating couple completed face-to-face or telephone interviews and cost diaries at study enrollment, and 4, 10 and 18 months of care. We determined overall out-of-pocket costs, in addition to relationships between out-of-pocket costs and treatment type, clinical outcomes and socioeconomic characteristics on multivariate linear regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 332 couples completed cost diaries and had data available on treatment and outcomes. Average age was 36.8 and 35.6 years in men and women, respectively. Of this cohort 19% received noncycle based therapy, 4% used ovulation induction medication only, 22% underwent intrauterine insemination and 55% underwent in vitro fertilization. The median overall out-of-pocket expense was $5,338 (IQR 1,197-19,840). Couples using medication only had the lowest median out-of-pocket expenses at $912 while those using in vitro fertilization had the highest at $19,234. After multivariate adjustment the out-of-pocket expense was not significantly associated with successful pregnancy. On multivariate analysis couples treated with in vitro fertilization spent an average of $15,435 more than those treated with intrauterine insemination. Couples spent about $6,955 for each additional in vitro fertilization cycle. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide real-world estimates of out-of-pocket costs, which can be used to help couples plan for expenses that they may incur with treatment.

Infertility care and the introduction of new reproductive technologies in poor resource settings.

BACKGROUND: The overall prevalence of infertility was estimated to be 3.5-16.7% in developing countries and 6.9-9.3% in developed countries. Furthermore, according to reports from some regions of sub-Saharan Africa, the prevalence rate is 30-40%. The consequences of infertility and how it affects the lives of women in poor-resource settings, particularly in developing countries, has become an important issue to be discussed in reproductive health. In some societies, the inability to fulfill the desire to have children makes life difficult for the infertile couple. In many regions, infertility is considered a tragedy that affects not only the infertile couple or woman, but the entire family. METHODS: This is a position paper which encompasses a review of the needs of low-income infertile couples, mainly those living in developing countries, regarding access to infertility care, including ART and initiatives to provide ART at low or affordable cost. Information was gathered from the databases MEDLINE, CENTRAL, POPLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and ICTRP with the key words: infertility, low income, assisted reproductive technologies, affordable cost, low cost. RESULTS: There are few initiatives geared toward implementing ART procedures at low cost or at least at affordable cost in low-income populations. Nevertheless, from recent studies, possibilities have emerged for new low-cost initiatives that can help millions of couples to achieve the desire of having a biological child. CONCLUSIONS: It is necessary for healthcare professionals and policymakers to take into account these new initiatives in order to implement ART in resource-constrained settings.

The diversity of regulation and public financing of IVF in Europe and its impact on utilization.

STUDY QUESTION: How do the different forms of regulation and public financing of IVF affect utilization in otherwise similar European welfare state systems? SUMMARY ANSWER: Countries with more liberal social eligibility regulations had higher levels of IVF utilization, which diminished as the countries' policies became more restrictive. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Europe is a world leader in the development and utilization of IVF, yet surveillance reveals significant differences in uptake among countries which have adopted different approaches to the regulation and and public financing of IVF. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A descriptive and comparative analysis of legal restrictions on access to IVF in 13 of the EU15 countries that affirmatively regulate and publicly finance IVF. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Using 2009 data from the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology study of regulatory frameworks in Europe and additional legislative research, we examined and described restrictions on access to IVF in terms of general eligibility, public financing and the scope of available services. Multiple correspondence analysis was used to identify patterns of regulation and groups of countries with similar regulatory patterns and to explore the effects on utilization of IVF, using data from the most recent European and international IVF monitoring reports. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Regulations based on social characteristics of treatment seekers who are not applicable to other medical treatments, including relationship status and sexual orientation, appear to have the greatest impact on utilization. Countries with the most generous public financing schemes tend to restrict access to covered IVF to a greater degree. However, no link could be established between IVF utilization and the manner in which coverage was regulated or the level of public financing. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Owing to the lack of data regarding the actual level of public versus private financing of IVF it is impossible to draw conclusions regarding equity of access. Moreover, the regulatory and utilization data were not completely temporally matched in what can be a quickly changing regulatory landscape. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Whether motivated by cost, eligility restrictions or the availability of particular services, cross-border treatment seeking is driven by regulatory policies, underscoring the extra-territorial implications of in-country political decisions regarding access to IVF. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): There was no funding source for this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Cost-effectiveness of tubal patency tests.

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines are not in agreement on the most effective diagnostic scenario for tubal patency testing; therefore, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of invasive tubal testing in subfertile couples compared with no testing and treatment. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: Decision analytic framework. POPULATION: Computer-simulated cohort of subfertile women. METHODS: We evaluated six scenarios: (1) no tests and no treatment; (2) immediate treatment without tubal testing; (3) delayed treatment without tubal testing; (4) hysterosalpingogram (HSG), followed by immediate or delayed treatment, according to diagnosis (tailored treatment); (5) HSG and a diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) in case HSG does not prove tubal patency, followed by tailored treatment; and (6) DL followed by tailored treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Expected cumulative live births after 3 years. Secondary outcomes were cost per couple and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: For a 30-year-old woman with otherwise unexplained subfertility for 12 months, 3-year cumulative live birth rates were 51.8, 78.1, 78.4, 78.4, 78.6 and 78.4%, and costs per couple were €0, €6968, €5063, €5410, €5405 and €6163 for scenarios 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared with scenario 1 (reference strategy), were €26,541, €19,046, €20,372, €20,150 and €23,184 for scenarios 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed the model to be robust over a wide range of values for the variables. CONCLUSIONS: The most cost-effective scenario is to perform no diagnostic tubal tests and to delay in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment for at least 12 months for women younger than 38 years old, and to perform no tubal tests and start immediate IVF treatment from the age of 39 years. If an invasive diagnostic test is planned, HSG followed by tailored treatment, or a DL if HSG shows no tubal patency, is more cost-effective than DL.

Optimising the management of patients with infertility.

The main causes of infertility are female factor (anovulation, tubal damage, endometriosis and ovarian failure), male factor (low or absent numbers of motile sperm in the ejaculate, and erectile dysfunction), or unexplained infertility. More than 80% of couples will conceive within one year if the woman is aged under 40 and they have regular sexual intercourse. Of those who fail to conceive in the first year, around half will do so in the second year, giving a cumulative pregnancy rate > 90%. A woman of reproductive age who has not conceived after a year of regular sexual intercourse, and has no known cause of infertility, should be offered referral for further clinical assessment and investigation with her partner. Women who have a BMI > or = 30 are likely to take longer to conceive. Those with a BMI < 19 who have irregular or absent menstruation should be advised that putting on weight is likely to improve their chance of conception. The best test of ovulation is an appropriately timed mid-luteal serum progesterone level. Women with irregular or absent menstrual cycles should be offered a blood test to measure serum gonadotrophin levels (FSH and LH). Women with no known comorbidities should be screened for tubal occlusion. Those who are thought to have comorbidities should be offered laparoscopy and dye testing.