Correlation of IVF outcomes and number of oocytes retrieved: a UK retrospective longitudinal observational study of 172 341 non-donor cycles.

OBJECTIVE: How do numbers of oocytes retrieved per In vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycle impact on the live birth rate (LBR) and multiple gestation pregnancy (MGP) rates? DESIGN: Retrospective observational longitudinal study. SETTING: UK IVF clinics. POPULATION: Non-donor IVF patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: LBR per IVF cycle and MGP levels against number of oocytes retrieved into subgroups: 0, 1-5, 6-15, 16-25, 26-49 oocytes and 50+ oocytes. Relative risk (RR) and 95% CIs were calculated for each group against the intermediate responder with '6-15 oocytes collected'. RESULTS: From 172 341 attempted fresh oocyte retrieval cycles, the oocyte retrieved was: 0 in 10 148 (5.9%) cycles from 9439 patients; 1-5 oocytes in 42 574 cycles (24.7%); 6-15 oocytes in 91 797 cycles (53.3%); 16-25 oocytes in 23 794 cycles (13.8%); 26-49 oocytes in 3970 cycles (2.3%); ≥50 oocytes in 58 cycles (0.033%). The LBRs for the 1-5, 6-15, 16-25 and 26-49 subgroups of oocytes retrieved were 17.2%, 32.4%, 35.3% and 18.7%, respectively. The RR (95% CI) of live birth in comparison to the intermediate group (6-15) for 1-5, 16-25 and 26-49 groups was 0.53 (0.52 to 0.54), 1.09 (1.07 to 1.11) and 0.58 (0.54 to 0.62), respectively. The corresponding MGP rates and RR were 9.2%, 11.0%, 11.4% and 11.3%, respectively and 0.83 (0.77 to 0.90), 1.04 (0.97 to 1.11) and 1.03 (0.84 to 1.26), respectively. CONCLUSION: There was only limited benefit in LBR beyond the 6-15 oocyte group going to the 16-25 oocytes group, after which there was significant decline in LBR. The MGP risk was lower in 1-5 group.

Global inequality in sub-fertility treatment needs safer, cost effective, evidence-based and economically viable choices for patients and stakeholders.

The global increase in subfertility diagnosis and treatments and the rise of private equity investors concentrating on high profits based on in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatments raise profound societal and economic questions for stakeholders and patients. The question remains as to whose benefits will ultimately be greater when promoting high margins treatment options resulting from cross-border mergers and acquisitions of IVF clinics.This paper covers wide-ranging issues from the erroneously constructed UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) guidelines on treatment choices, the cost-effectiveness of treatments, the promotion of IVF, and add-ons where evidence remains minimal, the commercial size of the fertility industry. Investment in improving intrauterine insemination (IUI) success rates has understandably been avoided for its short-term impact on the IVF industry. However, IUI efficiency would cut across many of the global subfertility treatment economic and access problems while allowing stakeholder, feepaying, and patients financial savings will likely allow for more funded IVF cycles in acutely deserving cases. The recommendations will help expand choices for globally economically challenged patients' and services while enhancing an ethical and moral dimension towards fertility treatment choices for patients and stakeholders.

Observational retrospective study of UK national success, risks and costs for 319,105 IVF/ICSI and 30,669 IUI treatment cycles.

OBJECTIVE: To compare success rates, associated risks and cost-effectiveness between intrauterine insemination (IUI) and in vitro fertilisation (IVF). DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: The UK from 2012 to 2016. PARTICIPANTS: Data from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's freedom of information request for 2012-2016 for IVF/ICSI (intracytoplasmic sperm injection)and IUI as practiced in 319 105 IVF/ICSI and 30 669 IUI cycles. Direct-cost calculations for maternal and neonatal expenditure per live birth (LB) was constructed using the cost of multiple birth model, with inflation-adjusted Bank of England index-linked data. A second direct-cost analysis evaluating the incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) was modelled using the 2016 national mean (baseline) IVF and IUI success rates. OUTCOME MEASURES: LB, risks from IVF and IUI, and costs to gain 1 LB. RESULTS: This largest comprehensive analysis integrating success, risks and costs at a national level shows IUI is safer and more cost-effective than IVF treatment.IVF LB/cycle success was significantly better than IUI at 26.96% versus 11.49% (p<0.001) but the IUI success is much closer to IVF at 2.35:1, than previously considered. IVF remains a significant source of multiple gestation pregnancy (MGP) compared with IUI (RR (Relative Risk): 1.45 (1.31 to 1.60), p<0.001) as was the rate of twins (RR: 1.58, p<0.001).In 2016, IVF maternal and neonatal cost was £115 082 017 compared with £2 940 196 for IUI and this MGP-related perinatal cost is absorbed by the National Health Services. At baseline tariffs and success rates IUI was £42 558 cheaper than IVF to deliver 1LB with enhanced benefits with small improvements in IUI. Reliable levels of IVF-related MGP, OHSS (ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome), fetal reductions and terminations are revealed. CONCLUSION: IUI success rates are much closer to IVF than previously reported, more cost-effective in delivering 1 LB, and associated with lower risk of complications for maternal and neonatal complications. It is prudent to offer IUI before IVF nationally.