Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of primary offer of IVF vs. primary offer of IUI followed by IVF (for IUI failures) in couples with unexplained or mild male factor subfertility.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In unexplained and mild male factor subfertility, both intrauterine insemination (IUI) and in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) are indicated as first line treatments. Because the success rate of IUI is low, many couples failing IUI subsequently require IVF treatment. In practice, it is therefore important to examine the comparative outcomes (live birth-producing pregnancy), costs, and cost-effectiveness of primary offer of IVF, compared with primary offer of IUI followed by IVF for couples failing IUI.

Methods

Mathematical modelling was used to estimate comparative clinical and cost effectiveness of either primary offer of one full IVF cycle (including frozen cycles when applicable) or "IUI + IVF" (defined as primary IUI followed by IVF for IUI failures) to a hypothetical cohort of subfertile couples who are eligible for both treatment strategies. Data used in calculations were derived from the published peer-reviewed literature as well as activity data of local infertility units.

Results

Cost-effectiveness ratios for IVF, "unstimulated-IUI (U-IUI) + IVF", and "stimulated IUI (S-IUI) + IVF" were 12,600 pounds sterling, 13,100 pound sterling and 15,100 pound sterling per live birth-producing pregnancy respectively. For a hypothetical cohort of 100 couples with unexplained or mild male factor subfertility, compared with primary offer of IVF, 6 cycles of "U-IUI + IVF" or of "S-IUI + IVF" would cost an additional 174,200 pounds sterling and 438,000 pounds sterling, representing an opportunity cost of 54 and 136 additional IVF cycles and 14 to 35 live birth-producing pregnancies respectively.

Conclusion

For couples with unexplained and mild male factor subfertility, primary offer of a full IVF cycle is less costly and more cost-effective than providing IUI (of any modality) followed by IVF.

SUBMITTER: Pashayan N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1543624 | biostudies-literature | 2006 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of primary offer of IVF vs. primary offer of IUI followed by IVF (for IUI failures) in couples with unexplained or mild male factor subfertility.

Pashayan Nora N Lyratzopoulos Georgios G Mathur Raj R

BMC health services research 20060623

<h4>Background</h4>In unexplained and mild male factor subfertility, both intrauterine insemination (IUI) and in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) are indicated as first line treatments. Because the success rate of IUI is low, many couples failing IUI subsequently require IVF treatment. In practice, it is therefore important to examine the comparative outcomes (live birth-producing pregnancy), costs, and cost-effectiveness of primary offer of IVF, compared with primary offer of IUI followed by IVF for c ...[more]

PMID: 16796733

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMultiple pregnancies are high risk pregnancies with higher chances of maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity. In the past decades the number of multiple pregnancies has increased. This trend is partly due to the fact that women start family planning at an increased age, but also due to the increased use of ART.Couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility generally receive intrauterine insemination IUI with controlled hormonal stimulation (IUI COH). The cumulative pregnancy rate is 40%, with a 10% multiple pregnancy rate.This study aims to reveal whether alternative treatments such as IVF elective Single Embryo Transfer (IVF e SET) or Modified Natural Cycle IVF (MNC IVF) can reduce the number of multiple pregnancy rates, but uphold similar pregnancy rates as IUI COH in couples with mild male or unexplained subfertility. Secondly, the aim is to perform a cost effective analyses and assess treatment preference of these couples.Methods/designWe plan a multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial in the Netherlands comparing six cycles of intra-uterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation or six cycles of Modified Natural Cycle (MNC) IVF or three cycles with IVF-elective Single Embryo Transfer (eSET) plus cryo-cycles within a time frame of 12 months.Couples with unexplained subfertility or mild male subfertility and a poor prognosis for treatment independent pregnancy will be included. Women with anovulatory cycles, severe endometriosis, double sided tubal pathology or serious endocrine illness will be excluded.Our primary outcome is the birth of a healthy singleton. Secondary outcomes are multiple pregnancy, treatment costs, and patient experiences in each treatment arm. The analysis will be performed according tot the intention to treat principle. We will test for non-inferiority of the three arms with respect to live birth. As we accept a 12.5% loss in pregnancy rate in one of the two IVF arms to prevent multiple pregnancies, we need 200 couples per arm (600 couples in total).DiscussionDetermining the safest and most cost-effective treatment will ensure optimal chances of pregnancy for subfertile couples with substantially diminished perinatal and maternal complications. Should patients find the most cost-effective treatment acceptable or even preferable, this could imply the need for a world wide shift in the primary treatment.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN 52843371.

Project description:BackgroundUnexplained infertility accounts for 25% of infertility causes in the UK. Active intervention methods, such as intrauterine insemination (IUI) or in vitro fertilisation (IVF), are often sought. Despite the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommending IVF for unexplained infertility, this recommendation has generated an ongoing debate, with few fertility clinics discontinuing the use of IUI as the first-line management of choice. In contrast to NICE, recent guidance released from the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) in August 2023 supports the use of IUI as first-line. High-quality evidence behind such interventions is lacking, with current literature providing conflicting results.AimsThis review aims to provide a literature overview exploring whether IUI or IVF should be used as first-line treatment for couples with unexplained infertility, in the context of current guidelines.MethodsThe primary outcome used to assess efficacy of both treatment methods is live birth (LB) rates. Secondary outcomes used are clinical pregnancy (CP) and ongoing pregnancy (OP) rates. A comprehensive literature search of 4 databases: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Maternity & Infant Care and the Cochrane Library were searched in January 2022. Upon removal of duplications, abstract screening, and full-text screening, a total of 34 papers were selected.Discussion/conclusionThis review highlights a large discrepancy in the literature when examining pregnancy outcomes of IUI and IVF treatments. Evidence shows IUI increases LB and CP rates 3-fold compared to expectant management. Literature comparing IUI to IVF is less certain. The review finds the literature implies IVF should be used for first-line management but the paucity of high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs), coupled with heterogeneity of the identified studies and a lack of research amongst women > 40 years warrants the need for further large RCTs. The decision to offer IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) or IVF should be based upon patient prognostic factors. We suggest that IUI-OS could be offered as first-line treatment for unexplained infertility for women < 38 years, with good prognosis, and IVF could be offered first to those > 38 years. Patients should be appropriately counselled to enable informed decision making.

Project description:BackgroundIVF and IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) are widely used in managing unexplained infertility. IUI-OS is generally considered first-line therapy, followed by IVF only if IUI-OS is unsuccessful after several attempts. However, there is a growing interest in using IVF for immediate treatment because it is believed to lead to higher live birth rates and shorter time to pregnancy.Objective and rationaleRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IVF versus IUI-OS had varied study designs and findings. Some RCTs used complex algorithms to combine IVF and IUI-OS, while others had unequal follow-up time between arms or compared treatments on a per-cycle basis, which introduced biases. Comparing cumulative live birth rates of IVF and IUI-OS within a consistent time frame is necessary for a fair head-to-head comparison. Previous meta-analyses of RCTs did not consider the time it takes to achieve pregnancy, which is not possible using aggregate data. Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) allows standardization of follow-up time in different trials and time-to-event analysis methods. We performed this IPD-MA to investigate if IVF increases cumulative live birth rate considering the time leading to pregnancy and reduces multiple pregnancy rate compared to IUI-OS in couples with unexplained infertility.Search methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register to identify RCTs that completed data collection before June 2021. A search update was carried out in January 2023. RCTs that compared IVF/ICSI to IUI-OS in couples with unexplained infertility were eligible. We invited author groups of eligible studies to join the IPD-MA and share the deidentified IPD of their RCTs. IPD were checked and standardized before synthesis. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool.OutcomesOf eight potentially eligible RCTs, two were considered awaiting classification. In the other six trials, four shared IPD of 934 women, of which 550 were allocated to IVF and 383 to IUI-OS. Because the interventions were unable to blind, two RCTs had a high risk of bias, one had some concerns, and one had a low risk of bias. Considering the time to pregnancy leading to live birth, the cumulative live birth rate was not significantly higher in IVF compared to that in IUI-OS (4 RCTs, 908 women, 50.3% versus 43.2%, hazard ratio 1.19, 95% CI 0.81-1.74, I2 = 42.4%). For the safety primary outcome, the rate of multiple pregnancy was not significantly lower in IVF than IUI-OS (3 RCTs, 890 women, 3.8% versus 5.2% of all couples randomized, odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.41-1.50, I2 = 0.0%).Wider implicationsThere is no robust evidence that in couples with unexplained infertility IVF achieves pregnancy leading to live birth faster than IUI-OS. IVF and IUI-OS are both viable options in terms of effectiveness and safety for managing unexplained infertility. The associated costs of interventions and the preference of couples need to be weighed in clinical decision-making.

Project description:BackgroundSubfertility among couples affected by HIV has an impact on the well-being of couples who desire to have children and may prolong HIV exposure. Subfertility in the antiretroviral therapy era and its determinants have not yet been well characterized.ObjectiveThe objective of the study was to investigate the burden and determinants of subfertility among HIV-affected couples seeking safer conception services in South Africa.Study designNonpregnant women and male partners in HIV seroconcordant or HIV discordant relationships desiring a child were enrolled in the Sakh'umndeni safer conception cohort at Witkoppen Clinic in Johannesburg between July 2013 and April 2017. Clients were followed up prospectively through pregnancy (if they conceived) or until 6 months of attempted conception, after which they were referred for infertility services. Subfertility was defined as not having conceived within 6 months of attempted conception. Robust Poisson regression was used to assess the association between baseline characteristics and subfertility outcomes; inverse probability weighting was used to account for missing data from women lost to safer conception care before 6 months of attempted conception.ResultsAmong 334 couples enrolled, 65% experienced subfertility (inverse probability weighting weighted, 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.73), of which 33% were primary subfertility and 67% secondary subfertility. Compared with HIV-negative women, HIV-positive women not on antiretroviral therapy had a 2-fold increased risk of subfertility (weighted and adjusted risk ratio, 2.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-3.34). Infertility risk was attenuated in women on antiretroviral therapy but remained elevated, even after ≥2 years on antiretroviral therapy (weighted and adjusted risk ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-2.69). Other factors associated with subfertility were female age (weighted and adjusted risk ratio, 1.03, 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.05 per year), male HIV-positive status (weighted and adjusted risk ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.68), male smoking (weighted and adjusted risk ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.60), and trying to conceive for ≥1 year (weighted and adjusted risk ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.68).ConclusionTwo in 3 HIV-affected couples experienced subfertility. HIV-positive women were at increased risk of subfertility, even when on antiretroviral therapy. Both male and female HIV status were associated with subfertility. Subfertility is an underrecognized reproductive health problem in resource-limited settings and may contribute to prolonged HIV exposure and transmission within couples. Low-cost approaches for screening and treating subfertility in this population are needed.

Project description: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.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of primary offer of IVF vs. primary offer of IUI followed by IVF (for IUI failures) in couples with unexplained or mild male factor subfertility.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of primary offer of IVF vs. primary offer of IUI followed by IVF (for IUI failures) in couples with unexplained or mild male factor subfertility.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets