Practical implications of differential discounting in cost-effectiveness analyses with varying numbers of cohorts

AbstractObjectiveTo call attention to the influence of the number of birth-cohorts used in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) models on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) under differential discounting.MethodsThe consequences of increasing the number of birth-cohorts are demonstrated using a CEA of cervical cancer prevention as an example. The cost-effectiveness of vaccinating 12-year-old girls against the human papillomavirus is estimated with the MISCAN microsimulation screening analysis model for 1, 10, 20, and 30 birth-cohorts. Costs and health effects are discounted with equal rates of 4% and alternatively with differential rates of 4% and 1.5% respectively. The effects of increasing the number of cohorts are shown by comparing the ICERs under equal and differential discounting.ResultsThe ICER decreases as the number of cohorts increases under differential discounting, but not under equal discounting.ConclusionsThe variation of ICERs with the number of cohorts under differential discounting prompts questions regarding the appropriate specification of CEA models and interpretation of their results. In particular, it raises concerns that arbitrary variation in study specification leads to arbitrary variation in results. Such variations could lead to erroneous policy decisions. These findings are relevant to CEA guidance authorities, CEA practitioners, and decision makers. Our results do not imply a problem with differential discounting per se, yet they highlight the need for practical guidance for its use

Comparison of two models predicting IVF success; the effect of time trends on model performance

Item does not contain fulltextSTUDY QUESTION: How well does the recently developed UK model predicting the success rate of IVF treatment (the 2011 Nelson model) perform in comparison with a UK model developed in the early 1990s (the Templeton model)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Both models showed similar performance, after correction for the increasing success rate over time of IVF. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: For counselling couples undergoing IVF treatment it is of paramount importance to be able to predict success. Several prediction models for the chance of success after IVF treatment have been developed. So far, the Templeton model has been recommended as the best approach after having been validated in several independent patient data sets. The Nelson model, developed in 2011 and characterized by the largest development sample containing the most recently treated couples, may well perform better. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We tested both models in couples that were included in a national cohort study carried out in the Netherlands between the beginning of January 2002 and the end of December 2004. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We analysed the IVF cycles of Dutch couples with primary infertility (n = 5176). The chance of success was calculated using the two UK models that had been developed using the information collected in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority database. Women were treated in 1991-1994 (Templeton) or 2003-2007 (Nelson). The outcome of success for both UK models is the occurrence of a live birth after IVF but the outcome in the Dutch data is an ongoing pregnancy. In order to make the outcomes compatible, we used a factor to convert the chance of live birth to ongoing pregnancy and use the overall terms 'success or no success after IVF'. The discriminative ability and the calibration of both models were assessed, the latter before and after adjustment for time trends in IVF success rates. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The two models showed a similarly limited degree of discriminative ability on the tested data (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.597 for the Templeton model and 0.590 for the Nelson model). The Templeton model underestimated the success rate (observed 21% versus predicted 14%); the Nelson model overestimated the success rate (observed 21% versus predicted 29%). When the models were adjusted for the changing success rates over time, the calibration of both models considerably improved (Templeton observed 21% versus predicted 20%; Nelson observed 21% versus predicted 24%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We could only test the models in couples with primary infertility because detailed information on secondary infertile couples was lacking in the Dutch data. This shortcoming may have negatively influenced the performance of the Nelson model. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The changes in success rates over time should be taken into account when assessing prediction models for estimating the success rate of IVF treatment. In patients with primary infertility, the choice to use the Templeton or Nelson model is arbitrary

Cost-effectiveness of 'immediate IVF' versus 'delayed IVF': a prospective study

Item does not contain fulltextSTUDY QUESTION: How does the cost-effectiveness (CE) of immediate IVF compared with postponing IVF for 1 year, depend on prognostic characteristics of the couple? SUMMARY ANSWER: The CE ratio, i.e. the incremental costs of immediate versus delayed IVF per extra live birth, is the highest (range of euro15 000 to >euro60 000) for couples with unexplained infertility and for them depends strongly on female age and the duration of infertility, whilst being lowest for endometriosis (range 8000-23 000) and, for such patients, only slightly dependent on female age and duration of infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A few countries have guidelines for indications of IVF, using the diagnostic category, female age and duration of infertility. The CE of these guidelines is unknown and the evidence base exists only for bilateral tubal occlusion, not for the other diagnostic categories. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A modelling approach was applied, based on the literature and data from a prospective cohort study among couples eligible for IVF or ICSI treatment, registered in a national waiting list in The Netherlands between January 2002 and December 2003. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: A total of 5962 couples was included. Chances of natural ongoing pregnancy were estimated from the waiting list observations and chances of ongoing pregnancy after IVF from follow-up data of couples with primary infertility that began treatment. Prognostic characteristics considered were female age, duration of infertility and diagnostic category. Costs of IVF were assessed from a societal perspective and determined on a representative sample of patients. A cost-effectiveness comparison was made between two scenarios: (I) wait one more year and then undergo IVF for 1 year and (II) immediate IVF during 1 year, and try to conceive naturally in the following year. Comparisons were made for strata determined by the prognostic factors. The final outcome was a live birth. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The gain in live birth rate of the immediate IVF scenario versus postponed IVF increased with female age, and was independent from diagnostic category or duration of infertility. By contrast, the corresponding increase in costs primarily depended on diagnostic category and duration of infertility. The lowest CE ratio was just below euro10 000 per live birth for endometriosis from age 34 onwards at 1 year duration. The highest CE ratio reached euro56 000 per live birth for unexplained infertility at age 30 and 3 years duration, dropping to values below euro 30 000 per live birth from age 32 onwards. It reached values below euro20 000 per live birth with 3 years duration at age 34 and older. The CE ratio was in between for the three other diagnostic categories (i.e. Male infertility, Hormonal and Immunological/Cervical). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We applied estimates of chances with IVF, excluding frozen embryos, for which we had no data. Therefore, we do not know the effect of frozen embryo transfers on the CE. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The duration of infertility at which IVF becomes cost-effective depends, firstly, on the level of society's willingness to pay for one extra live birth, and secondly, given a certain level of willingness to pay, on the woman's age and the diagnostic category. In current guidelines, the chances of a natural conception should always be taken into account before deciding whether to start IVF treatment and at which time. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Supported by Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW, grant 945-12-013). ZonMW had no role in designing the study, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data or writing of the report. Competing interests: none

Fat and female fecundity: prospective study of effect of body fat distribution on conception rates

OBJECTIVES: To study the effect of body fat distribution in women of reproductive age on fecundity. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study of all women who had entered a donor insemination programme. SETTING: One fertility clinic serving a large part of the midwest of the Netherlands. SUBJECTS: Of 542 women attending the clinic for artificial insemination for the first time, 500 women were eligible for study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Probability of conception per cycle and number of insemination cycles before pregnancy or stopping treatment. RESULTS: A 0.1 unit increase in waist-hip ratio led to a 30% decrease in probability of conception per cycle (hazard ratio 0.706; 95% confidence interval 0.562 to 0.887) after adjustment for age, fatness, reasons for artificial insemination, cycle length and regularity, smoking, and parity. Increasing age was significantly related to lower fecundity (p < 0.05); very lean and obese women were less likely to conceive (p < 0.10) as were women with subfertile partners (p < 0.10). All other exposure variables were not significantly related to fecundity. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing waist-hip ratio is negatively associated with the probability of conception per cycle, before and after adjustment for confounding factors. Body fat distribution in women of reproductive age seems to have more impact on fertility than age or obesity

Patients' preferences in deciding between intrauterine insemination and expectant management

BACKGROUND: Intrauterine insemination (IUI) is a commonly used treatment in subfertile couples. We assessed patients' preferences for IUI relative to expectant management. METHODS: Forty subfertile couples were offered scenarios in which the treatment-independent pregnancy chance was varied against a fixed pregnancy chance after IUI without or with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) of 8% and 12% per cycle, respectively. The treatment-independent pregnancy chance within 12 months was initially set at 100%, and subsequently reduced until couples switched preferences. We also investigated the impact of the risks of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and multiple pregnancy on couples' preferences. RESULTS: When pregnancy was guaranteed within a year, all couples would opt for expectant management. Most couples switched to IUI without COH at a 60% chance of a treatment-independent pregnancy and to IUI with COH between a 40% and 60% chance. Where the risk of OHSS was set at 10%, a large majority of the couples preferred expectant management to IUI. At a multiple pregnancy risk of 100%, 77% of the couples would still prefer IUI. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of couples prefer IUI with or without COH when the treatment-independent pregnancy chance in the next 12 months is <50% and <40%, respectively. The risk of a multiple pregnancy does not affect their preference for IUI, whereas IUI is rejected when the risk of OHSS exceeds 10