Long term costs and effects of reducing the number of twin pregnancies in IVF by single embryo transfer: the TwinSing study

Contains fulltext : 87274.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Pregnancies induced by in vitro fertilisation (IVF) often result in twin gestations, which are associated with both maternal and perinatal complications. An effective way to reduce the number of IVF twin pregnancies is to decrease the number of embryos transferred from two to one. The interpretation of current studies is limited because they used live birth as outcome measure and because they applied limited time horizons. So far, research on long-term outcomes of IVF twins and singletons is scarce and inconclusive. The objective of this study is to investigate the short (1-year) and long-term (5 and 18-year) costs and health outcomes of IVF singleton and twin children and to consider these in estimating the cost-effectiveness of single embryo transfer compared with double embryo transfer, from a societal and a healthcare perspective. METHODS/DESIGN: A multi-centre cohort study will be performed, in which IVF singletons and IVF twin children born between 2003 and 2005 of whom parents received IVF treatment in one of the five participating Dutch IVF centres, will be compared. Data collection will focus on children at risk of health problems and children in whom health problems actually occurred. First year of life data will be collected in approximately 1,278 children (619 singletons and 659 twin children). Data up to the fifth year of life will be collected in approximately 488 children (200 singletons and 288 twin children). Outcome measures are health status, health-related quality of life and costs. Data will be obtained from hospital information systems, a parent questionnaire and existing registries. Furthermore, a prognostic model will be developed that reflects the short and long-term costs and health outcomes of IVF singleton and twin children. This model will be linked to a Markov model of the short-term cost-effectiveness of single embryo transfer strategies versus double embryo transfer strategies to enable the calculation of the long-term cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This is, to our knowledge, the first study that investigates the long-term costs and health outcomes of IVF singleton and twin children and the long-term cost-effectiveness of single embryo transfer strategies versus double embryo transfer strategies

Modified natural cycle versus controlled ovarian hyperstimulation IVF: a cost-effectiveness evaluation of three simulated treatment scenarios

Can modified natural cycle IVF or ICSI (MNC) be a cost-effective alternative for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation IVF or ICSI (COH)? The comparison of simulated scenarios indicates that a strategy of three to six cycles of MNC with minimized medication is a cost-effective alternative for one cycle of COH with strict application of single embryo transfer (SET). MNC is cheaper per cycle than COH but also less effective in terms of live birth rate (LBR). However, strict application of SET in COH cycles reduces effectiveness and up to three MNC cycles can be performed at the same costs as one COH cycle. The cost-effectiveness of MNC versus COH was evaluated in three simulated treatment scenarios: three cycles of MNC versus one cycle of COH with SET or double embryo transfer (DET) and subsequent transfer of cryopreserved embryos (Scenario 1); six cycles of MNC versus one cycle of COH with strictly SET and subsequent transfer of cryopreserved embryos (Scenario 2); six cycles of MNC with minimized medication (hCG ovulation trigger only) versus one cycle of COH with SET or DET and subsequent transfer of cryopreserved embryos (Scenario 3). We used baseline data obtained from two retrospective cohorts of consecutive patients (2005-2008) undergoing MNC in the University Medical Center Groningen (n = 499, maximum six cycles per patient) or their first COH cycle with subsequent transfer of cryopreserved embryos in the Academic Medical Center Amsterdam (n = 392). Data from 1994 MNC cycles (958 MNC-IVF and 1036 MNC-ICSI) and 392 fresh COH cycles (one per patient, 196 COH-IVF and 196 COH-ICSI) with subsequent transfer of cryopreserved embryos (n = 72 and n = 94 in MNC and COH cycles, respectively) in ovulatory, subfertile women <36 years of age served as baseline for the three simulated scenarios. To compare the scenarios, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, defined as the ratio of the difference in IVF costs up to 6 weeks postpartum to the difference in LBR. Live birth was the primary outcome measure and was defined as the birth of at least one living child after a gestation of ≥25 weeks. In the baseline data, MNC was not cost-effective, as COH dominated MNC with a higher cumulative LBR (27.0 versus 24.0%) and lower cost per patient (€3694 versus €5254). The simulations showed that in scenario 1 three instead of six cycles lowered the costs of MNC to below the level of COH (€3390 versus €3694, respectively), but also lowered the LBR per patient (from 24.0 to 16.2%, respectively); Scenario 2: COH with strict SET was less effective than six cycles MNC (LBR 17.5 versus 24.0%, respectively), but also less expensive per patient (€2908) than MNC (€5254); Scenario 3: improved the cost-effectiveness of MNC but COH still dominated MNC when medication was minimized in terms of costs, i.e. €855 difference in favor of COH and 3% difference in LBR in favor of COH (ICER: €855/-3.0%). Owing to the retrospective nature of the study, the analyses required some assumptions, for example regarding the costs of pregnancy and delivery, which had to be based on the literature rather than on individual data. Furthermore, costs of IVF treatment were based on tariffs and not on actual costs. Although this may limit the external generalizability of the results, the limitations will influence both treatments equally, and would therefore not bias the comparison of MNC versus COH. The combined results suggest that MNC with minimized medication might be a cost-effective alternative for COH with strict SET. The scenarios reflect realistic alternatives for daily clinical practice. A preference for MNC depends on the willingness to trade off effectiveness in terms of LBR against the benefits of a milder stimulation regimen, including a very low rate of multiple pregnancies and hyperstimulation syndrome and ensuing lower costs per live birth. The study was supported by research grants from Merck Serono and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Not applicabl

ESHRE guideline : medically assisted reproduction in patients with a viral infection/disease

STUDY QUESTION: What is the recommended management for medically assisted reproduction (MAR) in patients with a viral infection or disease, based on the best available evidence in the literature? SUMMARY ANSWER: The ESHRE guideline on MAR in patients with a viral infection/disease makes 78 recommendations on prevention of horizontal and vertical transmission before, during and after MAR, and the impact on its outcomes, and these also include recommendations regarding laboratory safety on the processing and storage of gametes and embryos testing positive for viral infections. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The development of new and improved anti-viral medications has resulted in improved life expectancy and quality of life for patients with viral infections/diseases. Patients of reproductive age are increasingly exploring their options for family creation. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for the development of ESHRE guidelines. After the formulation of nine key questions for six viruses (hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, human immunodeficiency virus, human papilloma virus, human T-lymphotropic virus I/11 and Zika virus) by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 2 November 2020 and written in English were included in the review. Evidence was analyzed by female, male or couple testing positive for the virus. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline group. There were 61 key questions to be answered by the guideline development group (GDG), of which 12 were answered as narrative questions and 49 as PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) questions. A stakeholder review was organized after the finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: This guideline aims to help providers meet a growing demand for guidance on the management of patients with a viral infection/disease presenting in the fertility clinic. The guideline makes 78 recommendations on prevention of viral transmission before and during MAR, and interventions to reduce/avoid vertical transmission to the newborn. Preferred MAR treatments and interventions are described together with the effect of viral infections on outcomes. The GDG formulated 44 evidence-based recommendations-of which 37 were formulated as strong recommendations and 7 as weak-33 good practice points (GPP) and one research only recommendation. Of the evidence-based recommendations, none were supported by high-quality evidence, two by moderate-quality evidence, 15 by low-quality evidence and 27 by very low-quality evidence. To support future research in the field of MAR in patients with a viral infection/disease, a list of research recommendations is provided. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Most interventions included are not well-studied in patients with a viral infection/disease. For a large proportion of interventions, evidence was very limited and of very low quality. More evidence is required for these interventions, especially in the field of human papilloma virus (HPV). Such future studies may require the current recommendations to be revised. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in MAR for patients with a viral infection/disease, based on the best evidence currently available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in the field