Search

Study 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 €15 000 to >€60 000) 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 €10 000 per live birth for endometriosis from age 34 onwards at 1 year duration. The highest CE ratio reached €56 000 per live birth for unexplained infertility at age 30 and 3 years duration, dropping to values below € 30 000 per live birth from age 32 onwards. It reached values below €20 000 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Guidelines underline the role of individual preferences in the selection of a screening test, as insufficient evidence is available to recommend one screening test over another. We conducted a study to determine the preferences of individuals and to predict uptake for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes using various screening tests.Methods: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire was distributed among naive subjects, yet to be screened, and previously screened subjects, aged 50-75 years. Subjects were asked to choose between scenarios on the basis of faecal occult blood test (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), total colonoscopy (TC) with various test-specific screening intervals and mortality reductions, and no screening (opt-out).Results: In total, 489 out of 1498 (33%) screening-naïve subjects (52% male; mean age+/-s.d. 61+/-7 years) and 545 out of 769 (71%) previously screened subjects (52% male; mean age+/-s.d. 61+/-6 years) returned the questionnaire. The type of screening test, screening interval, and risk reduction of CRC-related mortality influenced subjects' preferences (all P<0.05). Screening-naive and previously screened subjects equally preferred 5-yearly FS and 10-yearly TC (P=0.24; P=0.11), but favoured both strategies to annual FOBT screening (all P-values <0.001) if, based on the literature, realistic risk reduction of CRC-related mortality was applied. Screening-naive and previously screened subjects were willing to undergo a 10-yearly TC instead of a 5-yearly FS to obtain an additional risk reduction of CRC-related mortality of 45% (P<0.001).Conclusion: These data provide insight into the extent by which interval and risk reduction of CRC-related mortality affect preferences for CRC screening tests. Assuming realistic test characteristics, subjects in the target population preferred endoscopic screening over FOBT screening, partly, due to the more favourable risk reduction of CRC-related mortality by endoscopy screening. Increasing the knowledge of potential screenees regarding risk reduction by different screening strategies is, therefore, warranted to prevent unrealistic expectations and to optimise informed choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy rates cannot be used reliably for comparison of IVF clinic performance because of differences in patients between clinics. We investigate if differences in pregnancy chance between IVF centres remain after adjustment for patient mix. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In a (negative) multicenter randomized trial on management for inoperable critical lower limb ischemia, comparing spinal cord stimulation and best medical treatment, a number of pre-defined factors were analyzed for prognostic value. We included a radiological arterial disease score, modified from the SVS/ISCVS runoff score. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate clinical factors and commonly used circulatory measurements for prognostic modeling in patients with critical lower limb ischemia. We determined the incidence of amputation and its relation to various pre-defined risk factors. A total of 120 patients with critical limb ischemia were included in the study. The integrity of circulation in the affected limb was evaluated on five levels: suprainguinal, infrainguinal, popliteal, infrapopliteal and pedal. A total radiological arterial disease score was calculated from 1 (full integrity of circulation) to 20 (maximally compromised state). We used Cox regression analysis to quantify prognostic effects and differential treatment (predictive) effects. Major amputation occurred in 33% of the patients at 6 months and in 51% at 2 years. The presence of ischemic skin lesions and the radiological arterial disease score were independent prognostic factors for amputation. Patients with ulcerations or gangrene had a higher amputation risk (hazard ratio 2.38, p = 0.018 and 2.30, p = 0.036 respectively) as well as patients with a higher radiological arterial disease score (hazard ratio 1.17 per increment, p = 0.003). We did not observe significant interactions between prognostic factors and the effect of spinal cord stimulation. In conclusion, in patients with critical lower limb ischemia, the presence of ischemic skin lesions and the described radiological arterial disease score can be used to estimate amputation risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]