Search

Study Question: What are couples' preferences for fresh embryo transfer versus freezing of all embryos followed by frozen embryo transfer and the associated clinical outcomes that may differentiate them?Summary Answer: Couples' preferences are driven by anticipated chances of live birth, miscarriage, neonatal complications, and costs but not by the differences in the treatment process (including delay of embryo transfer linked to frozen embryo transfer and risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) associated with fresh embryo transfer).What Is Known Already: A policy of freezing all embryos followed by transfer of frozen embryos results in livebirth rates which are similar to or higher than those following the transfer of fresh embryos while reducing the risk of OHSS and small for gestational age babies: it can, however, increase the risk of pre-eclampsia and large for gestational age offspring. Hence, the controversy continues over whether to do fresh embryo transfer or freeze all embryos followed by frozen embryo transfer.Study Design, Size, Duration: We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) technique to survey infertile couples between August 2018 and January 2019.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: We asked IVF naïve couples attending a tertiary referral centre to independently complete a questionnaire with nine hypothetical choice tasks between fresh and frozen embryo transfer. The alternatives varied across the choice occurrences on several attributes including efficacy (live birth rate), safety (miscarriage rate, neonatal complication rate), and cost of treatment. We assumed that a freeze-all strategy prolonged treatment but reduced the risk of OHSS. An error components mixed logit model was used to estimate the relative value (utility) that couples placed on the alternative treatment approaches and the attributes used to describe them. Willingness to pay and marginal rates of substitution between the non-cost attributes were calculated. A total of 360 individual questionnaires were given to 180 couples who fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which 212 were completed and returned Our study population included 3 same sex couples (2 females and 1 male) and 101 heterosexual couples. Four questionnaires were filled by one partner only. The response rate was 58.8%.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: Couples preferred both fresh and frozen embryo transfer (odds ratio 27.93 and 28.06, respectively) compared with no IVF treatment, with no strong preference for fresh over frozen. Couples strongly preferred any IVF technique that offered an increase in live birth rates by 5% (P = 0.006) and 15% (P < 0.0001), reduced miscarriage by 18% (P < 0.0001) and diminished neonatal complications by 10% (P < 0.0001). Respondents were willing to pay an additional £2451 (95% CI 604 - 4299) and £761 (95% CI 5056-9265) for a 5 and 15% increase in the chance of live birth, respectively, regardless of whether this involved fresh or frozen embryos. They required compensation of £5230 (95% CI 3320 - 7141) and £13 245 (95% CI 10 110-16 380) to accept a 10 and 25% increase in the risk of neonatal complications, respectively (P < 0.001). Results indicated that couples would be willing to accept a 1.26% (95% CI 1.001 - 1.706) reduction in the live birth rate for a 1% reduction in the risk of neonatal complications per live birth. Older couples appeared to place less emphasis on the risk of neonatal complications than younger couples.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: DCEs can elicit intentions which may not reflect actual behaviour. The external validity of this study is limited by the fact that it was conducted in a single centre with generous public funding for IVF. We cannot rule out the potential for selection or responder bias.Wider Implications Of the Findings: If a strategy of freeze all was to be implemented it would appear to be acceptable to patients, if either success rates can be improved or neonatal complications reduced. Live birth rates, neonatal complication rates, miscarriage rates, and cost are more likely to drive their preferences than a slight delay in the treatment process. The results of this study have important implications for future economic evaluations of IVF, as they suggest that the appropriate balance needs to be struck between success and safety. A holistic approach incorporating patient preferences for expected clinical outcomes and risks should be taken into consideration for individualized care.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): No external funding was sought for this study. A.M. is the chief investigator of the randomized controlled trial 'Freeze all'. S.B. is an Editor in Chief of Human Reproduction Open. The other co-authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Graham Scotland reports non-financial support from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, outside the submitted work.Trial Registration Number: N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION What is the impact of different age and BMI groups on total investigation and treatment costs in women attending a secondary/tertiary care fertility clinic? SUMMARY ANSWER Women in their early to mid-30s and women with normal BMI had higher cumulative investigation and treatment costs, but also higher probability of live birth. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Female age and BMI have been used as criteria for rationing publically funded fertility treatments. Population-based data on the costs of investigating and treating infertility are lacking. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION A retrospective cohort study of 2463 women was conducted in a single secondary/tertiary care fertility clinic in Aberdeen, Scotland from 1998 to 2008. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Participants included all women living in a defined geographical area referred from primary care to a specialized fertility clinic over an 11-year period. Women were followed up for 5 years or until live birth if this occurred sooner. Mean discounted cumulative National Health Service costs (expressed in 2010/2011 GBP) of fertility investigations, treatments (including all types of assisted reproduction), and pregnancy (including delivery episode) and neonatal admissions were calculated and summarized by age (≤30, 31–35, 36–40, >40 years) and BMI groupings (<18.50, 18.50–24.99 (normal BMI), 25.00–29.99, 30.00–34.99, ≥35.00 kg/m2). Further multivariate modelling was carried out to estimate the impact of age and BMI on investigation and treatment costs and live birth outcome, adjusting for covariates predictive of the treatment pathway and live birth. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Of the 2463 women referred, 1258 (51.1%) had a live birth within 5 years, with 694 (55.1%) of these being natural conceptions. The live birth rate was highest among women in the youngest age group (64.3%), and lowest in those aged >40 years (13.4%). Overall live birth rates were generally lower in women with BMI >30 kg/m2. The total costs of investigations were generally highest among women younger than 30 years (£491 in those with normal BMI), whilst treatment costs tended to be higher in 31–35 year olds (£1,840 in those with normal BMI). Multivariate modelling predicted a cost increase associated with treatment which was highest among women in the lowest BMI group (across all ages), and also highest among women aged 31–35 years. The increase in the predicted probability of live birth with exposure to treatment was consistent across age and BMI categories (∼10%), except in the oldest age group where a slightly smaller increase in the probability of live birth was observed. The ratio of increased costs to the increased probability of live birth in women who were treated increased markedly in women over the age of 40 years, but tended to fall as BMI increased within all age groups. LIMITATIONS AND REASON FOR CAUTION Our results, based on retrospective observational data from a single centre, have limited generalizability and are not free from clinician and clinic selection bias which can influence the choice of treatments as well as their costs. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Spontaneous live birth rates were particularly high in younger women with unexplained infertility, suggesting that expectant management is a reasonable option in this group. The policy of not over-investigating older women and offering early treatment where appropriate still incurred the highest costs per additional live birth associated with treatment, owing to the lower probability of treatment success. The increased additional cost for each live birth associated with treatment for women with decreasing BMI across all age groups, suggests that it may be possible to identify a more targeted approach to ... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prevalence of overweight and obesity is rising. Hence, it is likely that a higher proportion of women undergoing assisted reproduction treatment are overweight or obese.Methods: In a retrospective cross-sectional analysis using routinely collected data of an IVF Unit and maternity hospital in a tertiary care setting in the UK, direct costs were assessed for all weight classes. Costs for underweight, overweight and obese were compared with those for women with normal body mass index (BMI).Results: Of 1756 women, who underwent their first cycle of IVF between 1997 and 2006, 43 (2.4%) were underweight; 988 (56.3%) had normal BMI; 491 (28.0%) were overweight; 148 (8.4%) were obese (class I) and 86 (4.9%) were obese (class II). The mean (95% CI) cost of each live birth resulting from IVF was pound 18,747 (13 864-27 361) in underweight group; pound 16,497 (15 374-17 817) in women with normal BMI; pound 18,575 (16,648-21,081) in overweight women; pound 18,805 (15 397-23 554) in obese class I; pound 20,282 (15 288-28 424) in obese class II or over.Conclusions: The cost of a live birth resulting from IVF is not different in underweight, overweight and obese class I when compared with women with normal BMI. However, due to increased obstetric complications weight loss should still be recommended prior to commencing IVF even in overweight or obese (class I) women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]