Search

Study Question: Is a strategy starting with transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy (THL) cost-effective compared to a strategy starting with hysterosalpingography (HSG) in the work-up for subfertility?Summary Answer: A strategy starting with THL is cost-effective compared to a strategy starting with HSG in the work-up for subfertile women.What Is Known Already: Tubal pathology is a common cause of subfertility and tubal patency testing is one of the cornerstones of the fertility work-up. Both THL and HSG are safe procedures and can be used as a first-line tubal patency test.Study Design, Size, Duration: This economic evaluation was performed alongside a randomized clinical trial comparing THL and HSG in 300 subfertile women, between May 2013 and October 2016. For comparisons of THL and HSG, the unit costs were split into three main categories: costs of the diagnostic procedure, costs of fertility treatments and the costs for pregnancy outcomes.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Subfertile women scheduled for tubal patency testing were eligible. Women were randomized to a strategy starting with THL or a strategy starting with HSG. The primary outcome of the study was conception leading to a live birth within 24 months after randomization. The mean costs and outcomes for each treatment group were compared. We used a non-parametric bootstrap resampling of 1000 re-samples to investigate the effect of uncertainty and we created a cost-effectiveness plane and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: We allocated 149 women to THL and 151 to HSG, and we were able to achieve complete follow-up of 142 versus 148 women, respectively. After the fertility work-up women were treated according to the Dutch guidelines and based on a previously published prognostic model. In the THL group, 83 women (58.4%) conceived a live born child within 24 months after randomization compared to 82 women (55.4%) in the HSG group (difference 3.0% (95% CI: -8.3 to 14.4)). The mean total costs per woman were lower in the THL group compared to the HSG group (THL group €4991 versus €5262 in the HSG group, mean cost difference = -€271 (95% CI -€273 to -€269)). Although the costs of only the diagnostic procedure were higher in the THL group, in the HSG group more women underwent diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopies and also had higher costs for fertility treatments.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: Our trial was conducted in women with a low risk of tubal pathology; therefore, the results of our study are not generalizable to women with high risk of tubal pathology. Furthermore, this economic analysis was based on the Dutch healthcare system, and possibly our results are not generalizable to countries with different strategies or costs for fertility treatments.Wider Implications Of the Findings: After 2 years of follow-up, we found a live birth rate of 58.4% in the THL group versus 55.4% in the HSG group and a lower mean cost per woman in the THL group, with a cost difference of -€271. The findings of our trial suggest that a strategy starting with THL is cost-effective compared to a strategy starting with HSG in the workup for subfertile women. However, the cost difference between the two diagnostic strategies is limited compared to the total cost per woman in our study and before implementing THL as a first-line strategy for tubal patency testing, more research in other fields, such as patient preference and acceptance, is necessary.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The authors received no external financial support for the research. B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator Grant (GNT1176437). B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA, Guerbet. B.W.J.M. reports receiving travel support from Merck KGaA. C.T.P. reports consultancy for Guerbet, outside of this manuscript. All other authors have no conflicts to declare.Trial Registration Number: NTR3462. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: What is the cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment in obese infertile women?Summary Answer: Lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment as compared to prompt infertility treatment in obese infertile women is not a cost-effective strategy in terms of healthy live birth rate within 24 months after randomization, but is more likely to be cost-effective using a longer follow-up period and live birth rate as endpoint.What Is Known Already: In infertile couples, obesity decreases conception chances. We previously showed that lifestyle intervention prior to infertility treatment in obese infertile women did not increase the healthy singleton vaginal live birth rate at term, but increased natural conceptions, especially in anovulatory women. Cost-effectiveness analyses could provide relevant additional information to guide decisions regarding offering a lifestyle intervention to obese infertile women.Study Design, Size, Duration: The cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment compared to prompt infertility treatment was evaluated based on data of a previous RCT, the LIFEstyle study. The primary outcome for effectiveness was the vaginal birth of a healthy singleton at term within 24 months after randomization (the healthy live birth rate). The economic evaluation was performed from a hospital perspective and included direct medical costs of the lifestyle intervention, infertility treatments, medication and pregnancy in the intervention and control group. In addition, we performed exploratory cost-effectiveness analyses of scenarios with additional effectiveness outcomes (overall live birth within 24 months and overall live birth conceived within 24 months) and of subgroups, i.e. of ovulatory and anovulatory women, women <36 years and ≥36 years of age and of completers of the lifestyle intervention. Bootstrap analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness.Participants/materials, Settings, Methods: Infertile women with a BMI of ≥29 kg/m2 (no upper limit) were allocated to a 6-month lifestyle intervention programme preceding infertility treatment (intervention group, n = 290) or to prompt infertility treatment (control group, n = 287). After excluding women who withdrew informed consent or who were lost to follow-up we included 280 women in the intervention group and 284 women in the control group in the analysis.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: Total mean costs per woman in the intervention group within 24 months after randomization were €4324 (SD €4276) versus €5603 (SD €4632) in the control group (cost difference of -€1278, P < 0.05). Healthy live birth rates were 27 and 35% in the intervention group and the control group, respectively (effect difference of -8.1%, P < 0.05), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €15 845 per additional percentage increase of the healthy live birth rate. Mean costs per healthy live birth event were €15 932 in the intervention group and €15 912 in the control group. Exploratory scenario analyses showed that after changing the effectiveness outcome to all live births conceived within 24 months, irrespective of delivery within or after 24 months, cost-effectiveness of the lifestyle intervention improved. Using this effectiveness outcome, the probability that lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment was cost-effective in anovulatory women was 40%, in completers of the lifestyle intervention 39%, and in women ≥36 years 29%.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: In contrast to the study protocol, we were not able to perform the analysis from a societal perspective. Besides the primary outcome of the LIFEstyle study, we performed exploratory analyses using outcomes observed at longer follow-up times and we evaluated subgroups of women; the trial was not powered on these additional outcomes or subgroup analyses.Wider Implications Of the Findings: Cost-effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention is more likely for longer follow-up times, and with live births conceived within 24 months as the effectiveness outcome. This effect was most profound in anovulatory women, in completers of the lifestyle intervention and in women ≥36 years old. This result indicates that the follow-up period of lifestyle interventions in obese infertile women is important. The scenario analyses performed in this study suggest that offering and reimbursing lifestyle intervention programmes in certain patient categories may be cost-effective and it provides directions for future research in this field.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The study was supported by a grant from ZonMw, the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (50-50110-96-518). The department of obstetrics and gynaecology of the UMCG received an unrestricted educational grant from Ferring pharmaceuticals BV, The Netherlands. B.W.J.M. is a consultant for ObsEva, Geneva.Trial Registration Number: The LIFEstyle RCT was registered at the Dutch trial registry (NTR 1530). http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC = 1530. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Do age, ovulatory status, severity of obesity and body fat distribution affect the effectiveness of lifestyle intervention in obese infertile women?Summary Answer: We did not identify a subgroup in which lifestyle intervention increased the healthy live birth rate however it did increase the natural conception rate in anovulatory obese infertile women.What Is Known Already: Obese women are at increased risk of infertility and are less likely to conceive after infertility treatment. We previously demonstrated that a 6-month lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment did not increase the rate of healthy live births (vaginal live birth of a healthy singleton at term) within 24 months of follow-up as compared to prompt infertility treatment in obese infertile women. Natural conceptions occurred more frequently in women who received a 6-month lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment.Study Design, Size, Duration: This is a secondary analysis of a multicentre RCT (randomized controlled trial), the LIFEstyle study. Between 2009 and 2012, 577 obese infertile women were randomly assigned to a 6-month lifestyle intervention followed by infertility treatment (intervention group) or to prompt infertility treatment (control group). Subgroups were predefined in the study protocol, based on frequently used cut-off values in the literature: age (≥36 or <36 years), ovulatory status (anovulatory or ovulatory), BMI (≥35 or <35 kg/m2) and waist-hip (WH) ratio (≥0.8 or <0.8).Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Data of 564 (98%) randomized women who completed follow-up were analyzed. We studied the effect of the intervention program in various subgroups on healthy live birth rate within 24 months, as well as the rate of overall live births (live births independent of gestational age, mode of delivery and health) and natural conceptions within 24 months. Live birth rates included pregnancies resulting from both treatment dependent and natural conceptions. Logistic regression models with randomization group, subgroup and the interaction between randomization group and subgroup were used. Significant interaction was defined as a P-value <0.1.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: Neither maternal age, ovulatory status nor BMI had an impact on the healthy live birth rate within 24 months, nor did they influence the overall live birth rate within 24 months after randomization. WH ratio showed a significant interaction with the effect of lifestyle intervention on healthy live birth rate (P = 0.05), resulting in a lower healthy live birth rate in women with a WH ratio <0.8. WH ratio had no interaction regarding overall live birth rate (P = 0.27) or natural conception rate (P = 0.38). In anovulatory women, the effect of lifestyle intervention resulted in more natural conceptions compared to ovulatory women (P-value for interaction = 0.02). There was no interaction between other subgroups and the effect of the intervention on the rate of natural conception.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: Since this was a subgroup analysis of a RCT and sample size determination of the trial was based on the primary outcome of the study, the study was not powered for analyses of all subgroups.Wider Implications Of the Findings: Our finding that lifestyle intervention leads to increased natural conception in anovulatory obese women could be used in the counselling of these women, but requires further research using an appropriately powered study in order to confirm this result.Study Funding/competing Interests: The study was supported by a grant from ZonMw, the Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development (50-50110-96-518). The Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the UMCG received an unrestricted educational grant from Ferring pharmaceuticals BV, The Netherlands. Ben Mol is a consultant for ObsEva, Geneva. Annemieke Hoek received a speaker's fee for a postgraduate education from MSD pharmaceutical company, outside the submitted work.Trial Registration Number: The LIFEstyle study was registered at the Dutch trial registry (NTR 1530). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]