Search

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]

Time-lapse monitoring is increasingly used in fertility laboratories to culture and select embryos for transfer. This method is offered to couples with the promise of improving pregnancy chances, even though there is currently insufficient evidence for superior clinical results. We aimed to evaluate whether a potential improvement by time-lapse monitoring is caused by the time-lapse-based embryo selection method itself or the uninterrupted culture environment that is part of the system. In this three-armed, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, couples undergoing in-vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection were recruited from 15 fertility clinics in the Netherlands and randomly assigned using a web-based, computerised randomisation service to one of three groups. Couples and physicians were masked to treatment group, but embryologists and laboratory technicians could not be. The time-lapse early embryo viability assessment (EEVA; TLE) group received embryo selection based on the EEVA time-lapse selection method and uninterrupted culture. The time-lapse routine (TLR) group received routine embryo selection and uninterrupted culture. The control group received routine embryo selection and interrupted culture. The co-primary endpoints were the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate within 12 months in all women and the ongoing pregnancy rate after fresh single embryo transfer in a good prognosis population. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered on the ICTRP Search Portal, NTR5423, and is closed to new participants. 1731 couples were randomly assigned between June 15, 2017, and March 31, 2020 (577 to the TLE group, 579 to the TLR group, and 575 to the control group). The 12-month cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate did not differ significantly between the three groups: 50·8% (293 of 577) in the TLE group, 50·9% (295 of 579) in the TLR group, and 49·4% (284 of 575) in the control group (p=0·85). The ongoing pregnancy rates after fresh single embryo transfer in a good prognosis population were 38·2% (125 of 327) in the TLE group, 36·8% (119 of 323) in the TLR group, and 37·8% (123 of 325) in the control group (p=0·90). Ten serious adverse events were reported (five TLE, four TLR, and one in the control group), which were not related to study procedures. Neither time-lapse-based embryo selection using the EEVA test nor uninterrupted culture conditions in a time-lapse incubator improved clinical outcomes compared with routine methods. Widespread application of time-lapse monitoring for fertility treatments with the promise of improved results should be questioned. Health Care Efficiency Research programme from Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development and Merck. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]