Search

The cost of fertility treatment is expensive and interventions that reduce cost can lead to greater efficiency and fewer embryos transferred. Endometrial polyps contribute to infertility and are frequently removed prior to infertility treatment. It is unclear whether polypectomy reduces fertility treatment cost and if so, the magnitude of cost reduction afforded by the procedure. The aim of this study was to determine whether performing office or operative hysteroscopic polypectomy prior to infertility treatment would be cost-effective. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries were used to identify publications reporting pregnancy rates after hysteroscopic polypectomy. Studies were required to have a polypectomy treatment group and control group of patients with polyps that were not resected. The charges of infertility treatments and polypectomy were obtained through infertility organizations and a private healthcare cost reporting website. These charges were applied to a decision tree model over the range of pregnancy rates observed in the representative studies to calculate an average cost per clinical or ongoing pregnancy. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess cost savings of polypectomy over a range of pregnancy rates and polypectomy costs. Pre-treatment office or operative hysteroscopic polypectomy ultimately saved €6658 ($7480) and €728 ($818), respectively, of the average cost per clinical pregnancy in women treated with four cycles of intrauterine insemination. Polypectomy prior to intrauterine insemination was cost-effective for clinical pregnancy rates greater than 30.2% for office polypectomy and 52.6% for operative polypectomy and for polypectomy price <€4414 ($4959). Office polypectomy or operative polypectomy saved €15,854 ($17,813) and €6644 ($7465), respectively, from the average cost per ongoing pregnancy for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection treated women and was cost-effective for ongoing pregnancy rates greater than 26.4% (office polypectomy) and 31.7% (operative polypectomy) and polypectomy price <€6376 ($7164). These findings suggested that office or operative hysteroscopic polypectomy was cost-effective when performed prior to both intrauterine insemination and in vitro fertilization over a range of plausible pregnancy rates and procedural costs., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Infertility care has improved remarkably over the last few decades and has received growing attention from health care providers. Several treatments, including expensive options such as Assisted Reproductive Techniques, are now widely available for routine clinical use. In most cases, adoption of these treatments has occurred without robust cost-effective analyses. IVF for unexplained infertility and ICSI in the absence of semen abnormalities are two examples of this gradual technology creep. More in-depth economic analyses in the field of infertility are undoubtedly warranted. However, performing these analyses is challenging because infertility care poses a number of unique challenges. Studies of cost-effectiveness are open to criticism because there is a lack of consensus about the outcomes of choice and the appropriate perspective. The use of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) to allow comparisons with other clinical conditions is also controversial because the value associated with infertility care cannot be easily captured in QALYs. Moreover, their use triggers the crucial question of whose QALYs merit consideration-an individual's, a couple's or a child's. In conclusion, economic analysis in infertility represents a peculiar but crucial challenge. If management of infertility is to become an integral part of publicly or privately funded health care systems worldwide, better quality data and a shared vision about the costs and benefits of infertility treatments are needed., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of split IVF-intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for the treatment of couples with unexplained infertility., Design: Adaptive decision model., Setting: Academic infertility clinic., Patient(s): A total of 154 couples undergoing a split IVF-ICSI cycle and a computer-simulated cohort of women <35 years old with unexplained infertility undergoing IVF., Intervention(s): Modeling insemination method in the first IVF cycle as all IVF, split IVF-ICSI, or all ICSI, and adapting treatment based on fertilization outcomes., Main Outcome Measure(s): Live birth rate, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)., Result(s): In a single cycle, all IVF is preferred as the ICER of split IVF-ICSI or all ICSI ($58,766) does not justify the increased live birth rate (3%). If two cycles are needed, split IVF/ICSI is preferred as the increased cumulative live birth rate (3.3%) is gained at an ICER of $29,666., Conclusion(s): In a single cycle, all IVF was preferred as the increased live birth rate with split IVF-ICSI and all ICSI was not justified by the increased cost per live birth. If two IVF cycles are needed, however, split IVF/ICSI becomes the preferred approach, as a result of the higher cumulative live birth rate compared with all IVF and the lesser cost per live birth compared with all ICSI., (Copyright © 2013 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To identify clinical and embryological factors that may predict success in rescue intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles (after total fertilization failure has occurred) and to evaluate the cost effectiveness of rescue ICSI strategy. Additionally, follow-up of 20 rescue ICSI pregnancies is reported., Design: Retrospective analysis of total fertilization failure cycles., Setting: University-based tertiary medical center., Material and Methods: In total, 92 patients who had undergone conventional in-vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles with total fertilization failure were included. The patients were divided into two subgroups: those who conceived through rescue ICSI and those who did not., Results: The pregnant members of the rescue ICSI subgroup were found to be significantly younger (32.9 ± 4.2 vs. 36.3 ± 4.5, respectively, p = 0.0035,) and to have better-quality embryos than those who did not conceive (cumulative embryo score: 38.3 ± 20.4 vs. 29.3 ± 14.7, p = 0.025). Cost effectiveness analysis showed 25% reduction in the cost per live birth when rescue ICSI is compared to cycle cancellation approach. The pregnancies follow-up did not show adverse perinatal outcome., Conclusions: Rescue ICSI is an option for salvaging IVF cycles complicated by total fertilization failure. Success in rescue ICSI was found to be associated with younger age and higher quality of embryos. Furthermore, the cost effectiveness of rescue ICSI in terms of total fertilization failure was found to be worthwhile.