P–728 Can in couples with unexplained infertility the use of a prediction model to triage assisted reproduction technology save costs?
Authors: Nguyen D K , OLeary S , Gadalla M A , Wang R , Li W , Song Z , Roberts B , Alvino H , Tremellen K P , Mol B W 
Published: August 2021

Abstract

Study question
Can in couples with unexplained infertility a prognosis-tailored management strategy, that delays treatment if natural conception prospects are good, reduce costs without affecting live-birth rate?

Summary answer
In couples with unexplained infertility, use of a prognostic tool for natural conception followed by expectant management in good-prognosis couples is cost-effective.

What is known already
Few countries have guidelines for the assessment of the likelihood of natural conception to determine access to publicly funded ART. In the Netherlands and New-Zealand, couples with unexplained infertility who have a good prognosis for natural conception are encouraged to delay starting ART. However, the cost-effectiveness of this prognosis-tailored treatment strategy has not been determined.

Study design, size, duration
We studied couples with unexplained infertility to compare a prognosis-tailored strategy to care-as-usual. In the prognosis-tailored strategy, couples were assessed using Hunault’s prediction model. In good-prognosis couples (12-months natural conception &gt;40%), outcomes without ART were modelled by censoring observations after start of ART. We then assumed that poor-prognosis couples (&lt;40% natural conception) were treated, while good-prognosis couples delayed the start of treatment for 12 months. Data for the care-as-usual model were based on real observations.

Participants/materials, setting, methods
We studied 272 couples with unexplained infertility. Costs of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intra-uterine insemination (IUI) were calculated based on the out-of-pocket costs and Australian Medicare costs. In a cost-effectiveness model, we compared costs and effects of both strategies.

Main results and the role of chance
The prognostic model classified 272 couples with unexplained infertility as favourable (N = 107 (39.3%) or unfavourable prognosis (N = 165 (60.7%)) for natural conception. In the prognosis-tailored strategy, the cumulative live-birth rate was 71.1% (95% CI 64.7% - 76.4%) while the number of ART cycles was 393 (353 IVF; 40 IUI). In care-as-usual strategy, the cumulative conception rate leading to live-birth for the cohort of 272 couples, who underwent a total of 398 IVF cycles and 48 IUI cycles, was 72.1% (95% CI 65.7% - 77.4%). Mean time to conception leading to live birth was 388 days in the prognosis-tailored strategy and 419 days in the care-as-usual strategy.
This translated for the 272 couples into potential savings of 45 IVF cycles and eight IUI cycles, which cost a total of AUD$ 125,817 for out-of-pocket and AUD$ 264,497 for Australian Medicare. The average cost savings per couple was AUD$ 1,435 (out-of-pocket AUD$ 463 per couple and Australian Medicare AUD$ 962 per couple). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which was calculated as the total costs per additional live-births, was AUD$ 143,497 per additional live birth.

Limitations, reasons for caution
This study was limited to couples at a single IVF clinic. The modelling was also based on several key assumptions, particularly the number of fresh and frozen embryo transfer cycles for each couple.
Wider implications of the findings: Our results show that in couples with unexplained infertility the use of a prognostic model guiding the start of an IVF-treatment reduces costs without compromising live birth rates.

Trial registration number
Not applicable