Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:48:53.759Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DEFINING ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR FUNDING POLICIES AROUND IN VITRO FERTILIZATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 December 2015

Devidas Menon ,
Alexa A. Nardelli ,
Tarek Motan ,
Kristin Klein  and
Tania Stafinski
Devidas Menon
Affiliation:
Health Technology and Policy Unit, School of Public Health, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Alberta, Research Transition Facilitymenon@ualberta.ca
Alexa A. Nardelli
Affiliation:
Health Technology and Policy Unit, School of Public Health, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Alberta, Research Transition Facility
Tarek Motan
Affiliation:
Division of Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Kristin Klein
Affiliation:
Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Research Transition Facility
Tania Stafinski
Affiliation:
Health Technology and Policy Unit, School of Public Health, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Alberta, Research Transition Facility
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: This review aims to assess the state of the science around the potential impact of certain patient characteristics on the safety and effectiveness of in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Methods: Following Cochrane Collaboration guidelines and the PRISMA statement, a comprehensive systematic review of reviews and recent primary studies examining the impact of paternal age and maternal age, smoking, and body mass index (BMI) on the safety and effectiveness of IVF was performed. Papers, published between January 2007 and June 2014, were independently reviewed and critically appraised by two researchers using published quality assessment tools for reviews and primary studies. Due to heterogeneity across papers (different study designs and patient selection criteria), a qualitative analysis of extracted information was performed.

Results: Seventeen papers (ten systematic reviews and seven primary studies) were included. They comprised evidence from retrospective observational studies in which maternal age, BMI, and smoking status were explored as part of secondary analyses of larger studies. The majority of papers found that the likelihood of achieving a pregnancy was lower among women who were >40 years, had a BMI ≥ 25 and smoked. Advanced maternal age and BMI were also associated with higher rates of preterm birth and low birth weight.

Conclusions: Based on available evidence, it may be appropriate to consider “maternal age” and “morbid obesity” in public funding policies that aim to maximize the effectiveness of IVF. However, given inconsistencies in the effect of smoking across different pregnancy-related outcomes, support for incorporating it into funding conditions appears weak.

Keywords

In vitro fertilizationEligibility criteriaSafetyEffectiveness
Type
Assessments
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 31 , Issue 6 , 2015 , pp. 426 - 433
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Zegers-Hochschild, F, Mansour, R, Ishihara, O, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology: World report on assisted reproductive technology, 2005. Fertil Steril. 2013;101:366–378.Google Scholar
2. NICE. Fertility: Assessment and treatment for people with fertility problems (update). Draft guidance for stakeholder consultation. London: RCOG Press / National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE); 2012.Google Scholar
3. Gurunath, S, Pandian, Z, Anderson, RA, Bhattacharya, S. Defining infertility-a systematic review of prevalence studies. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:575–588.Google Scholar
4. Evers, JL. Female subfertility. Lancet. 2002 Jul 13;360:151–159.Google Scholar
5. Bushnik, T, Cook, JL, Yuzpe, AA, Tough, S, Collins, J. Estimating the prevalence of infertility in Canada. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:738–746.Google Scholar
6. Ng, EHY, Ho, PC. Ageing and ART: A waste of time and money? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;21:5–20.Google Scholar
7. Caplan, AL, Patrizio, P. Are you ever too old to have a baby? The ethical challenges of older women using infertility services. Semin Reprod Med. 2010;28:281–286.Google Scholar
8. Johnson, JA, Tough, S. Delayed child-bearing. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2012;34:80–93.Google Scholar
9. Balasch, J, Gratacos, E. Delayed childbearing: Effects on fertility and the outcome of pregnancy. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2011;29:263–273.Google Scholar
10. Balasch, J. Ageing and infertility: An overview. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2010;26:855–860.Google Scholar
11. Homan, GF, Davies, M, Norman, R. The impact of lifestyle factors on reproductive performance in the general population and those undergoing infertility treatment: A review. Hum Reprod Update. 2007;13:209–223.Google Scholar
12. American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Smoking and infertility: A committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:1400–1406.Google Scholar
13. CDC. Infertility FAQs. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/infertility/ (accessed February 2013).Google Scholar
14. Dondorp, W, de Wert, G, Pennings, G, et al. Lifestyle-related factors and access to medically assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:578–583.Google ScholarPubMed
15. Dunn, AL, Stafinski, T, Menon, D. An international survey of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ARTs) policies and the effects of these policies on costs, utilization, and health outcomes. Health Policy. 2014;116:238–263.Google Scholar
16. Cohen, J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:37–46.Google Scholar
17. Oxman, AD, Guyatt, GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:1271–1278.Google Scholar
18. Oxman, AD, Guyatt, GH. The Oxman & Guyatt index of scientific quality [scoring system for systematic review]. Bandolier Professional 2003;(May):7.Google Scholar
19. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine levels of evidence and grades of recommendation [internet]. Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine (CEBM); 2011. http://www.cebm.net/ocebm-levels-of-evidence/ (accessed February 2013).Google Scholar
20. Watt, AM, Elshaug, AG, Willis, CD, Hiller, JE. Assisted reproductive technologies: A systematic review of safety and effectiveness to inform disinvestment policy. Health Policy. 2011;2–3:213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Dain, L, Auslander, R, Dirnfeld, M. The effect of paternal age on assisted reproduction outcome. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:1–8.Google Scholar
22. McLernon, DJ, Harrild, K, Bergh, C, et al. Clinical effectiveness of elective single versus double embryo transfer: Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;341:c6945.Google Scholar
23. van Loendersloot, LL, van Wely, M, Limpens, J, et al. Predictive factors in in vitro fertilization (IVF): A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16:577–589.Google Scholar
24. Lawlor, DA, Nelson, SM. Effect of age on decisions about the numbers of embryos to transfer in assisted conception: A prospective study. Lancet. 2012;379:527.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Yan, J, Wu, K, Tang, R, Ding, L, Chen, ZJ. Effect of maternal age on the outcomes of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET). Sci China Life Sci. 2012;55:694–698.Google Scholar
26. Kort, DH, Gosselin, J, Choi, JM, et al. Pregnancy after age 50: Defining risks for mother and child. Am J Perinatol. 2012;29:245–250.Google Scholar
27. Ban Frangez, H, Korosec, S, Verdenik, I, et al. Preterm delivery risk factors in singletons born after in vitro fertilization procedures. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;176:183–186.Google Scholar
28. Koning, AM, Mutsaerts, MA, Kuchenbecher, WKH, et al. Complications and outcome of assisted reproduction technologies in overweight and obese women. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:457–467.Google Scholar
29. Rittenberg, V, Seshadri, S, Sunkara, SK, et al. Effect of body mass index on IVF treatment outcome: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23:421–439.Google Scholar
30. Waylen, AL, Metwally, M, Jones, GL, Wilkinson, AJ, Ledger, WL. Effects of cigarette smoking upon clinical outcomes of assisted reproduction: A meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2009;15:31–44.Google Scholar
31. Maheshwari, A, Stofberg, L, Bhattacharya, S. Effect of overweight and obesity on assisted reproductive technology–A systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2007;13:433–444.Google Scholar
32. Jungheim, ES, Schon, SB, Schulte, MB, et al. IVF outcomes in obese donor oocyte recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2013;28 (10):2720–2727.Google Scholar
33. Dickey, RP, Xiong, X, Gee, RE, Pridjian, G. Effect of maternal height and weight on risk of preterm birth in singleton and twin births resulting from in vitro fertilization: A retrospective cohort study using the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:349–354.Google Scholar
34. Zander-Fox, DL, Henshaw, R, Hamilton, H, Lane, M. Does obesity really matter? The impact of BMI on embryo quality and pregnancy outcomes after IVF in women aged ≤38 years. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;52:270–276.Google Scholar
35. Dickey, RP, Xiong, X, Xie, Y, Gee, RE, Pridjian, G. Effect of maternal height and weight on risk for preterm singleton and twin births resulting from IVF in the United States, 2008–2010. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209:349e1–6.Google Scholar
36. Somigliana, E, Vercellini, P, Daguati, R, et al. Fibroids and female reproduction: A critical analysis of the evidence. Hum Reprod Update. 2007;13:465–476.Google Scholar
37. Waylen, AL, Metwally, M, Jones, GL, et al. Effects of cigarette smoking upon clinical outcomes of assisted reproduction: A meta-analyis. Hum Reprod Update. 2009;15:31–44.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Menon supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Menon supplementary material(File)
File 119 KB
Supplementary material: File

Menon supplementary material

Table S1

Download Menon supplementary material(File)
File 92.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Menon supplementary material

Table S2

Download Menon supplementary material(File)
File 87.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Menon supplementary material

Table S3

Download Menon supplementary material(File)
File 88 KB
Supplementary material: File

Menon supplementary material

Table S4

Download Menon supplementary material(File)
File 87.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Menon supplementary material

Table S5

Download Menon supplementary material(File)
File 105.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Menon supplementary material

Table S6

Download Menon supplementary material(File)
File 89 KB
Supplementary material: File

Menon supplementary material

Table S7

Download Menon supplementary material(File)
File 86.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Menon supplementary material

Table S8

Download Menon supplementary material(File)
File 94.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Menon supplementary material

Table S9

Download Menon supplementary material(File)
File 92.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Menon supplementary material

Table S10

Download Menon supplementary material(File)
File 91.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Menon supplementary material

Table S11

Download Menon supplementary material(File)
File 86.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Menon supplementary material

Table S12

Download Menon supplementary material(File)
File 86.2 KB