Cost-effectiveness modelling of three different hysterosalpingography diagnostic strategies in addition to standard fertility management for couples with unexplained infertility in the United Kingdom

Abstract

Previous studies have demonstrated hysterosalpingography (HSG) in general, and specifically with an oil-soluble contrast medium, directly increases pregnancy rates. Decision modelling was performed to compare fertility management using three HSG diagnostic strategies: (i) water-soluble contrast medium (WSCM)-HSG; (ii) Lipiodol® Ultra Fluid (LUF)-HSG; and (iii) No HSG, for women aged ≤39 years with unexplained infertility. Four reimbursement scenarios were modelled to reflect the various funding arrangements across the regions of the United Kingdom. Compared with WSCM-HSG, the live birth rates after 24 months increased by 3.4% with LUF-HSG and decreased by 2.7% with no HSG. From a patient perspective, fertility management with LUF-HSG is the most cost-effective strategy with cost-savings ranging from £299 to £857 per patient depending on the funding arrangement for IVF. From an NHS perspective, fertility management with LUF-HSG is cost-effective when 2 or more IVF cycles are NHS-funded. If none of the IVF cycles are NHS-funded, fertility management with LUF-HSG can be considered cost-effective if society is willing to pay £8,353 for an additional live birth. The findings from this analysis suggest that fertility management with WSCM-HSG is cost-effective compared to no HSG and LUF-HSG is the most cost-effective with increased live birth rates after 24 months.

Keywords:

• Hysterosalpingography
• cost-effectiveness
• decision tree modelling
• contrast media
• unexplained infertility

Disclosure statement

Clarabelle Pham reports consultancy from Guerbet; Antoine Torre reports support for travel and meals from Guerbet for his attendance at two meetings in Scotland and France; Ben Mol reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA, iGenomix and Guerbet.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by Guerbet, Paris, France. Guerbet had no influence on the results of this research.