ORCID Profile
0000-0002-5387-7629
Current Organisation
University of Toronto
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 02-05-2014
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 05-12-2016
Abstract: What is the global consensus on the classification of endometriosis that considers the views of women with endometriosis? We have produced an international consensus statement on the classification of endometriosis through systematic appraisal of evidence and a consensus process that included representatives of national and international, medical and non-medical societies, patient organizations, and companies with an interest in endometriosis. Classification systems of endometriosis, developed by several professional organizations, traditionally have been based on lesion appearance, pelvic adhesions, and anatomic location of disease. One system predicts fertility outcome and none predicts pelvic pain, response to medications, disease recurrence, risks for associated disorders, quality of life measures, and other endpoints important to women and health care providers for guiding appropriate therapeutic options and prognosis. A consensus meeting, in conjunction with pre- and post-meeting processes, was undertaken. A consensus meeting was held on 30 April 2014 in conjunction with the World Endometriosis Society's 12th World Congress on Endometriosis. Rigorous pre- and post-meeting processes, involving 55 representatives of 29 national and international, medical and non-medical organizations from a range of disciplines, led to this consensus statement. A total of 28 consensus statements were made. Of all, 10 statements had unanimous consensus, however none of the statements was made without expression of a caveat about the strength of the statement or the statement itself. Two statements did not achieve majority consensus. The statements covered women's priorities, aspects of classification, impact of low resources, as well as all the major classification systems for endometriosis. Until better classification systems are developed, we propose a classification toolbox (that includes the revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine and, where appropriate, the Enzian and Endometriosis Fertility Index staging systems), that may be used by all surgeons in each case of surgery undertaken for women with endometriosis. We also propose wider use of the World Endometriosis Research Foundation Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonisation Project surgical and clinical data collection tools for research to improve classification of endometriosis in the future, of particular relevance when surgery is not undertaken. This consensus process differed from that of formal guideline development, although based on the same available evidence. A different group of international experts from those participating in this process may have yielded subtly different consensus statements. This is the first time that a large, global, consortium-representing 29 major stake-holding organizations, from 19 countries - has convened to systematically evaluate the best available evidence on the classification of endometriosis and reach consensus. In addition to 21 international medical organizations and companies, representatives from eight national endometriosis organizations were involved, including lay support groups, thus generating and including input from women who suffer from endometriosis in an endeavour to keep uppermost the goal of optimizing quality of life for women with endometriosis. The World Endometriosis Society convened and hosted the consensus meeting. Financial support for participants to attend the meeting was provided by the organizations that they represented. There was no other specific funding for this consensus process. Mauricio Abrao is an advisor to Bayer Pharma, and a consultant to AbbVie and AstraZeneca G David Adamson is the Owner of Advanced Reproductive Care Inc and Ziva and a consultant to Bayer Pharma, Ferring, and AbbVie Deborah Bush has received travel grants from Fisher & Paykel Healthcare and Bayer Pharmaceuticals Linda Giudice is a consultant to AbbVie, Juniper Pharmaceutical, and NextGen Jane, holds research grant from the NIH, is site PI on a clinical trial sponsored by Bayer, and is a shareholder in Merck and Pfizer Lone Hummelshoj is an unpaid consultant to AbbVie Neil Johnson has received conference expenses from Bayer Pharma, Merck-Serono, and MSD, research funding from AbbVie, and is a consultant to Vifor Pharma and Guerbet Jörg Keckstein has received a travel grant from AbbVie Ludwig Kiesel is a consultant to Bayer Pharma, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gedeon Richter, and Shionogi, and holds a research grant from Bayer Pharma Luk Rombauts is an advisor to MSD, Merck Serono, and Ferring, and a shareholder in Monash IVF. The following have declared that they have nothing to disclose: Kathy Sharpe Timms Rulla Tamimi Hugh Taylor. N/A.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 03-2016
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 02-2014
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 30-11-2020
Abstract: Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified? The top 10 research priorities for the four areas of male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care for people with fertility problems were identified. Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems. Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, erse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care. Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance. The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties was entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI and IVF) and ethics, access and organization of care were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from 11 countries. These research priorities were erse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require erse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research and population science. We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant s le, methodological decisions informed by professional judgment and arbitrary consensus definitions. We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda. The study was funded by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. G.D.A. reports research sponsorship from Abbott, personal fees from Abbott and LabCorp, a financial interest in Advanced Reproductive Care, committee membership of the FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, International Federation of Fertility Societies and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, and research sponsorship of the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies from Abbott and Ferring. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. A.W.H. reports research sponsorship from the Chief Scientist’s Office, Ferring, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research and Wellbeing of Women and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Ferring, Nordic Pharma and Roche Diagnostics. M.L.H. reports grants from Merck, grants from Myovant, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work and ownership in Embrace Fertility, a private fertility company. N.P.J. reports research sponsorship from AbbVie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy fees from Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Roche Diagnostics and Vifor Pharma. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring and retains a financial interest in NexHand. J.S. reports being employed by a National Health Service fertility clinic, consultancy fees from Merck for educational events, sponsorship to attend a fertility conference from Ferring and being a clinical subeditor of Human Fertility. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. J.W. reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. A.V. reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their ‘traffic light’ system for infertility treatment ‘add-ons’. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the present work. All authors have completed the disclosure form. N/A.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2021
DOI: 10.1016/J.FERTNSTERT.2020.11.014
Abstract: Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified? The top 10 research priorities for the four areas of male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction, and ethics, access, and organization of care for people with fertility problems were identified. Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management, and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems. Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines, and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, erse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction, and ethics, access, and organization of care. Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems, and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance. The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties were entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities, and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI, and IVF), and ethics, access, and organization of care, were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from 11 countries. These research priorities were erse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment, and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings, and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require erse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research, and population science. We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant s le, methodological decisions informed by professional judgement, and arbitrary consensus definitions. We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems, and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda. The study was funded by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Geoffrey Adamson reports research sponsorship from Abbott, personal fees from Abbott and LabCorp, a financial interest in Advanced Reproductive Care, committee membership of the FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, International Federation of Fertility Societies, and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, and research sponsorship of the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies from Abbott and Ferring. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. Andrew Horne reports research sponsorship from the Chief Scientist's Office, Ferring, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, and Wellbeing of Women and consultancy fees from Abbvie, Ferring, Nordic Pharma, and Roche Diagnostics. M. Louise Hull reports grants from Merck, grants from Myovant, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work and ownership in Embrace Fertility, a private fertility company. Neil Johnson reports research sponsorship from Abb-Vie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy fees from Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Roche Diagnostics, and Vifor Pharma. José Knijnenburg reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. Richard Legro reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. Ben Mol reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. Craig Niederberger reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. Jane Stewart reports being employed by a National Health Service fertility clinic, consultancy fees from Merck for educational events, sponsorship to attend a fertility conference from Ferring, and being a clinical subeditor of Human Fertility. Annika Strandell reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. Jack Wilkinson reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. Andy Vail reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from HFEA for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. Lan Vuong reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the present work. All authors have completed the disclosure form. Not applicable.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 26-02-2013
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 27-05-2009
Abstract: The International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology's (ICMART) Eighth World Report analyzes assisted reproductive technology (ART) practice and results for the year 2002 from 53 countries by type of ART, women's age, number of embryos transferred and multiple births. Over 601,243 initiated cycles resulted in a delivery rate (DR) per aspiration of 22.4% for conventional IVF, 21.2% for ICSI and a DR per transfer of 15.3% for frozen embryo transfer. For conventional IVF and ICSI, there was an overall twin rate of 25.7% per delivery and a triplet rate of 2.5%. The number of babies born worldwide through ART in 2002 was estimated to range between 219,000 and 246,000. There were wide variations in availability, DRs and multiple birth rates across the countries. Compared with the previous report (year 2000), there was a large increase in the number of cycles and a slight increase in the DR. There was a marginal decline in the mean number of embryos transferred and in the multiple DRs.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2006
DOI: 10.1016/J.FERTNSTERT.2006.01.011
Abstract: The International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology's 7th World Report for the year 2000 analyzes wide variations in live and multiple birth rates from 49 countries and six regions by type of assisted reproductive technology, age, number of embryos transferred, and multiple births. More than 460,157 procedures resulted in delivery rate per aspiration for conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) of 18.6% for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), 20.4% for egg donation, 32.3% per transfer and for frozen ET, 12.0% per transfer. Conventional IVF and ICSI twin rates were 26.9% and 26.2%, respectively, and triplet rates were 2.8% and 2.9%, respectively, for an estimated total of approximately 197,000 to 220,000 babies worldwide.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2014
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2011
DOI: 10.1016/J.FERTNSTERT.2011.03.058
Abstract: To analyze information on assisted reproductive technologies (ART) performed globally. Data on access, efficacy, and safety of ART were collected for the year 2003 from 54 countries. National and regional ART registries globally. Patients undergoing ART globally. Collection and analysis of international ART registry data. Number of cycles performed in reporting countries and regions globally for different ART procedures with resulting pregnancy, live birth and multiple birth rates. A total of 433,427 initiated cycles reported in this registry resulted in 173,424 babies born. This corresponded to a delivery rate per aspiration of 22.4% for in vitro fertilization (IVF), 23.3% for intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), and a delivery rate per transfer of 17.1% for frozen embryo transfer. Although there is wide variation among countries and regions, the overall proportion of deliveries with twins and triplets from IVF and ICSI was 24.8% and 2.0%, respectively. There were wide variations in access, and compared with the previous report (year 2002), there was a 3.9% increase in the number of reported cycles and a minor increase in the delivery rate per aspiration. There was also a marginal decline in the mean number of embryos transferred and in the rate of multiple births. ART access, efficacy, and safety varies greatly globally. Collection and analysis of data over time will benefit ART patients, providers, and policy makers.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 04-10-2009
Abstract: Many definitions used in medically assisted reproduction (MAR) vary in different settings, making it difficult to standardize and compare procedures in different countries and regions. With the expansion of infertility interventions worldwide, including lower resource settings, the importance and value of a common nomenclature is critical. The objective is to develop an internationally accepted and continually updated set of definitions, which would be utilized to standardize and harmonize international data collection, and to assist in monitoring the availability, efficacy, and safety of assisted reproductive technology (ART) being practiced worldwide. Seventy-two clinicians, basic scientists, epidemiologists and social scientists gathered together at the WHO headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland in December, 2008. Several months in advance, three working groups were established which were responsible for terminology in three specific areas: clinical conditions and procedures, laboratory procedures and outcome measures. Each group reviewed the existing ICMART glossary, made recommendations for revisions and introduced new terms to be considered for glossary expansion. A consensus was reached on 87 terms, expanding the original glossary by 34 terms, which included definitions for numerous clinical and laboratory procedures. Special emphasis was placed in describing outcome measures such as cumulative delivery rates and other markers of safety and efficacy in ART. Standardized terminology should assist in analysis of worldwide trends in MAR interventions and in the comparison of ART outcomes across countries and regions. This glossary will contribute to a more standardized communication among professionals responsible for ART practice, as well as those responsible for national, regional and international registries.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 11-2009
DOI: 10.1016/J.FERTNSTERT.2009.09.009
Abstract: Many definitions used in medically assisted reproduction (MAR) vary in different settings, making it difficult to standardize and compare procedures in different countries and regions. With the expansion of infertility interventions worldwide, including lower resource settings, the importance and value of a common nomenclature is critical. The objective is to develop an internationally accepted and continually updated set of definitions, which would be utilized to standardize and harmonize international data collection, and to assist in monitoring the availability, efficacy, and safety of assisted reproductive technology (ART) being practiced worldwide. Seventy-two clinicians, basic scientists, epidemiologists and social scientists gathered together at the World Health Organization headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, in December 2008. Several months before, three working groups were established as responsible for terminology in three specific areas: clinical conditions and procedures, laboratory procedures, and outcome measures. Each group reviewed the existing International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology glossary, made recommendations for revisions and introduced new terms to be considered for glossary expansion. A consensus was reached on 87 terms, expanding the original glossary by 34 terms, which included definitions for numerous clinical and laboratory procedures. Special emphasis was placed in describing outcome measures, such as cumulative delivery rates and other markers of safety and efficacy in ART. Standardized terminology should assist in analysis of worldwide trends in MAR interventions and in the comparison of ART outcomes across countries and regions. This glossary will contribute to a more standardized communication among professionals responsible for ART practice, as well as those responsible for national, regional, and international registries.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 13-04-2010
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 02-2017
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 02-2015
DOI: 10.1016/J.FERTNSTERT.2014.11.004
Abstract: To analyze information on assisted reproductive technology (ART) performed worldwide, and trends in outcomes over successive years. Cross-sectional survey on access, efficiency, and safety of ART procedures performed in 55 countries during 2007. Not applicable. Infertile women and men undergoing ART globally. Collection and analysis of international ART data. Number of cycles performed, by country and region, including pregnancies, single and multiple birth rates, and perinatal mortality. Overall, >1,251,881 procedures with ART were reported, and resulted in 229,442 reported babies born. The availability of ART varied by country, from 12 to 4,140 treatments per million population. Of all aspiration cycles, 65.2% (400,617 of 614,540) were intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The overall delivery rate per fresh aspiration was 20.3%, and for frozen-embryo transfer (FET), 18.4%, with a cumulative delivery rate of 25.8%. With wide regional variations, single-embryo transfer represented 23.4% of fresh transfers, and the proportion of deliveries with twins and triplets from fresh transfers was 22.3% and 1.2%, respectively. The perinatal mortality rate was 19.9 per 1,000 births for fresh in vitro fertilization using intracytoplasmic sperm injection, and 9.6 per 1,000 for FET. The proportion of women aged ≥40 years increased to 19.8% from 15.5% in 2006. The international trend toward 40 years was a major component of ART services in some regions and countries.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 09-05-2006
Abstract: The International Committee Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ICMART) is an independent, international non-profit organization that has taken a leading role in the development, collection and dissemination of worldwide data on ART. Information on availability, efficacy and safety is provided to health professionals, health authorities and the public. The glossary facilitates dissemination of ART data through a set of agreed definitions as seen in the most recent World Report on ART. It provides a conceptual framework for further international terminology and data development of ART.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 29-09-2017
Abstract: Can live birth be accurately predicted following surgical resection of moderate-severe (Stage III-IV) endometriosis? Live births can accurately be predicted with the endometriosis fertility index (EFI), with adnexal function being the most important factor to predict non-assisted reproductive technology (non-ART) fertility or the requirement for ART (www.endometriosisefi.com). Fertility prognosis is important to many women with severe endometriosis. Controversy persists regarding optimal post-operative management to achieve pregnancy and the counselling of patients regarding duration of conventional treatments before undergoing ART. The EFI is reported to correlate with expectant management pregnancy rate, although external validation has been performed without specifically addressing fertility in women with moderate and severe endometriosis. Retrospective cohort study of 279 women from September 2001 to June 2016. We included women undergoing laparoscopic resection of Stage III-IV endometriosis who attempted pregnancy post-operatively. The EFI was calculated based on detailed operative reports and surgical images. Fertility outcomes were obtained by direct patient contact. Kaplan-Meier model, log rank test and Cox regression were used for analyses. The follow-up rate was 84% with a mean duration of 4.1 years. A total of 147 women (63%) had a live birth following surgery, 94 of them (64%) without ART. The EFI was highly associated with live births (P < 0.001): for women with an EFI of 0-2 the estimated cumulative non-ART live birth rate at five years was 0% and steadily increased up to 91% with an EFI of 9-10, while the proportion of women who attempted ART and had a live birth, steadily increased from 38 to 71% among the same EFI strata (P = 0.1). A low least function score was the most significant predictor of failure (P = 0.003), followed by having had a previous resection (P = 0.019) or incomplete resection (P = 0.028), being older than 40 compared to <35 years of age (P = 0.027), and having leiomyomas (P = 0.037). The main limitation of this study is its retrospective design. Imprecision was higher with low EFI due to smaller s le size in this subgroup. Finally, the EFI is somewhat subjective and could be prone to intra- and inter-observer variations. Women with a high EFI score have excellent fertility prognosis and may be advised to try to become pregnant with timed intercourse compared to women with a low score, for which prompt referral to ART seems more reasonable. Other prognostic factors can be used to guide the management of women with an intermediate EFI score. These data follow women over many years post-resection and represent longitudinal fertility data rarely demonstrated in such a cohort. The location and impact of lesions on the ability of the adnexa to function seems crucial for the fertility prognosis and should be further investigated. This study was funded by the GRACE Research funds. S.M.-L. is the recipient of a Training Award from the Fonds de Recherche Quebec-Sante. D.A. is the primary author of the Endometriosis Fertility Index. All authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. N/A.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 07-2006
DOI: 10.1016/J.FERTNSTERT.2006.04.018
Abstract: The International Committee Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ICMART) is an independent international nonprofit organization that has taken a leading role in the development, collection, and dissemination of worldwide data on assisted reproductive technology (ART). Information on availability, efficacy, and safety is provided to health professionals, health authorities, and the public. The glossary facilitates dissemination of ART data through a set of agreed-upon definitions, as seen in the most recent World Report on ART. It provides a conceptual framework for further international terminology and data development of ART.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2009
DOI: 10.1016/J.FERTNSTERT.2009.04.029
Abstract: To compare regulatory and economic aspects of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) in developed countries. Comparative policy and economic analysis. Couples undergoing ART treatment in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Scandinavia, Japan, and Australia. Description of regulatory and financing arrangements, cycle costs, cost-effectiveness ratios, total expenditure, utilization, and price elasticity. Regulation and financing of ART share few general characteristics in developed countries. The cost of treatment reflects the costliness of the underlying healthcare system rather than the regulatory or funding environment. The cost (in 2006 United States dollars) of a standard IVF cycle ranged from $12,513 in the United States to $3,956 in Japan. The cost per live birth was highest in the United States and United Kingdom ($41,132 and $40,364, respectively) and lowest in Scandinavia and Japan ($24,485 and $24,329, respectively). The cost of an IVF cycle after government subsidization ranged from 50% of annual disposable income in the United States to 6% in Australia. The cost of ART treatment did not exceed 0.25% of total healthcare expenditure in any country. Australia and Scandinavia were the only country/region to reach levels of utilization approximating demand, with North America meeting only 24% of estimated demand. Demand displayed variable price elasticity. Assisted reproductive technology is expensive from a patient perspective but not from a societal perspective. Only countries with funding arrangements that minimize out-of-pocket expenses met expected demand. Funding mechanisms should maximize efficiency and equity of access while minimizing the potential harm from multiple births.
Location: United States of America
No related grants have been discovered for Geoffrey David Adamson.