Yu-Han Chiu1, Jennifer J Yland2, Paolo Rinaudo3, John Hsu4, Sean McGrath5, Sonia Hernández-Díaz6, Miguel A Hernán7. 1. CAUSALab, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; Mongan Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: yuc187@mail.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Center for Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California. 4. Mongan Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. CAUSALab, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. CAUSALab, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of 1 cycle of assisted reproductive technology (ART) vs. 3 cycles of intrauterine insemination (IUI). DESIGN: Target trial emulation using observational data. SETTING: A healthcare claims database (2011-2015). PATIENT(S): The patients were 29,021 women aged 18-45 years with an infertility diagnosis and no history of IUI or ART within the past 12 months. INTERVENTION(S): One ART cycle immediately, with no more cycles of ART or IUI within the next 4 months; or 1 IUI cycle immediately, with 2 additional consecutive cycles of IUI within the next 4 months unless pregnancy occurred. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Live births, multiple births, congenital malformations, preterm births, small-for-gestational-age newborns, large-for-gestational-age newborns, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, and gestational hypertension. RESULT(S): The probability of live birth was 27.3% for ART and 26.3% for IUI. The observational analogue of per-protocol risk difference (95% confidence interval) for ART compared with IUI was 1.0% (-0.1%, 2.2%) for live births, 4.3% (3.7%, 4.9%) for multiple births, 3.4% (2.8%, 4.0%) for preterm births, 1.5% (0.9%, 2.1%) for NICU admissions, and 0.6% (0.2%, 1.0%) for gestational diabetes. The risk differences for the other outcomes were <0.5%. The results of the 2 strategies were similar in women ≤40 years, but in women >40 years the probability of live birth was greater for ART (14.4%) than for IUI (7.4%). CONCLUSION(S): Compared with 3 cycles of IUI, 1 cycle of ART was estimated to have a similar probability of live birth but slightly higher risks of multiple gestations, preterm births, and NICU admissions.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of 1 cycle of assisted reproductive technology (ART) vs. 3 cycles of intrauterine insemination (IUI). DESIGN: Target trial emulation using observational data. SETTING: A healthcare claims database (2011-2015). PATIENT(S): The patients were 29,021 women aged 18-45 years with an infertility diagnosis and no history of IUI or ART within the past 12 months. INTERVENTION(S): One ART cycle immediately, with no more cycles of ART or IUI within the next 4 months; or 1 IUI cycle immediately, with 2 additional consecutive cycles of IUI within the next 4 months unless pregnancy occurred. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Live births, multiple births, congenital malformations, preterm births, small-for-gestational-age newborns, large-for-gestational-age newborns, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, and gestational hypertension. RESULT(S): The probability of live birth was 27.3% for ART and 26.3% for IUI. The observational analogue of per-protocol risk difference (95% confidence interval) for ART compared with IUI was 1.0% (-0.1%, 2.2%) for live births, 4.3% (3.7%, 4.9%) for multiple births, 3.4% (2.8%, 4.0%) for preterm births, 1.5% (0.9%, 2.1%) for NICU admissions, and 0.6% (0.2%, 1.0%) for gestational diabetes. The risk differences for the other outcomes were <0.5%. The results of the 2 strategies were similar in women ≤40 years, but in women >40 years the probability of live birth was greater for ART (14.4%) than for IUI (7.4%). CONCLUSION(S): Compared with 3 cycles of IUI, 1 cycle of ART was estimated to have a similar probability of live birth but slightly higher risks of multiple gestations, preterm births, and NICU admissions.
Authors: Mengdong He; Krista F Huybrechts; Sara Z Dejene; Loreen Straub; Devan Bartels; Stacey Burns; David J Combs; Jennifer Cottral; Kathryn J Gray; Beryl L Manning-Geist; Helen Mogun; Rebecca M Reimers; Sonia Hernandez-Diaz; Brian T Bateman Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2020-03-02 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Sarah C MacDonald; Jacqueline M Cohen; Alice Panchaud; Thomas F McElrath; Krista F Huybrechts; Sonia Hernández-Díaz Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2019-07-22 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Kristin Palmsten; Krista F Huybrechts; Mary K Kowal; Helen Mogun; Sonia Hernández-Díaz Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2014-04-16 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: William O Cooper; Sonia Hernandez-Diaz; Patricia Gideon; Shannon M Dyer; Kathleen Hall; Judith Dudley; Marisa Cevasco; Amanda B Thompson; Wayne A Ray Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Saswati Sunderam; Dmitry M Kissin; Sara B Crawford; Suzanne G Folger; Denise J Jamieson; Lee Warner; Wanda D Barfield Journal: MMWR Surveill Summ Date: 2017-02-10