Cumulative Live Birth Rate According to the Number of Receiving Governmental Subsidies for Assisted Reproductive Technology in Saitama Prefecture, Japan: A Retrospective Study Using Individual Data for Governmental Subsidies

Overview

Journal Reprod Med Biol

Specialty Biology

Date 2021 Oct 14

PMID 34646073

Citations 4

Authors

Seung Chik Jwa

Osamu Ishihara

Akira Kuwahara

Kazuki Saito

Hidekazu Saito

Yukihiro Terada

Yasuki Kobayashi

Eri Maeda

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: We investigated the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) in women receiving governmental subsidies for assisted reproductive technology (ART) in Saitama Prefecture, Japan.

Methods: Women who applied for subsidies from Saitama Prefectural Government for the first time in 2016 were enrolled and followed up until the end of 2017. Treatment information, including live birth, was obtained from the Japanese ART registry by linking it with unique identification numbers for treatment. Patients' factors associated with having a live birth were investigated.

Results: Of 1,072 women (2,513 applications), 495 (46.2%) had a live birth with 8 (1.6%) twin pregnancies. The CLBR over six subsidized cycles was 53.7% for women aged <40 years, and 17.2% over three subsidized cycles for women 40-42 years; highest among women <35 years (58.4%), followed by those aged 35-39 years (49.3%). Multivariate analysis revealed patient age as the only independent factor for having a live birth.

Conclusions: The CLBR of women receiving subsidies for ART was greatest in women aged <35 years. Effective policies for promoting ART among younger couples who seek infertility treatment are essential.

Citing Articles

Assisted reproductive technology in Japan: A summary report for 2021 by the Ethics Committee of the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Katagiri Y, Jwa S, Kuwahara A, Iwasa T, On M, Kato K Reprod Med Biol. 2024; 23(1):e12552.

PMID: 38163009 PMC: 10757097. DOI: 10.1002/rmb2.12552.

The impact of assisted reproductive technology treatment coverage on marriage, pregnancy, and childbirth in women of childbearing age: an interrupted time-series analysis.

Yun I, Cha W, Nam C, Nam J, Park E BMC Public Health. 2023; 23(1):1379.

PMID: 37464391 PMC: 10353198. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-023-16286-3.

Out-of-pocket payment and patients' treatment choice for assisted reproductive technology by household income: a conjoint analysis using an online social research panel in Japan.

Maeda E, Jwa S, Kumazawa Y, Saito K, Iba A, Yanagisawa-Sugita A BMC Health Serv Res. 2022; 22(1):1093.

PMID: 36030225 PMC: 9420282. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-022-08474-5.

Cumulative live birth rate according to the number of receiving governmental subsidies for assisted reproductive technology in Saitama Prefecture, Japan: A retrospective study using individual data for governmental subsidies.

Jwa S, Ishihara O, Kuwahara A, Saito K, Saito H, Terada Y Reprod Med Biol. 2021; 20(4):451-459.

PMID: 34646073 PMC: 8499586. DOI: 10.1002/rmb2.12397.

References

Kutlu P, Atvar O, Vanlioglu O, Kutlu U, Arici A, Yilmaz S . Effect of the new legislation and single-embryo transfer policy in Turkey on assisted reproduction outcomes: preliminary results. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011; 22(2):208-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.10.007. View

Santana D, Cecatti J, Surita F, Silveira C, Costa M, Souza J . Twin Pregnancy and Severe Maternal Outcomes: The World Health Organization Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health. Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 127(4):631-641. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001338. View

Wei S, Bilodeau-Bertrand M, Lo E, Auger N . Effect of publicly funded assisted reproductive technology on maternal and infant outcomes: a pre- and post-comparison study. Hum Reprod. 2020; 36(1):219-228. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deaa270. View

Chambers G, Ledger W . The economic implications of multiple pregnancy following ART. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014; 19(4):254-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.siny.2014.04.004. View

Chambers G, Keller E, Choi S, Khalaf Y, Crawford S, Botha W . Funding and public reporting strategies for reducing multiple pregnancy from fertility treatments. Fertil Steril. 2020; 114(4):715-721. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.08.1405. View

Greenland S . Model-based estimation of relative risks and other epidemiologic measures in studies of common outcomes and in case-control studies. Am J Epidemiol. 2004; 160(4):301-5. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwh221. View

Chambers G, Hoang V, Lee E, Hansen M, Sullivan E, Bower C . Hospital costs of multiple-birth and singleton-birth children during the first 5 years of life and the role of assisted reproductive technology. JAMA Pediatr. 2014; 168(11):1045-53. DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.1357. View

Johnston J, Gusmano M, Patrizio P . Preterm births, multiples, and fertility treatment: recommendations for changes to policy and clinical practices. Fertil Steril. 2014; 102(1):36-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.03.019. View

Goldman R, Farland L, Thomas A, Zera C, Ginsburg E . The combined impact of maternal age and body mass index on cumulative live birth following in vitro fertilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 221(6):617.e1-617.e13. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.05.043. View

10.

Ikegami N, Yoo B, Hashimoto H, Matsumoto M, Ogata H, Babazono A . Japanese universal health coverage: evolution, achievements, and challenges. Lancet. 2011; 378(9796):1106-15. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60828-3. View

11.

Ishihara O, Jwa S, Kuwahara A, Katagiri Y, Kuwabara Y, Hamatani T . Assisted reproductive technology in Japan: A summary report for 2018 by the Ethics Committee of the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Reprod Med Biol. 2021; 20(1):3-12. PMC: 7812461. DOI: 10.1002/rmb2.12358. View

12.

McLernon D, Steyerberg E, Te Velde E, Lee A, Bhattacharya S . Predicting the chances of a live birth after one or more complete cycles of in vitro fertilisation: population based study of linked cycle data from 113 873 women. BMJ. 2016; 355:i5735. PMC: 5112178. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i5735. View

13.

Dyer S, Chambers G, Adamson G, Banker M, de Mouzon J, Ishihara O . ART utilization: an indicator of access to infertility care. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020; 41(1):6-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.03.007. View

14.

Baird D, Collins J, Egozcue J, Evers L, Gianaroli L, Leridon H . Fertility and ageing. Hum Reprod Update. 2005; 11(3):261-76. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmi006. View

15.

Tulandi T, King L, Zelkowitz P . Public funding of and access to in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 2013; 368(20):1948-9. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc1213687. View

16.

de Mouzon J, Chambers G, Zegers-Hochschild F, Mansour R, Ishihara O, Banker M . International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies world report: assisted reproductive technology 2012†. Hum Reprod. 2020; 35(8):1900-1913. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deaa090. View

17.

Velez M, Connolly M, Kadoch I, Phillips S, Bissonnette F . Universal coverage of IVF pays off. Hum Reprod. 2014; 29(6):1313-9. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deu067. View

18.

Takeshima K, Jwa S, Saito H, Nakaza A, Kuwahara A, Ishihara O . Impact of single embryo transfer policy on perinatal outcomes in fresh and frozen cycles-analysis of the Japanese Assisted Reproduction Technology registry between 2007 and 2012. Fertil Steril. 2015; 105(2):337-46.e3. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.10.002. View

19.

Paul R, Fitzgerald O, Lieberman D, Venetis C, Chambers G . Cumulative live birth rates for women returning to ART treatment for a second ART-conceived child. Hum Reprod. 2020; 35(6):1432-1440. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deaa030. View

20.

Ishihara O, Jwa S, Kuwahara A, Katagiri Y, Kuwabara Y, Hamatani T . Assisted reproductive technology in Japan: A summary report for 2017 by the Ethics Committee of the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Reprod Med Biol. 2020; 19(1):3-12. PMC: 6955594. DOI: 10.1002/rmb2.12307. View