Search

Study Question: For couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, is 6 months expectant management (EM) inferior to IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS), in terms of live births?Summary Answer: In couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, 6 months of EM is inferior compared to IUI-OS in terms of live births.What Is Known Already: Couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis are often treated with IUI-OS. In couples with unexplained subfertility and a relatively good prognosis for natural conception (>30% in 12 months), IUI-OS does not increase the live birth rate as compared to 6 months of EM. However, in couples with a poor prognosis for natural conception (<30% in 12 months), the effectiveness of IUI-OS is uncertain.Study Design, Size, Duration: We performed a non-inferiority multicentre randomized controlled trial within the infrastructure of the Dutch Consortium for Healthcare Evaluation and Research in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. We intended to include 1091 couples within 3 years. The couples were allocated in a 1:1 ratio to 6 months EM or 6 months IUI-OS with either clomiphene citrate or gonadotrophins.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: We studied heterosexual couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception (<30% in 12 months). The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to a live birth. Non-inferiority would be shown if the lower limit of the one-sided 90% risk difference (RD) CI was less than minus 7% compared to an expected live birth rate of 30% following IUI-OS. We calculated RD, relative risks (RRs) with 90% CI and a corresponding hazard rate for live birth over time based on intention-to-treat and per-protocol (PP) analysis.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: Between October 2016 and September 2020, we allocated 92 couples to EM and 86 to IUI-OS. The trial was halted pre-maturely owing to slow inclusion. Mean female age was 34 years, median duration of subfertility was 21 months. Couples allocated to EM had a lower live birth rate than couples allocated to IUI-OS (12/92 (13%) in the EM group versus 28/86 (33%) in the IUI-OS group; RR 0.40 90% CI 0.24 to 0.67). This corresponds to an absolute RD of minus 20%; 90% CI: -30% to -9%. The hazard ratio for live birth over time was 0.36 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.70). In the PP analysis, live births rates were 8 of 70 women (11%) in the EM group versus 26 of 73 women (36%) in the IUI-OS group (RR 0.32, 90% CI 0.18 to 0.59; RD -24%, 90% CI -36% to -13%) in line with inferiority of EM.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: Our trial did not reach the planned sample size, therefore the results are limited by the number of participants.Wider Implications Of the Findings: This study confirms the results of a previous trial that in couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, EM is inferior to IUI-OS.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The trial was supported by a grant of the SEENEZ healthcare initiative. The subsidizing parties were The Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW 837004023, www.zonmw.nl) and the umbrella organization of 10 health insurers in The Netherlands. E.R.G. receives personal fees from Titus Health care outside the submitted work. M.G. declares unrestricted research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring not related to the presented work, paid to their institution VU medical centre. A.B.H. reports receiving travel and speakers fees from Nordic Pharma and Merck and he is member of the Nordic Pharma ANGEL group and of the Safety Monitoring Board of Womed. C.B.L. reports speakers fee from Inmed and Yingming, and his department receives research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet paid to VU medical centre. B.W.J.M. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437) and reports consultancy for ObsEva and Merck. M.v.W. received a grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development ZonMW (80-8520098-91072). F.M. received two grants from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development ZonMW (NTR 5599 and NTR 6590). The other authors report no competing interest.Trial Registration Number: Dutch Trial register NL5455 (NTR5599).Trial Registration Date: 18 December 2015.Date Of First Patient’s Enrolment: 26 January 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: What are the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported experiences (PREs) in home-based monitoring compared to those in hospital-based monitoring of ovulation for scheduling frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET)?Summary Answer: Women undergoing either home-based or hospital-based monitoring experience an increase in anxiety/sadness symptoms over time, but women undergoing home-based monitoring felt more empowered during the treatment and classified the monitoring as more discreet compared to hospital-based monitoring.What Is Known Already: FET is at the heart of modern IVF. The two types of FET cycles that are mainly are used are artificial cycle FET, using artificial preparation of the endometrium with exogenous progesterone and oestrogen, and natural cycle FET (NC-FET). During a natural cycle FET, women visit the hospital repeatedly and receive an ovulation trigger to time FET (i.e. modified NC-FET or hospital-based monitoring). The previously published Antarctica randomised controlled trial (NTR 1586) showed that modified NC-FET is more cost-effective compared to artificial cycle FET. From the women's point of view a more natural approach using home-based monitoring of ovulation with LH urine tests to time FET may be desired (true NC-FET or home-based monitoring). Currently, the multicentre Antarctica-2 randomised controlled trial (RCT) is comparing the cost-effectiveness of home-based monitoring of ovulation with that of hospital-based monitoring of ovulation. The Antarctica-2 RCT enables us to study PROs, defined as the view of participating women of their healthcare status, and PREs, defined as the perception of the received care of participating women, in both FET strategies.Study Design, Size, Duration: PROs and PREs were assessed alongside the Antarctica-2 RCT. PROs were assessed using the validated EuroQol-5D-5L questionnaire. Currently, there are no guidelines for assessing PREs in this population. Therefore, members of the Dutch Patient Organisation for Couples with Fertility Problems (FREYA) filled out an online survey and selected the following PREs to assess (i) anxiety about missing ovulation, (ii) perceived level of partner participation, (iii) level of discretion, (iv) feeling of empowerment and (v) satisfaction with treatment.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Women participating in the RCT also participated in PRO and PRE assessment. We assessed PROs and PREs at three time points: (i) before randomisation, (ii) at the time of the FET and (iii) at the time of the pregnancy test. A sample size of 200 participants was needed to find a difference of 0.3 with a standard deviation in both groups of 0.7, an alpha of 5%, power of 80% and a drop-out rate of 10%. We performed mixed model analysis for between-group comparison of treatment and time effects.Main Results and Role Of Chance: A total of 260 women were randomised. Of these, 132 women were treated with home-based monitoring and 128 women were treated with hospital-based monitoring. Data before randomisation were available for 232 women (home-based monitoring n = 116, hospital-based monitoring n = 116). For the PROs, we found a significant increase in anxiety/sadness symptoms over time (P < 0.001) in both groups. We found no treatment effect of home-based versus hospital-based monitoring for the PROs (P = 0.8). Concerning the PRES, we found that women felt more empowered during home-based monitoring (P = 0.001) and classified the home-based monitoring as more discreet (P = 0.000) compared to the hospital-based monitoring.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: The results are applicable only to women undergoing NC-FET and not to women undergoing artificial cycle FET.Wider Implications Of the Findings: Apart from clinical outcomes, PROs and PREs are also of importance in clinical decision-making and to support tailoring treatment even more specifically to the wishes of patients. Measurement of PROs and PREs should therefore be incorporated in future clinical research.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The Antarctica-2 RCT is supported by a grant of the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw 843002807). J.B. receives unconditional educational grants from Merck Serono and Ferring and is a member of the medical advisory board of Ferring. C.L. reports that his department receives unrestricted research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. E.G. receives personal fees from Titus Health Care outside submitted work. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest.Trial Registration Number: Trial NL6414 (NTR6590).Trial Register Date: 23 July 2017.Date Of First Patient’s Enrolment: 10 April 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Is FSH or clomiphene citrate (CC) the most effective stimulation regimen in terms of ongoing pregnancies in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with adherence to strict cancellation criteria as a measure to reduce the number of multiple pregnancies?Summary Answer: In IUI with adherence to strict cancellation criteria, ovarian stimulation with FSH is not superior to CC in terms of the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate, and yields a similar, low multiple pregnancy rate.What Is Already Known: FSH has been shown to result in higher pregnancy rates compared to CC, but at the cost of high multiple pregnancy rates. To reduce the risk of multiple pregnancy, new ovarian stimulation regimens have been suggested, these include strict cancellation criteria to limit the number of dominant follicles per cycle i.e. withholding insemination when more than three dominant follicles develop. With such a strategy, it is unclear whether the ovarian stimulation should be done with FSH or with CC.Study Design, Size, Duration: We performed an open-label multicenter randomized superiority controlled trial in the Netherlands (NTR 4057).Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: We randomized couples diagnosed with unexplained subfertility and scheduled for a maximum of four cycles of IUI with ovarian stimulation with 75 IU FSH or 100 mg CC. Cycles were cancelled when more then three dominant follicles developed. The primary outcome was cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate. Multiple pregnancy was a secondary outcome. We analysed the data on intention to treat basis. We calculated relative risks and absolute risk difference with 95% CI.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: Between July 2013 and March 2016, we allocated 369 women to ovarian stimulation with FSH and 369 women to ovarian stimulation with CC. A total of 113 women (31%) had an ongoing pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with FSH and 97 women (26%) had an ongoing pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with CC (RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.93-1.47, ARD = 0.04, 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.11). Five women (1.4%) had a multiple pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with FSH and eight women (2.2%) had a multiple pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with CC (RR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.21-1.89, ARD = -0.01, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.01).Limitations, Reasons For Caution: We were not able to blind this study due to the nature of the interventions. We consider it unlikely that this has introduced performance bias, since pregnancy outcomes are objective outcome measures.Wider Implications Of the Findings: We revealed that adherence to strict cancellation criteria is a successful solution to reduce the number of multiple pregnancies in IUI. To decide whether ovarian stimulation with FSH or with CC should be the regimen of choice, costs and patients' preferences should be taken into account.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This trial received funding from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw). Prof. Dr B.W.J. Mol is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for Merck, ObsEva and Guerbet. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.Trial Registration Number: Nederlands Trial Register NTR4057.Trial Registration Date: 1 July 2013.Date Of First Patient’s Enrolment: The first patient was randomized at 27 August 2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Are live birth rates (LBRs) after artificial cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer (AC-FET) non-inferior to LBRs after modified natural cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer (mNC-FET)?Summary Answer: AC-FET is non-inferior to mNC-FET with regard to LBRs, clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates (OPRs) but AC-FET does result in higher cancellation rates.What Is Already Known: Pooling prior retrospective studies of AC-FET and mNC-FET results in comparable pregnancy and LBRs. However, these results have not yet been confirmed by a prospective randomized trial.Study Design, Size and Duration: In this non-inferiority prospective randomized controlled trial (acronym 'ANTARCTICA' trial), conducted from February 2009 to April 2014, 1032 patients were included of which 959 were available for analysis. The primary outcome of the study was live birth. Secondary outcomes were clinical and ongoing pregnancy, cycle cancellation and endometrium thickness. A cost-efficiency analysis was performed.Participant/materials, Setting, Methods: This study was conducted in both secondary and tertiary fertility centres in the Netherlands. Patients included in this study had to be 18-40 years old, had to have a regular menstruation cycle between 26 and 35 days and frozen-thawed embryos to be transferred had to derive from one of the first three IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment cycles. Patients with a uterine anomaly, a contraindication for one of the prescribed medications in this study or patients undergoing a donor gamete procedure were excluded from participation. Patients were randomized based on a 1:1 allocation to either one cycle of mNC-FET or AC-FET. All embryos were cryopreserved using a slow-freeze technique.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: LBR after mNC-FET was 11.5% (57/495) versus 8.8% in AC-FET (41/464) resulting in an absolute difference in LBR of -0.027 in favour of mNC-FET (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.065-0.012; P = 0.171). Clinical pregnancy occurred in 94/495 (19.0%) patients in mNC-FET versus 75/464 (16.0%) patients in AC-FET (odds ratio (OR) 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.1, P = 0.25). 57/495 (11.5%) mNC-FET resulted in ongoing pregnancy versus 45/464 (9.6%) AC-FET (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-1.1, P = 0.15). χ(2) test confirmed the lack of superiority. Significantly more cycles were cancelled in AC-FET (124/464 versus 101/495, OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.9, P = 0.02). The costs of each of the endometrial preparation methods were comparable (€617.50 per cycle in NC-FET versus €625.73 per cycle in AC-FET, P = 0.54).Limitations, Reasons For Caution: The minimum of 1150 patients required for adequate statistical power was not achieved. Moreover, LBRs were lower than anticipated in the sample size calculation.Wider Implications Of the Findings: LBRs after AC-FET were not inferior to those achieved by mNC-FET. No significant differences in clinical and OPR were observed. The costs of both treatment approaches were comparable.Study Funding/competing Interests: An educational grant was received during the conduct of this study. Merck Sharpe Dohme had no influence on the design, execution and analyses of this study. E.R.G. received an education grant by Merck Sharpe Dohme (MSD) during the conduct of the present study. B.J.C. reports grants from MSD during the conduct of the study. A.H. reports grants from MSD and Ferring BV the Netherlands and personal fees from MSD. Grants from ZonMW, the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development. J.S.E.L. reports grants from Ferring, MSD, Organon, Merck Serono and Schering-Plough during the conduct of the study. F.J.M.B. receives monetary compensation as member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, consultancy work for Gedeon Richter, educational activities for Ferring BV, research cooperation with Ansh Labs and a strategic cooperation with Roche on automated anti Mullerian hormone assay development. N.S.M. reports receiving monetary compensations for external advisory and speaking work for Ferring BV, MSD, Anecova and Merck Serono during the conduct of the study. All reported competing interests are outside the submitted work. No other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.Trial Registration Number: Netherlands trial register, number NTR 1586.Trial Registration Date: 13 January 2009.First Patient Included: 20 April 2009. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: What is the cost-effectiveness of in vitro fertilization (IVF) with conventional ovarian stimulation, single embryo transfer (SET) and subsequent cryocycles or IVF in a modified natural cycle (MNC) compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (IUI-COH) as a first-line treatment in couples with unexplained subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis on natural conception?.Summary Answer: Both IVF strategies are significantly more expensive when compared with IUI-COH, without being significantly more effective. In the comparison between IVF-MNC and IUI-COH, the latter is the dominant strategy. Whether IVF-SET is cost-effective depends on society's willingness to pay for an additional healthy child.What Is Known Already: IUI-COH and IVF, either after conventional ovarian stimulation or in a MNC, are used as first-line treatments for couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility. As IUI-COH is less invasive, this treatment is usually offered before proceeding to IVF. Yet, as conventional IVF with SET may lead to higher pregnancy rates in fewer cycles for a lower multiple pregnancy rate, some have argued to start with IVF instead of IUI-COH. In addition, IVF in the MNC is considered to be a more patient friendly and less costly form of IVF.Study Design, Size, Duration: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized noninferiority trial. Between January 2009 and February 2012, 602 couples with unexplained infertility and a poor prognosis on natural conception were allocated to three cycles of IVF-SET including frozen embryo transfers, six cycles of IVF-MNC or six cycles of IUI-COH. These couples were followed until 12 months after randomization.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: We collected data on resource use related to treatment, medication and pregnancy from the case report forms. We calculated unit costs from various sources. For each of the three strategies, we calculated the mean costs and effectiveness. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH and for IVF-MNC compared with IUI-COH. Nonparametric bootstrap resampling was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in our estimates.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: There were 104 healthy children (52%) born in the IVF-SET group, 83 (43%) the IVF-MNC group and 97 (47%) in the IUI-COH group. The mean costs per couple were €7187 for IVF-SET, €8206 for IVF-MNC and €5070 for IUI-COH. Compared with IUI-COH, the costs for IVF-SET and IVF-MNC were significantly higher (mean differences €2117; 95% CI: €1544-€2657 and €3136, 95% CI: €2519-€3754, respectively).The ICER for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH was €43 375 for the birth of an additional healthy child. In the comparison of IVF-MNC to IUI-COH, the latter was the dominant strategy, i.e. more effective at lower costs.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: We only report on direct health care costs. The present analysis is limited to 12 months.Wider Implications Of the Findings: Since we found no evidence in support of offering IVF as a first-line strategy in couples with unexplained and mild subfertility, IUI-COH should remain the treatment of first choice.Study Funding/competing Interests: The study was supported by a grant from ZonMw, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, (120620027) and a grant from Zorgverzekeraars Nederland, the Netherlands' association of health care insurers (09-003).Trial Registration Number: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52843371; Nederlands Trial Register NTR939. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Success rates of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) are approximately 30%, with the most important limiting factor being embryo implantation. Mechanical endometrial injury, also called 'scratching', has been proposed to positively affect the chance of implantation after embryo transfer, but the currently available evidence is not yet conclusive. The primary aim of this study is to determine the effect of endometrial scratching prior to a second fresh in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) cycle on live birth rates in women with a failed first IVF/ICSI cycle.Method: Multicenter randomized controlled trial in Dutch academic and non-academic hospitals. A total of 900 women will be included of whom half will undergo an endometrial scratch in the luteal phase of the cycle prior to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation using an endometrial biopsy catheter. The primary endpoint is the live birth rate after the 2nd fresh IVF/ICSI cycle. Secondary endpoints are costs, cumulative live birth rate (after the full 2nd IVF/ICSI cycle and over 12 months of follow-up); clinical and ongoing pregnancy rate; multiple pregnancy rate; miscarriage rate and endometrial tissue parameters associated with implantation failure.Discussion: Multiple studies have been performed to investigate the effect of endometrial scratching on live birth rates in women undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles. Due to heterogeneity in both the method and population being scratched, it remains unclear which group of women will benefit from the procedure. The SCRaTCH trial proposed here aims to investigate the effect of endometrial scratching prior to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in a large group of women undergoing a second IVF/ICSI cycle.Trial Registration: NTR 5342 , registered July 31st, 2015.Protocol Version: Version 4.10, January 4th, 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]