Search

Study Question: Is intracervical insemination (ICI) non-inferior to IUI with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle in terms of live birth?, Summary Answer: ICI with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle was inferior to IUI in terms of live birth., What Is Known Already: Both ICI and IUI in the natural cycle are performed as first-line treatments in women who are eligible for donor sperm treatment. High-quality data on the effectiveness of ICI versus IUI with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle in terms of live birth is lacking., Study Design, Size, Duration: We performed an open-label multicentre randomized non-inferiority trial in the Netherlands and Belgium., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: We randomly allocated women who were eligible for donor sperm treatment with cryopreserved donor semen to six cycles of ICI in the natural cycle or six cycles of IUI in the natural cycle. The primary outcome was conception within 8 months after randomization leading to a live birth. Secondary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and time to conception leading to live birth. We calculated relative risks (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% CI. Non-inferiority would be shown if the lower limit of the 95% RD CI was <-12%., Main Results and the Role of Chance: Between June 2014 and February 2019, we included 421 women, of whom 211 women were randomly allocated to ICI and 210 to IUI. Of the 211 women allocated to ICI, 2 women were excluded, 126 women completed treatment according to protocol and 75 women did not complete 6 treatment cycles. Of the 210 women allocated to IUI, 3 women were excluded, 140 women completed treatment according to protocol and 62 women did not complete 6 treatment cycles. Mean female age was 34 years (SD ±4) in both interventions. Conception leading to live birth occurred in 51 women (24%) allocated to ICI and in 81 women (39%) allocated to IUI (RR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.84). This corresponds to an absolute RD of -15%; 95% CI: -24% to -6.9%, suggesting inferiority of ICI. ICI also resulted in a lower live birth rate over time (hazard ratio 0.58, 95% CI: 0.41-0.82). Our per-protocol analysis showed that, within the 8 months treatment horizon, 48 women (38%) had live births after ICI and 79 women (56%) had live births after IUI (RR 0.68, 95% CI: 0.52-0.88; RD -18%, 95% CI: -30% to -6%)., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: The study was non-blinded owing 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: Since ICI in the natural cycle was inferior to IUI in the natural cycle with cryopreserved donor sperm in terms of live birth rate, IUI is the preferred treatment., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This trial received funding from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw project number 837002407). B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437), reports consultancy for ObsEva and has received research funding from Guerbet, Ferring and Merck. The other authors do not declare a COI., Trial Registration Number: NTR4462., Trial Registration Date: 11 March 2014., Date of First Patient’s Enrolment: 03 June 2014., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Study Question: Is IVF with frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer (freeze-all strategy) more effective than IVF with fresh and frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer (conventional strategy)?, Summary Answer: The freeze-all strategy was inferior to the conventional strategy in terms of cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate per woman., What Is Known Already: IVF without transfer of fresh embryos, thus with frozen-thawed embryo transfer only (freeze-all strategy), is increasingly being used in clinical practice because of a presumed benefit. It is still unknown whether this new IVF strategy increases IVF efficacy., Study Design, Size, Duration: A single-centre, open label, two arm, parallel group, randomised controlled superiority trial was conducted. The trial was conducted between January 2013 and July 2015 in the Netherlands. The intervention was one IVF cycle with frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer(s) versus one IVF cycle with fresh and frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer(s). The primary outcome was cumulative ongoing pregnancy resulting from one IVF cycle within 12 months after randomisation. Couples were allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the freeze-all strategy or the conventional strategy with an online randomisation programme just before the start of down-regulation., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Participants were subfertile couples with any indication for IVF undergoing their first IVF cycle, with a female age between 18 and 43 years. Differences in cumulative ongoing pregnancy rates were expressed as relative risks (RR) with 95% CI. All outcomes were analysed following the intention-to-treat principle., Main Results and the Role of Chance: Two-hundred-and-five couples were randomly assigned to the freeze-all strategy (n = 102) or to the conventional strategy (n = 102). The cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate per woman was significantly lower in women allocated to the freeze-all strategy (19/102 (19%)) compared to women allocated to the conventional strategy (32/102 (31%); RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.36-0.98)., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: As this was a single-centre study, we were unable to study differences in study protocols and clinic performance. This, and the limited sample size, should make one cautious in using the results as the basis for definitive policy. All patients undergoing IVF, including those with a poor prognosis, were included; therefore, the outcome could differ in women with a good prognosis of IVF treatment success., Wider Implications of the Findings: Our results indicate that there might be no benefit of a freeze-all strategy in terms of cumulative ongoing pregnancy rates. The efficacy of the freeze-all strategy in subgroups of patients, different stages of embryo development, and different freezing protocols needs to be further established and balanced against potential benefits and harms for mothers and children., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW grant 171101007). S.M., F.M. and M.v.W. stated they are authors of the Cochrane review 'Fresh versus frozen embryo transfers in assisted reproduction'., Trial Registration Number: Dutch Trial Register, NTR3187., Trial Registration Date: 9 December 2011., Date of First Patient’s Enrolment: 8 January 2013., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Research Question: What is the cost-effectiveness of gonadotrophins compared with clomiphene citrate in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian stimulation under strict cancellation criteria?, Design: A cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Between July 2013 and March 2016, 738 couples were randomized to gonadotrophins (369) or clomiphene citrate (369) in a multicentre RCT in the Netherlands. The direct medical costs of both strategies were compared. Direct medical costs included costs of medication, cycle monitoring, insemination and, if applicable, pregnancy monitoring. Non-parametric bootstrap resampling was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in estimates. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed according to intention-to-treat. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between gonadotrophins and clomiphene citrate for ongoing pregnancy and live birth was assessed., Results: The mean costs per couple were €1534 for gonadotrophins and €1067 for clomiphene citrate (mean difference of €468; 95% confidence interval [CI] €464-472). As ongoing pregnancy rates were 31% in women allocated to gonadotrophins and 26% in women allocated to clomiphene citrate (relative risk 1.16, 95% CI 0.93-1.47), the ICER was €21,804 (95% CI €11,628-31,980) per additional ongoing pregnancy with gonadotrophins and €17,044 (95% CI €8998-25,090) per additional live birth with gonadotrophins., Conclusions: Gonadotrophins are more expensive compared with clomiphene citrate in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with adherence to strict cancellation criteria, without being significantly more effective., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Study Question: Which couples with unexplained subfertility can expect increased chances of ongoing pregnancy with IVF compared to expectant management?, Summary Answer: For couples in which the woman is under 40 years of age, IVF is associated with higher chances of conception than expectant management., What Is Known Already: The clinical indications for IVF have expanded over time from bilateral tubal blockage to include unexplained subfertility in which there is no identifiable barrier to conception. Yet, there is little evidence from randomized controlled trials that IVF is effective in these couples., Study Design, Size, Duration: We compared outcomes in British couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IVF (n = 40 921) from registry data to couples with the same type of subfertility on expectant management. Those couples on expectant management (defined as no intervention aside from the advice to have intercourse) comprised a prospective nation-wide Dutch cohort (n = 4875) and a retrospective regional cohort from Aberdeen, Scotland (n = 975). We excluded couples who had tried for <1 year to conceive and also those with anovulation, uni- or bilateral tubal occlusion, mild or severe endometriosis or male subfertility i.e. impaired semen quality according to World Health Organization criteria., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: We matched couples who received IVF and couples on expectant management based on their characteristics to control for confounding. We fitted a Cox proportional hazards model including patient characteristics, IVF treatment and their interactions to estimate the individualized chance of conception over 1 year-either following IVF or expectant management for all combinations of patient characteristics. The endpoint was conception leading to ongoing pregnancy, defined as a foetus reaching a gestational age of at least 12 weeks., Main Results and the Role of Chance: The adjusted 1-year chance of conception was 47.9% (95% CI: 45.0-50.9) after IVF and 26.1% (95% CI: 24.2-28.0) after expectant management. The absolute difference in the average adjusted 1-year chances of conception was 21.8% (95%CI: 18.3-25.3) in favour of IVF. The effectiveness of IVF was influenced by female age, duration of subfertility and previous pregnancy. IVF was effective in women under 40 years, but the 1-year chance of an IVF conception declined sharply in women over 34 years. In contrast, in woman over 40 years of age, IVF was less effective, with an absolute difference in chance compared to expectant management of 10% or lower. Regardless of female age, IVF was also less effective in couples with a short period of secondary subfertility (1 year) who had chances of natural conception of 30% or above., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: The 1-year chances of conception were based on three cohorts with different sampling mechanisms. Despite adjustment for the three most important prognostic patient characteristics, namely female age, duration of subfertility and primary or secondary subfertility, our estimates might not be free from residual confounding., Wider Implications of the Findings: IVF should be used selectively based on judgements on gain compared to continuing expectant management for a given couple. Our results can be used by clinicians to counsel couples with unexplained subfertility, to inform their expectations and facilitate evidence-based, shared decision making., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This work was supported by Tenovus Scotland [grant G17.04]. Travel for RvE was supported by the Amsterdam Reproduction & Development Research Group [grant V.000296]. SB reports acting as editor-in-chief of HROpen. Other authors have no conflicts., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Study Question: Can we develop a prediction model that can estimate the chances of conception leading to live birth with and without treatment at different points in time in couples with unexplained subfertility?, Summary Answer: Yes, a dynamic model was developed that predicted the probability of conceiving under expectant management and following active treatments (in vitro fertilisation (IVF), intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation (IUI + SO), clomiphene) at different points in time since diagnosis., What Is Known Already: Couples with no identified cause for their subfertility continue to have a realistic chance of conceiving naturally, which makes it difficult for clinicians to decide when to intervene. Previous fertility prediction models have attempted to address this by separately estimating either the chances of natural conception or the chances of conception following certain treatments. These models only make predictions at a single point in time and are therefore inadequate for informing continued decision-making at subsequent consultations., Study Design, Size, Duration: A population-based study of 1316 couples with unexplained subfertility attending a regional clinic between 1998 and 2011., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: A dynamic prediction model was developed that estimates the chances of conception within 6 months from the point when a diagnosis of unexplained subfertility was made. These predictions were recomputed each month to provide a dynamic assessment of the individualised chances of conception while taking account of treatment status in each month. Conception must have led to live birth and treatments included clomiphene, IUI + SO, and IVF. Predictions for natural conception were externally validated using a prospective cohort from The Netherlands., Main Results and the Role of Chance: A total of 554 (42%) couples started fertility treatment within 2 years of their first fertility consultation. The natural conception leading to live birth rate was 0.24 natural conceptions per couple per year. Active treatment had a higher chance of conception compared to those who remained under expectant management. This association ranged from weak with clomiphene to strong with IVF [clomiphene, hazard ratio (HR) = 1.42 (95% confidence interval, 1.05 to 1.91); IUI + SO, HR = 2.90 (2.06 to 4.08); IVF, HR = 5.09 (4.04 to 6.40)]. Female age and duration of subfertility were significant predictors, without clear interaction with the relative effect of treatment., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: We were unable to adjust for other potentially important predictors, e.g. measures of ovarian reserve, which were not available in the linked Grampian dataset that may have made predictions more specific. This study was conducted using single centre data meaning that it may not be generalizable to other centres. However, the model performed as well as previous models in reproductive medicine when externally validated using the Dutch cohort., Wider Implications of the Findings: For the first time, it is possible to estimate the chances of conception following expectant management and different fertility treatments over time in couples with unexplained subfertility. This information will help inform couples and their clinicians of their likely chances of success, which may help manage expectations, not only at diagnostic workup completion but also throughout their fertility journey., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This work was supported by a Chief Scientist Office postdoctoral training fellowship in health services research and health of the public research (ref PDF/12/06). B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, and Guerbet. None of the other authors declare any conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of low doses of gonadotropins and gonadotropins combined with oral compounds compared with high doses of gonadotropins in ovarian stimulation regimens in terms of ongoing pregnancy per fresh IVF attempt in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment., Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies that evaluate the effectiveness of low dosing of gonadotropins alone or combined with oral compounds compared with high doses of gonadotropins in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment., Setting: Not applicable., Patient(s): Subfertile women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment., Intervention(s): We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and the Clinical Trials Registry using medical subject headings and free text terms up to June 2016, without language or year restrictions. We included randomized controlled studies (RCTs) enrolling subfertile women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment and comparing low doses of gonadotropins and gonadotropins combined with oral compounds versus high doses of gonadotropins. We assessed the risk of bias using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. We pooled the results by meta-analysis using the fixed and random effects model., Main Outcomes Measure(s): The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy rate (PR) per woman randomized., Result(s): We retrieved 787 records. Fourteen RCTs (N = 2,104 women) were included in the analysis. Five studies (N = 717 women) compared low doses of gonadotropins versus high doses of gonadotropins. There was no evidence of a difference in ongoing PR (2 RCTs: risk rate 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.62-1.57, I 2 = 0). Nine studies (N = 1,387 women) compared ovarian stimulation using gonadotropins combined with the oral compounds letrozole (n = 6) or clomiphene citrate (CC) (n = 3) versus high doses of gonadotropins. There was no evidence of a difference in ongoing PR (3 RCTs: risk rate 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.63-1.27, I 2 = 0)., Conclusion(s): We found no evidence of a difference in pregnancy outcomes between low doses of gonadotropins and gonadotropins combined with oral compounds compared with high doses of gonadotropins in ovarian stimulation regimens. Whether low doses of gonadotropins or gonadotropins combined with oral compounds is to be preferred is unknown, as they have never been compared head to head. A health economic analysis to test the hypothesis that an ovarian stimulation with low dosing is more cost-effective than high doses of gonadotropins is needed., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42016041301., (Copyright © 2017 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Question: Are randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on IVF and ICSI subject to selective outcome reporting and is this related to sponsorship?, Summary Answer: There are inconsistencies, independent from sponsorship, in the reporting of primary outcome measures in the majority of IVF and ICSI trials, indicating selective outcome reporting., What Is Known Already: RCTs are subject to bias at various levels. Of these biases, selective outcome reporting is particularly relevant to IVF and ICSI trials since there is a wide variety of outcome measures to choose from. An established cause of reporting bias is sponsorship. It is, at present, unknown whether RCTs in IVF/ICSI are subject to selective outcome reporting and whether this is related with sponsorship., Study Design, Size, Duration: We systematically searched RCTs on IVF and ICSI published between January 2009 and March 2016 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the publisher subset of PubMed. We analysed 415 RCTs., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Per included RCT, we extracted data on impact factor of the journal, sample size, power calculation, and trial registry and thereafter data on primary outcome measure, the direction of trial results and sponsorship., Main Results and the Role of Chance: Of the 415 identified RCTs, 235 were excluded for our primary analysis, because the sponsorship was not reported. Of the 180 RCTs included in our analysis, 7 trials did not report on any primary outcome measure and 107 of the remaining 173 trials (62%) reported on surrogate primary outcome measures. Of the 114 registered trials, 21 trials (18%) provided primary outcomes in their manuscript that were different from those in the trial registry. This indicates selective outcome reporting. We found no association between selective outcome reporting and sponsorship. We ran additional analyses to include the trials that had not reported sponsorship and found no outcomes that differed from our primary analysis., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: Since the majority of the trials did not report on sponsorship, there is a risk on sampling bias., Wider Implications of the Findings: IVF and ICSI trials are subject, to a large extent, to selective outcome reporting. Readers should be aware of this to avoid implementation of false or misleading results in clinical practice., Study Funding/competing Interests: No funding received and there are no conflicts of interest., Trial Registration Number: N/A., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com)

Background: Most reviews of IVF ovarian stimulation protocols have insufficiently accounted for various patient populations, such as ovulatory women, women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) or women with poor ovarian response, and have included studies in which the agonist or antagonist was not the only variable between the compared study arms., Objective and Rationale: The aim of the current study was to compare GnRH antagonist protocols versus standard long agonist protocols in couples undergoing IVF or ICSI, while accounting for various patient populations and treatment schedules., Search Methods: The Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Review Group specialized register of controlled trials and Pubmed and Embase databases were searched from inception until June 2016. Eligible trials were those that compared GnRH antagonist protocols and standard long GnRH agonist protocols in couples undergoing IVF or ICSI. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy rate. Secondary outcomes were: live birth rate, clinical pregnancy rate, number of oocytes retrieved and safety with regard to ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Separate comparisons were performed for the general IVF population, women with PCOS and women with poor ovarian response. Pre-planned subgroup analyses were performed for various antagonist treatment schedules., Outcomes: We included 50 studies. Of these, 34 studies reported on general IVF patients, 10 studies reported on PCOS patients and 6 studies reported on poor responders. In general IVF patients, ongoing pregnancy rate was significantly lower in the antagonist group compared with the agonist group (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.96). In women with PCOS and in women with poor ovarian response, there was no evidence of a difference in ongoing pregnancy between the antagonist and agonist groups (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84-1.11 and RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.65-1.17, respectively). Subgroup analyses for various antagonist treatment schedules compared to the long protocol GnRH agonist showed a significantly lower ongoing pregnancy rate when the oral hormonal programming pill (OHP) pretreatment was combined with a flexible protocol (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59-0.91) while without OHP, the RR was 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-1.0. Subgroup analysis for the fixed antagonist schedule demonstrated no evidence of a significant difference with or without OHP (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79-1.12 and RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83-1.05, respectively). Antagonists resulted in significantly lower OHSS rates both in the general IVF patients and in women with PCOS (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.50-0.81 and RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30-0.95, respectively). No data on OHSS was available from trials in poor responders., Wider Implications: In a general IVF population, GnRH antagonists are associated with lower ongoing pregnancy rates when compared to long protocol agonists, but also with lower OHSS rates. Within this population, antagonist treatment prevents one case of OHSS in 40 patients but results in one less ongoing pregnancy out of every 28 women treated. Thus standard use of the long GnRH agonist treatment is perhaps still the approach of choice for prevention of premature luteinization. In couples with PCOS and poor responders, GnRH antagonists do not seem to compromise ongoing pregnancy rates and are associated with less OHSS and therefore could be considered as standard treatment., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com)

Objective: To study the effectiveness of an intrauterine insemination (IUI) program compared to no treatment in subfertile couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis on natural conception., Study Design: A retrospective matched cohort study in which ongoing pregnancy rates in 72 couples who voluntarily dropped out of treatment with IUI were compared to ongoing pregnancy rates in 144 couples who continued treatment with IUI. Couples with unexplained subfertility, mild male subfertility or cervical factor subfertility who started treatment with IUI between January 2000 and December 2008 were included. Couples were matched on hospital, age, duration of subfertility, primary or secondary subfertility and diagnosis. Primary outcome was cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate after three years. Time to pregnancy was censored at the moment couples were lost to follow up or when their child wish ended and, for the no-treatment group, when couples re-started treatment., Results: After three years, there were 18 pregnancies in the stopped treatment group (25%) versus 41 pregnancies in the IUI group (28%) (RR 1.1 (0.59-2.2)(p=0.4)). The cumulative pregnancy rate after three years was 40% in both groups, showing no difference in time to ongoing pregnancy (shared frailty model p=0.86)., Conclusions: In couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, treatment with IUI does not to add to expectant management. There is need for a randomized clinical trial comparing IUI with expectant management in these couples., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Study Question: Are there treatment selection markers that could aid in identifying couples, with unexplained or mild male subfertility, who would have better chances of a healthy child with IVF with single embryo transfer (IVF-SET) than with IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS)?, Summary Answer: We did not find any treatment selection markers that were associated with better chances of a healthy child with IVF-SET instead of IUI-OS in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility., What Is Known Already: A recent trial, comparing IVF-SET to IUI-OS, found no evidence of a difference between live birth rates and multiple pregnancy rates. It was suggested that IUI-OS should remain the first-line treatment instead of IVF-SET in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and female age between 18 and 38 years. The question remains whether there are some couples that may have higher pregnancy chances if treated with IVF-SET instead of IUI., Study Design, Size, Duration: We performed our analyses on data from the INeS trial, where couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis for natural conception were randomly allocated to IVF-SET, IVF in a modified natural cycle or IUI-OS. In view of the aim of this study, we only used data of the comparison between IVF-SET (201 couples) and IUI-OS (207 couples)., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: We pre-defined the following baseline characteristics as potential treatment selection markers: female age, ethnicity, smoking status, type of subfertility (primary/secondary), duration of subfertility, BMI, pre-wash total motile count and Hunault prediction score. For each potential treatment selection marker, we explored the association with the chances of a healthy child after IVF-SET and IUI-OS and tested if there was an interaction with treatment. Given the exploratory nature of our analysis, we used a P-value of 0.1., Main Results and the Role of Chance: None of the markers were associated with higher chances of a healthy child from IVF-SET compared to IUI-OS (P-value for interaction >0.10)., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: Since this is the first large study that looked at potential treatment selection markers for IVF-SET compared to IUI-OS, we had no data on which to base a power calculation. The sample size was limited, making it difficult to detect any smaller associations., Wider Implications of the Findings: We could not identify couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility who would have had higher chances of a healthy child from immediate IVF-SET than from IUI-OS. As in the original trial IUI-OS had similar effectiveness and was less costly compared to IVF-SET, IUI-OS should remain the preferred first-line treatment in these couples., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The study was supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, and a grant from the Netherlands' association of health care insurers. There are no conflicts of interest., Trial Registration Number: The trial was registered at the Dutch trial registry (NTR939)., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com)

Background: Clomiphene citrate (CC) is generally considered first-line treatment in women with anovulation due to polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Ovulation induction with follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH; gonadotrophins) is second-line treatment for women who do not ovulate or conceive while taking CC. Metformin may increase the effectiveness of ovulation induction with gonadotrophins and may promote safety by preventing multiple pregnancy., Objectives: To determine the effectiveness and safety of metformin co-treatment during ovulation induction with gonadotrophins with respect to rates of live birth and multiple pregnancy in women with PCOS., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group specialised register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAH) on 8 June 2016, and the reference lists of included and other relevant studies. We searched ongoing trials registries in the World Health Organization (WHO) portal and on clinicaltrials.gov on 4 September 2016., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting data on comparison of clinical outcomes in women with PCOS undergoing ovulation induction with gonadotrophins plus metformin versus gonadotrophins alone or gonadotrophins plus placebo., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary review outcomes were live birth rate and multiple pregnancy rate. Secondary outcomes were ovulation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate, miscarriage rate, cycle cancellation rate and adverse effects., Main Results: We included five RCTs (with 264 women) comparing gonadotrophins plus metformin versus gonadotrophins. The gonadotrophin used was recombinant FSH in four studies and highly purified FSH in one study. Evidence was of low quality: The main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods and blinding of participants and outcome assessors. Live birth Metformin plus FSH was associated with a higher cumulative live birth rate when compared with FSH (odds ratio (OR) 2.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 4.34; two RCTs, n = 180; I 2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth after FSH is assumed to be 27%, then the chance after addition of metformin would be between 32% and 60%. Other pregnancy outcomes Metformin use was associated with a higher ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.46; four RCTs, n = 232; I 2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) and a higher clinical pregnancy rate (OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.31; five RCTs, n = 264; I 2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Multiple pregnancy Results showed no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rates between metformin plus FSH and FSH (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.95; four RCTs, n = 232; I 2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) and no evidence of a difference in rates of miscarriage or OHSS. Other adverse effects Evidence was inadequate as the result of limited available data on adverse events after metformin compared with after no metformin (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.39 to 8.09; two RCTs, n = 91; I 2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: Preliminary evidence suggests that metformin may increase the live birth rate among women undergoing ovulation induction with gonadotrophins. At this moment, evidence is insufficient to show an effect of metformin on multiple pregnancy rates and adverse events. Additional trials are necessary before we can provide further conclusions that may affect clinical practice.

Study Question: In subfertile women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF does a mild ovarian stimulation strategy lead to comparable ongoing pregnancy rates in comparison to a conventional ovarian stimulation strategy?, Summary Answer: A mild ovarian stimulation strategy in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF leads to similar ongoing pregnancy rates as a conventional ovarian stimulation strategy., What Is Known Already: Women diagnosed with poor ovarian reserve are treated with a conventional ovarian stimulation strategy consisting of high-dose gonadotropins and pituitary downregulation with a long mid-luteal start GnRH-agonist protocol. Previous studies comparing a conventional strategy with a mild ovarian stimulation strategy consisting of low-dose gonadotropins and pituitary downregulation with a GnRH-antagonist have been under powered and their effectiveness is inconclusive., Study Design, Size, Duration: This open label multicenter randomized trial was designed to compare one cycle of a mild ovarian stimulation strategy consisting of low-dose gonadotropins (150 IU FSH) and pituitary downregulation with a GnRH-antagonist to one cycle of a conventional ovarian stimulation strategy consisting of high-dose gonadotropins (450 IU HMG) and pituitary downregulation with a long mid-luteal GnRH-agonist in women of advanced maternal age and/or women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF between May 2011 and April 2014., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Couples seeking infertility treatment were eligible if they fulfilled the following inclusion criteria: female age ≥35 years, a raised basal FSH level >10 IU/ml irrespective of age, a low antral follicular count of ≤5 follicles or poor ovarian response or cycle cancellation during a previous IVF cycle irrespective of age. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy rate per woman randomized. Analyses were on an intention-to-treat basis. We randomly assigned 195 women to the mild ovarian stimulation strategy and 199 women to the conventional ovarian stimulation strategy., Main Results and the Role of Chance: Ongoing pregnancy rate was 12.8% (25/195) for mild ovarian stimulation versus 13.6% (27/199) for conventional ovarian stimulation leading to a risk ratio of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.57-1.57), representing an absolute difference of -0.7% (95% CI: -7.4 to 5.9). This 95% CI does not extend below the predefined threshold of 10% for inferiority. The duration of ovarian stimulation was significantly lower in the mild ovarian stimulation strategy than in the conventional ovarian stimulation strategy (mean difference -1.2 days, 95% CI: -1.88 to -0.62). Also, a significantly lower amount of gonadotropins was used in the mild simulation strategy, with a mean difference of 3135 IU (95% CI: -3331 to -2940)., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: A limitation of our study was the lack of data concerning the cryopreservation of surplus embryos, so we are not informed on cumulative pregnancy rates. Another limitation is that we were not able to follow up on the ongoing pregnancies in all centers, so we are not informed on live birth rates., Wider Implications of the Findings: The results are directly applicable in daily clinical practice and may lead to considerable cost savings as high dosages of gonadotropins are not necessary in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF. A health economic analysis of our data planned to test the hypothesis that mild ovarian stimulation strategy is more cost-effective than the conventional ovarian stimulation strategy is underway., Study Funding/competing Interests: This study was supported by NUFFIC scholarship (the Netherlands) and STDF short-term fellowship (Egypt)., Trial Registration Number: NTR2788 (Trialregister.nl)., Trial Register Date: 01 March 2011., Date of First Patient's Enrolment: May 2011., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

IUI is a first-line treatment for couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and has become one of the most widely used fertility-enhancing treatments. The results of a recent trial comparing IVF to IUI, demonstrating similar live birth rates, have been used to build a case supporting the effectiveness of IUI. Yet, this conclusion might be somewhat premature, as the superiority of neither IUI nor IVF over no treatment has ever been proven. The evidence on the effectiveness and safety of IUI and IVF has been evaluated in two Cochrane reviews which both suggested that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that IUI or IVF is effective compared to sexual intercourse in couples with unexplained subfertility. Recommendations for clinical practice have been given in the most recent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence fertility guideline that advises not to offer IUI any longer and suggests 2 years of sexual intercourse followed by IVF. This recommendation has generated an ongoing debate, with only 4% of all gynecologists in the UK discontinuing the use of IUI. We feel that it is high time to provide proper scientific evidence for the effectiveness of IUI, or lack thereof, and invite the medical community to start RCTs comparing IUI to sexual intercourse., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: To compare dropout rates in couples undergoing conventional in vitro fertilization with single embryo transfer (IVF-SET), in vitro fertilization in a modified natural cycle (IVF-MNC) or intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS)., Study Design: Secondary analysis of a multicentre randomized controlled trial between January 2009 and February 2012. 602 couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility, allocated to IVF-SET (N=201), IVF-MNC (N=194) and IUI-OS (N=207)., Main Outcome Measures: Dropouts, defined as couples who discontinued their allocated three cycles of IVF-SET, six cycles of IVF-MNC or IUI-OS, without having achieved a pregnancy. We classified dropouts as "following medical advice" or "patient initiated"., Result(s): Thirty couples (15%) allocated to IVF-SET dropped out and 45 couples (23%) allocated to IVF-MNC, compared to 26 couples (13%) allocated to IUI-OS; relative risk (RR) 1.2 (95%CI; 0.73-1.9) for IVF-SET and 1.9 (95%CI; 1.2-2.9) for IVF-MNC, both compared to IUI-OS. Nine couples (4.5%) allocated to IVF-SET, 14 (7.2%) allocated to IVF-MNC and 14 (6.8%) allocated to IUI-OS dropped out following medical advice; RR of 0.51 (95%CI; 0.21-1.2) for IVF-SET and 0.84 (95%CI; 0.39-1.80) for IVF-MNC, both versus IUI-OS. Twenty-one couples (10%) allocated to IVF-SET were patient initiated dropouts, as were 31 (16%) allocated to IVF-MNC and 12 (5.8%) allocated to IUI-COS; RR 1.8 (95%CI; 0.91-3.6) for IVF-SET and 2.8 (95%CI; 1.5-5.2) for IVF-MNC both versus IUI-OS., Conclusion(s): IVF-SET and IUI-OS result in comparable drop-out rates, while drop-out rates after IVF-MNC are almost twice as high, mainly driven by patient preferences., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Available treatment options in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility are intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (IUI-COH) and in vitro fertilisation (IVF). IUI-COH is a less invasive treatment that is often used before proceeding with IVF. Yet as the IVF success rates might be higher and time to pregnancy shorter, expedited access to IVF might be the preferred option. To identify couples that could benefit from immediate IVF over IUI-COH, we assessed whether female age, duration of subfertility or prewash total motile count (TMC) can help to identify couples that would benefit from IVF over IUI-COH., Study Design: We performed a secondary data-analysis of a multicentre open-label randomised controlled trial in three university and six teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. 116 couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility were randomised to one cycle of IVF with elective single embryo transfer with subsequent frozen-thawed embryo transfers or 3 cycles of IUI-COH. The primary outcome was an ongoing pregnancy within 4 months after randomisation. Our aim was to explore a possible differential effect of specific markers on the effectiveness of treatment. We chose to therefore assess female age, duration of subfertility and TMC as these have previously been identified as predictors. For each prognostic factor we developed a logistic regression model to predict ongoing pregnancy with that prognostic factor, treatment and a factor-by-treatment interaction term., Results: Female age and duration of subfertility were not associated with better ongoing pregnancy chances after IVF compared to IUI-COH (p-value for interaction=0.65 and 0.26, respectively). Only when TMC was lower than 110 (×10(6)spermatozoa/mL), the probability of ongoing pregnancy was higher in women allocated to IVF (p-value for interaction=0.06)., Conclusion: In couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility, a low TMC might lead to higher pregnancy rates after IVF than after IUI-COH. This finding needs to be validated in a larger trial before it can be applied in clinical practice., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Many media are commercially available for culturing pre-implantation human embryos in assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles. It is unknown which culture medium leads to the best success rates after ART., Objectives: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of different human pre-implantation embryo culture media in used for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the National Research Register, the Medical Research Council's Clinical Trials Register and the NHS Center for Reviews and Dissemination databases from January 1985 to March 2015. We also examined the reference lists of all known primary studies, review articles, citation lists of relevant publications and abstracts of major scientific meetings., Selection Criteria: We included all randomised controlled trials which randomised women, oocytes or embryos and compared any two commercially available culture media for human pre-implantation embryos in an IVF or ICSI programme., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected the studies, assessed their risk of bias and extracted data. We sought additional information from the authors if necessary. We assessed the quality of the evidence using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods. The primary review outcome was live birth or ongoing pregnancy., Main Results: We included 32 studies in this review. Seventeen studies randomised women (total 3666), three randomised cycles (total 1018) and twelve randomised oocytes (over 15,230). It was not possible to pool any of the data because each study compared different culture media.Only seven studies reported live birth or ongoing pregnancy. Four of these studies found no evidence of a difference between the media compared, for either day three or day five embryo transfer. The data from the fifth study did not appear reliable.Six studies reported clinical pregnancy rate. One of these found a difference between the media compared, suggesting that for cleavage-stage embryo transfer, Quinn's Advantage was associated with higher clinical pregnancy rates than G5 (odds ratio (OR) 1.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 2.16; 692 women). This study was available only as an abstract and the quality of the evidence was low.With regards to adverse effects, three studies reported multiple pregnancies and six studies reported miscarriage. None of them found any evidence of a difference between the culture media used. None of the studies reported on the health of offspring.Most studies (22/32) failed to report their source of funding and none described their methodology in adequate detail. The overall quality of the evidence was rated as very low for nearly all comparisons, the main limitations being imprecision and poor reporting of study methods., Authors' Conclusions: An optimal embryo culture medium is important for embryonic development and subsequently the success of IVF or ICSI treatment. There has been much controversy about the most appropriate embryo culture medium. Numerous studies have been performed, but no two studies compared the same culture media and none of them found any evidence of a difference between the culture media used. We conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of any specific culture medium. Properly designed and executed randomised trials are necessary.

Objective: Acute fertility preservation for women is an interdisciplinary treatment that requires adequate information provision and early referral. This quality management project aimed to improve fertility preservation care by using a practical tool: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis., Study Design: Quality management project was executed between May 2011 and July 2013. This project has been executed in a university affiliated IVF-clinic in cooperation with two oncological sites and used a four-step strategy: (1) monitoring baseline referral process, (2) exploring baseline fertility preservation program by Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats' (SWOT)-analysis, (3) setting up a new fertility preservation program and (4) evaluating the new fertility preservation program by means of SWOT-analysis., Results: During the three-months monitoring period, fertility preservation was requested for a total of 126 women. The mean age of the women was 33.8 years old (range 1-42 years old). Most requests came from women who wanted to cryopreserve oocytes because of age-related decline of fertility (n=90; 71%). Most requests for acute fertility preservation concerned women with breast cancer (n=16; 57%). Information leaflets and pre-consultation questionnaires for women improved the quality of first fertility preservation consultation as evaluated by final SWOT-analysis. Collaboration with oncological centres and information about fertility preservation improved the referral process., Conclusions: SWOT-analysis proved useful for setting up a new fertility preservation-program and can be recommended as a tool to improve the management and organisation of new types of reproductive care., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: To assess by proof of principle whether the individual risk for preterm birth (PTB) should be incorporated into the embryo transfer policy in in vitro fertilisation (IVF)., Design and Setting: A theoretical decision analysis., Methods and Main Outcome Measures: A decision tree was built to compare the consequences of different chances of PTB on the outcome of single embryo transfer (SET) or double embryo transfer (DET) in patients with different prognosis of conception. Based on patient characteristics, three scenarios of prognosis of conception were considered and the consequences of SET and DET were calculated for different chances of PTB in these groups. The primary outcome was the health of the children born. Sensitivity analyses were performed for both prognosis for conception and chances of PTB., Results: In women with good fertility prospects, one IVF cycle with DET increases the ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) from 29 to 39% compared with SET, whereas the chances of poor neonatal outcome in these extra pregnancies range from 1.4 to 11% per pregnancy depending on the individual PTB risk. However, for women with poor fertility prospects, DET increases the OPR from 8 to 11% with minimal additional poor neonatal outcome, ranging from 0.3 to 4.0% per pregnancy for women with a low or high PTB risk, respectively. Our findings were robust in multiple sensitivity analyses., Conclusion: In an IVF programme, the optimal embryo transfer strategy is dependent on the singleton and multiple pregnancy chances of a woman, but also on her PTB risk. In women with low PTB risk, DET increases the OPR for a small additional risk of neonatal complications. Our analysis pleads for a tailored management strategy, taking into account the personalised prognosis for (multiple) pregnancy and PTB., (© 2014 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Study Question: What factors or attributes of a long-acting recombinant FSH (rFSH) or daily-administrated rFSH influence women's preferences IVF?, Summary Answer: Patients' preferences for rFSH products are primary influenced by the attribute 'number of injections', but a low 'number of injections' is exchanged for a high 'number of injections' at a 6.2% decrease in 'risk of cycle cancellation due to low response' and at a 4.5% decrease in 'chance of OHSS'., What Is Known Already: Injections of long-acting rFSH have been claimed to be preferred over daily-administrated rFSH injections, but patient preference studies to underpin this assumption have not been performed., Study Design, Size, Duration: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was created to assess women's preference for long-acting or daily-administrated rFSH under varying attributes of efficiency, safety and burden. The selected attributes were the 'total number of injections', 'chance of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS)' and the 'risk of cycle cancellation due to low response'. Questionnaires were handed out during information gathering sessions in one academic hospital and two teaching hospitals in The Netherlands between April 2011 and April 2012., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Women at the start of their first IVF treatment were asked to participate in this patient preference study. Participation was voluntary. We analysed the data by using mixed logit models to estimate the utility of each attribute., Main Results and the Role of Chance: Questionnaires (n = 125) were handed out with a response rate of 77% (97/125). Four respondents did not complete the questionnaire. Hence, there were 93 questionnaires available for analysis. All attributes significantly influenced women's preference. Overall, the lower 'number of injections' was preferred above the higher 'number of injections' (mean coefficient 1.25; P < 0.001), while an increase of 1% in 'chance of OHSS' or 5% 'risk of cycle cancellation due to low response' was non-preferred (mean coefficients -0.31 and -0.24, respectively, P < 0.01). The majority of respondents was willing to trade-off a lower 'number of injections' for a higher 'number of injections' when gaining a 6.2% reduction in 'cycle cancellation due to low response', or a 4.5% reduction in 'chance of OHSS'., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: The generalizability of this DCE is limited in time-span. Women may choose differently when they have previous experience with long-acting rFSH, or when they have to pay for the medication, hospital visits and treatments themselves., Wider Implications of the Findings: The results of this DCE helps us to understand the trade-off women make in their preference for a long-acting rFSH product or a daily-administrated rFSH product in IVF and may support doctors when counselling patients., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer or in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle with that of intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in terms of a healthy child., Design: Multicentre, open label, three arm, parallel group, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial., Setting: 17 centres in the Netherlands., Participants: Couples seeking fertility treatment after at least 12 months of unprotected intercourse, with the female partner aged between 18 and 38 years, an unfavourable prognosis for natural conception, and a diagnosis of unexplained or mild male subfertility., Interventions: Three cycles of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer (plus subsequent cryocycles), six cycles of in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, or six cycles of intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation within 12 months after randomisation., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was birth of a healthy child resulting from a singleton pregnancy conceived within 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were live birth, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, time to pregnancy, complications of pregnancy, and neonatal morbidity and mortality, Results: 602 couples were randomly assigned between January 2009 and February 2012; 201 were allocated to in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer, 194 to in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, and 207 to intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Birth of a healthy child occurred in 104 (52%) couples in the in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer group, 83 (43%) in the in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle group, and 97 (47%) in the intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation group. This corresponds to a risk, relative to intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation, of 1.10 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.34) for in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer and 0.91 (0.73 to 1.14) for in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle. These 95% confidence intervals do not extend below the predefined threshold of 0.69 for inferiority. Multiple pregnancy rates per ongoing pregnancy were 6% (7/121) after in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer, 5% (5/102) after in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, and 7% (8/119) after intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation (one sided P=0.52 for in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer compared with intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation; one sided P=0.33 for in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation)., Conclusions: In vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer and in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle were non-inferior to intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in terms of the birth of a healthy child and showed comparable, low multiple pregnancy rates.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52843371; Nederlands Trial Register NTR939., (© Bensdorp et al 2015.)

Objective: To study the value of a population view in assessing assisted reproductive technology (ART) multiple-gestation infants., Design: Descriptive comparison of ART treatment and population statistics in seven developed countries (United States [U.S.], South Korea, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium, Denmark) with varying ART utilization and single-embryo transfer (SET) rates., Setting: Not applicable., Patient(s): Not applicable., Intervention(s): None., Main Outcome Measure(s): The contribution of ART multiple-gestation infants to the total number of multiple-gestation infants in a population was calculated in relation to utilization of ART and SET rates., Result(s): The number of ART treatments leading to embryo transfer varied from 304 per million inhabitants in the U.S. to 1,518 in Denmark. The percentage of ART cycles that utilized SET varied from 8.8% in South Korea to 53.3% in Australia. Reflecting both utilization rates and SET rates, the percentage of multiple-gestation infants in the population attributed to ART ranged from 14.7% in South Korea to 29.0% in Denmark., Conclusion(s): In seven countries, the contribution of ART multiple-gestation infants to all multiple-gestation infants varies from 14.7% to 29.0%, a percentage that was influenced by both the SET rate per cycle and ART utilization rates. In the monitoring of safety and efficacy of fertility treatment, registration of the percentage of SET cycles alone might not be sufficient., (Copyright © 2015 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) is routinely used for final oocyte maturation triggering in in vitro fertilisation (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles, but the use of HCG for this purpose may have drawbacks. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists present an alternative to HCG in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) treatment regimens in which the cycle has been down-regulated with a GnRH antagonist. This is an update of a review first published in 2010., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of GnRH agonists in comparison with HCG for triggering final oocyte maturation in IVF and ICSI for women undergoing COH in a GnRH antagonist protocol., Search Methods: We searched databases including the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and trial registers for published and unpublished articles (in any language) on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists versus HCG for oocyte triggering in GnRH antagonist IVF/ICSI treatment cycles. The search is current to 8 September 2014., Selection Criteria: RCTs that compared the clinical outcomes of GnRH agonist triggers versus HCG for final oocyte maturation triggering in women undergoing GnRH antagonist IVF/ICSI treatment cycles were included., Data Collection and Analysis: Two or more review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed study risk of bias. Treatment effects were summarised using a fixed-effect model, and subgroup analyses were conducted to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Treatment effects were expressed as mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes and as odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes, together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Primary outcomes were live birth and rate of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) per women randomised. Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods were used to assess the quality of the evidence for each comparison., Main Results: We included 17 RCTs (n = 1847), of which 13 studies assessed fresh autologous cycles and four studies assessed donor-recipient cycles. In fresh autologous cycles, GnRH agonists were associated with a lower live birth rate than was seen with HCG (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70; five RCTs, 532 women, I(2) = 56%, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 31% chance of achieving live birth with the use of HCG, the chance of a live birth with the use of an GnRH agonist would be between 12% and 24%.In women undergoing fresh autologous cycles, GnRH agonists were associated with a lower incidence of mild, moderate or severe OHSS than was HCG (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.47; eight RCTs, 989 women, I² = 42%, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 5% risk of mild, moderate or severe OHSS with the use of HCG, the risk of OHSS with the use of a GnRH agonist would be between nil and 2%.In women undergoing fresh autologous cycles, GnRH agonists were associated with a lower ongoing pregnancy rate than was seen with HCG (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.91; 11 studies, 1198 women, I(2) = 59%, low-quality evidence) and a higher early miscarriage rate (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.75; 11 RCTs, 1198 women, I² = 1%, moderate-quality evidence). However, the effect was dependent on the type of luteal phase support provided (with or without luteinising hormone (LH) activity); the higher rate of pregnancies in the HCG group applied only to the group that received luteal phase support without LH activity (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.62; I(2) = 73%, five RCTs, 370 women). No evidence was found of a difference between groups in risk of multiple pregnancy (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.30 to 30.47; two RCTs, 62 women, I(2) = 0%, low-quality evidence).In women with donor-recipient cycles, no evidence suggested a difference between groups in live birth rate (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.61; one RCT, 212 women) or ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.32; three RCTs, 372 women, I² = 0%). We found evidence of a lower incidence of OHSS in the GnRH agonist group than in the HCG group (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.28; three RCTs, 374 women, I² = 0%).The main limitation in the quality of the evidence was risk of bias associated with poor reporting of methods in the included studies., Authors' Conclusions: Final oocyte maturation triggering with GnRH agonist instead of HCG in fresh autologous GnRH antagonist IVF/ICSI treatment cycles prevents OHSS to the detriment of the live birth rate. In donor-recipient cycles, use of GnRH agonists instead of HCG resulted in a lower incidence of OHSS, with no evidence of a difference in live birth rate.Evidence suggests that GnRH agonist as a final oocyte maturation trigger in fresh autologous cycles is associated with a lower live birth rate, a lower ongoing pregnancy rate (pregnancy beyond 12 weeks) and a higher rate of early miscarriage (less than 12 weeks). GnRH agonist as an oocyte maturation trigger could be useful for women who choose to avoid fresh transfers (for whatever reason), women who donate oocytes to recipients or women who wish to freeze their eggs for later use in the context of fertility preservation.

The selection of embryos based on morphology is still the core of daily laboratory practice in IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. At present, the selection of embryos is primarily based on experience and local protocols. Since an evidence-based ranking strategy for embryos on day 3 is currently lacking, this work constructed a multivariable prediction model to rank embryos according to their implantation potential. A total of 6021 fresh embryo transfers between January 2004 and July 2009 were included, eight potential predictive factors were evaluated and a prediction model was developed using multivariable logistic regression. The model was externally validated with data from couples treated between August 2009 and September 2011 in the same clinic. Five factors were included in the final prediction model: early cleavage, number of blastomeres on days 2 and 3 and morphological score and presence of morula on day 3. With validation, the model showed moderate discriminative capacity (c-statistic 0.70) and calibrated well and was able to distinguish embryos with high ongoing implantation potential from embryos with moderate or low ongoing implantation potential. The model can be used by embryologists as an objective tool to rank embryos according to implantation potential, thereby aiding the selection of embryos for transfer., (Copyright © 2014 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Couples with unexplained subfertility are often treated with intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian stimulation, which carries the risk of multiple pregnancies. An explorative randomized controlled trial was performed comparing one cycle of IVF with elective single-embryo transfer (eSET) versus three cycles of IUI-ovarian stimulation in couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, to assess the economic burden of the treatment modalities. The main outcome measures were ongoing pregnancy rates and costs. This study randomly assigned 58 couples to IVF-eSET and 58 couples to IUI-ovarian stimulation. The ongoing pregnancy rates were 24% in with IVF-eSET versus 21% with IUI-ovarian stimulation, with two and three multiple pregnancies, respectively. The mean cost per included couple was significantly different: €2781 with IVF-eSET and €1876 with IUI-ovarian stimulation (P<0.01). The additional costs per ongoing pregnancy were €2456 for IVF-eSET. In couples with unexplained subfertility, one cycle of IVF-eSET cost an additional €900 per couple compared with three cycles of IUI-ovarian stimulation, for no increase in ongoing pregnancy rates or decrease in multiple pregnancies. When IVF-eSET results in higher ongoing pregnancy rates, IVF would be the preferred treatment. Couples that have been trying to conceive unsuccessfully are often treated with intrauterine insemination (IUI) and medication to improve egg production (ovarian stimulation). This treatment carries the risk of multiple pregnancies like twins. We performed an explorative study among those couples that had a poor prognosis for natural conception. One cycle of IVF with transfer of one selected embryo (elective single-embryo transfer, eSET) was compared with three cycles of IUI-ovarian stimulation. The aim of this study was to assess the economic burden of both treatments. The Main outcome measures were number of good pregnancies above 12weeks and costs. We randomly assigned 58 couples to IVF-eSET and 58 couples to IUI-ovarian stimulation. The ongoing pregnancy rates were comparable: 24% with IVF-eSET versus 21% with IUI-ovarian stimulation. There were two multiple pregnancies with IVF-eSET and three multiple pregnancies with IUI-ovarian stimulation. The mean cost per included couple was significantly different, €2781 with IVF-eSET and €1876 with IUI-ovarian stimulation. The additional costs per ongoing pregnancy were €2456 for IVF-eSET. In couples with unexplained subfertility, one cycle of IVF-eSET costed an additional €900 per couple compared to three cycles of IUI-ovarian stimulation, for no increase in ongoing pregnancy rates or decrease in multiple pregnancies. We conclude that IUI-ovarian stimulation is the preferred treatment to start with. When IVF-eSET results in a higher ongoing pregnancy rate (>38%), IVF would be the preferred treatment., (Copyright © 2013 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This study evaluated the lifetime future net tax revenues from individuals conceived after IVF relative to those naturally conceived. A model based on the method of generational accounting was developed to evaluate investments in IVF. Calculations were based on average investments paid and received from the government by an individual. All costs were discounted to their net present values and adjusted for survival. The lifetime net present value of IVF-conceived individuals was -€81,374 (the minus sign reflecting negative net present value). The lifetime net present value of IVF-conceived men and women were -€47,091 and -€123,177, respectively. The lifetime net present value of naturally conceived individuals was -€70,392; respective amounts for men and women were -€36,109 and -€112,195. The model was most sensitive to changes in the growth of healthcare costs, economic growth and the discount rate. Therefore, it is concluded that, similarly to naturally conceived individuals in the Netherlands, IVF-conceived individuals have negative discounted net tax revenue at the end of life. The analytic framework described here undervalues the incremental value of an additional birth because it only considers the fiscal consequences of life and does not take into consideration broader macroeconomic benefits. This study evaluated the lifetime future net tax revenues from individuals conceived after IVF relative those naturally conceived. A model based on the method of generational accounting to evaluate investments in IVF was used. Calculations were based on average investments paid and received from the government by an individual. The lifetime net present value of IVF-conceived individuals was -€81,374 (the minus sign reflecting negative net present value). The lifetime net present value of IVF-conceived men and women were -€47,091 and -€123,177, respectively. The lifetime net present value of naturally conceived individuals was -€70,392; respective amounts for men and women were -€36,109 and -€112,195. The model was most sensitive for changes in the growth in healthcare costs, economic growth and the discount rate. Just as naturally conceived individuals in the Netherlands, IVF-conceived individuals have negative discounted net tax revenue at the end of life. The analytic framework described here undervalues the incremental value of an additional birth because it only considers the fiscal consequences of life and does not take into consideration broader macroeconomic benefits., (Copyright © 2013 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists reduce ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) at the price of a small reduction in effectiveness compared to GnRH agonists. The aim of this study was to investigate patients' preferences on effectiveness, safety and burden of GnRH analogs., Methods: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a trade-off question were designed. Patients embarking on assisted reproductive technique treatment were asked to choose between two hypothetical medications which differed in effectiveness, safety and burden., Results: A total of 172 questionnaires were analyzed. All attributes of the DCE had a statistically significant impact on the preference of the respondents. Respondents were willing to trade off 0.87 and 0.81% effectiveness for a decrease in OHSS risk and for fewer side effects, respectively. Respondents were not willing to trade off effectiveness for 'importance of compliance' (trade-off 0.40%) or a shorter 'duration of treatment' (trade-off 0.26%). The trade-off questions showed that already at a 2.0% increase in pregnancy rate in favor of the agonists, the majority of the respondents changed their preference from antagonists to agonists (2.0%, 95% CI 1.7-2.1)., Conclusion: Safety and burden are important to patients, but are not important enough to make up for a small decrease in pregnancy rate., (© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Study Question: Can modified natural cycle IVF or ICSI (MNC) be a cost-effective alternative for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation IVF or ICSI (COH)?, Summary Answer: The comparison of simulated scenarios indicates that a strategy of three to six cycles of MNC with minimized medication is a cost-effective alternative for one cycle of COH with strict application of single embryo transfer (SET)., What Is Known Already: MNC is cheaper per cycle than COH but also less effective in terms of live birth rate (LBR). However, strict application of SET in COH cycles reduces effectiveness and up to three MNC cycles can be performed at the same costs as one COH cycle., Study Design, Size, Duration: The cost-effectiveness of MNC versus COH was evaluated in three simulated treatment scenarios: three cycles of MNC versus one cycle of COH with SET or double embryo transfer (DET) and subsequent transfer of cryopreserved embryos (Scenario 1); six cycles of MNC versus one cycle of COH with strictly SET and subsequent transfer of cryopreserved embryos (Scenario 2); six cycles of MNC with minimized medication (hCG ovulation trigger only) versus one cycle of COH with SET or DET and subsequent transfer of cryopreserved embryos (Scenario 3). We used baseline data obtained from two retrospective cohorts of consecutive patients (2005-2008) undergoing MNC in the University Medical Center Groningen (n = 499, maximum six cycles per patient) or their first COH cycle with subsequent transfer of cryopreserved embryos in the Academic Medical Center Amsterdam (n = 392)., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Data from 1994 MNC cycles (958 MNC-IVF and 1036 MNC-ICSI) and 392 fresh COH cycles (one per patient, 196 COH-IVF and 196 COH-ICSI) with subsequent transfer of cryopreserved embryos (n = 72 and n = 94 in MNC and COH cycles, respectively) in ovulatory, subfertile women <36 years of age served as baseline for the three simulated scenarios. To compare the scenarios, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, defined as the ratio of the difference in IVF costs up to 6 weeks postpartum to the difference in LBR. Live birth was the primary outcome measure and was defined as the birth of at least one living child after a gestation of ≥25 weeks., Main Results and the Role of Chance: In the baseline data, MNC was not cost-effective, as COH dominated MNC with a higher cumulative LBR (27.0 versus 24.0%) and lower cost per patient (€3694 versus €5254). The simulations showed that in scenario 1 three instead of six cycles lowered the costs of MNC to below the level of COH (€3390 versus €3694, respectively), but also lowered the LBR per patient (from 24.0 to 16.2%, respectively); Scenario 2: COH with strict SET was less effective than six cycles MNC (LBR 17.5 versus 24.0%, respectively), but also less expensive per patient (€2908) than MNC (€5254); Scenario 3: improved the cost-effectiveness of MNC but COH still dominated MNC when medication was minimized in terms of costs, i.e. €855 difference in favor of COH and 3% difference in LBR in favor of COH (ICER: €855/-3.0%)., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: Owing to the retrospective nature of the study, the analyses required some assumptions, for example regarding the costs of pregnancy and delivery, which had to be based on the literature rather than on individual data. Furthermore, costs of IVF treatment were based on tariffs and not on actual costs. Although this may limit the external generalizability of the results, the limitations will influence both treatments equally, and would therefore not bias the comparison of MNC versus COH., Wider Implications of the Findings: The combined results suggest that MNC with minimized medication might be a cost-effective alternative for COH with strict SET. The scenarios reflect realistic alternatives for daily clinical practice. A preference for MNC depends on the willingness to trade off effectiveness in terms of LBR against the benefits of a milder stimulation regimen, including a very low rate of multiple pregnancies and hyperstimulation syndrome and ensuing lower costs per live birth., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The study was supported by research grants from Merck Serono and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. The authors declare no conflicts of interest., Trial Registration Number: Not applicable.

Study Question: Are we able to develop a model to calculate the chances of pregnancy prior to the start of the first IVF cycle as well as after one or more failed cycles?, Summary Answer: Our prediction model enables the accurate individualized calculation of the probability of an ongoing pregnancy with IVF., What Is Known Already: To improve counselling, patient selection and clinical decision-making in IVF, a number of prediction models have been developed. These models are of limited use as they were developed before current clinical and laboratory protocols were established., Study Design, Size, Duration: This was a cohort study. The development set included 2621 cycles in 1326 couples who had been treated with IVF or ICSI between January 2001 and July 2009. The validation set included additional data from 515 cycles in 440 couples treated between August 2009 and April 2011. The outcome of interest was an ongoing pregnancy after transfer of fresh or frozen-thawed embryos from the same stimulated IVF cycle. If a couple became pregnant after an IVF/ICSI cycle, the follow-up was at a gestational age of at least 11 weeks., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Women treated with IVF or ICSI between January 2001 and April 2011 in a university hospital. IVF/ICSI cycles were excluded in the case of oocyte or embryo donation, surgically retrieved spermatozoa, patients positive for human immunodeficiency virus, modified natural IVF and cycles cancelled owing to poor ovarian stimulation, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome or other unexpected medical or non-medical reasons., Main Results and the Role of Chance: Thirteen variables were included in the final prediction model. For all cycles, these were female age, duration of subfertility, previous ongoing pregnancy, male subfertility, diminished ovarian reserve, endometriosis, basal FSH and number of failed IVF cycles. After the first cycle: fertilization, number of embryos, mean morphological score per Day 3 embryo, presence of 8-cell embryos on Day 3 and presence of morulae on Day 3 were also included. In validation, the model had moderate discriminative capacity (c-statistic 0.68, 95% confidence interval: 0.63-0.73) but calibrated well, with a range from 0.01 to 0.56 in calculated probabilities., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: In our study, the outcome of interest was ongoing pregnancy. Live birth may have been a more appropriate outcome, although only 1-2% of all ongoing pregnancies result in late miscarriage or stillbirth. The model was based on data from a single centre., Wider Implications of the Findings: The IVF model presented here is the first to calculate the chances of an ongoing pregnancy with IVF, both for the first cycle and after any number of failed cycles. The generalizability of the model to other clinics has to be evaluated more extensively in future studies (geographical validation). Centres with higher or lower success rates could use the model, after recalibration, by adjusting the intercept to reflect the IVF success rates in their centre., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This project was funded by the NutsOhra foundation (Grant 1004-179). The NutsOhra foundation had no role in the development of our study, in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. There were no competing interests.

Background: Prognostic models in reproductive medicine can help to identify subfertile couples who would benefit from fertility treatment. Expectant management in couples with a good chance of natural conception, i.e., tailored expectant management (TEM), prevents unnecessary treatment and is therefore recommended in international fertility guidelines. However, current implementation is not optimal, leaving room for improvement. Based on barriers and facilitators for TEM that were recently identified among professionals and subfertile couples, we have developed a multifaceted implementation strategy. The goal of this study is to assess the effects of this implementation strategy on the guideline adherence on TEM., Methods/design: In a cluster randomized trial, 25 clinics and their allied practitioners units will be randomized between the multifaceted implementation strategy and care as usual. Randomization will be stratified for in vitro fertilization (IVF) facilities (full licensed, intermediate/no IVF facilities). The effect of the implementation strategy, i.e., the percentage guideline adherence on TEM, will be evaluated by pre- and post-randomization data collection. Furthermore, there will be a process and cost evaluation of the strategy. The implementation strategy will focus on subfertile couples and their care providers i.e., general practitioners (GPs), fertility doctors, and gynecologists. The implementation strategy addresses three levels: patient level: education materials in the form of a patient information leaflet and a website; professional level: audit and feedback, educational outreach visit, communication training, and access to a digital version of the prognostic model of Hunault on a website; organizational level: providing a protocol based on the guideline. The primary outcome will be the percentage guideline adherence on TEM. Additional outcome measures will be treatment-, patient-, and process-related outcome measures., Discussion: This study will provide evidence about the effectiveness and costs of a multifaceted implementation strategy to improve guideline adherence on TEM., Trial Registration: http://www.trialregister.nlNTR3405. This study is sponsored by ZonMW.

BACKGROUND The media that are used to culture human preimplantation embryos are considered to be an important factor for the success rates of IVF/ICSI. Here, we present a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effect of culture media on IVF/ICSI success rates. METHODS RCTs published between January 1985 and July 2012 were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was live birth. Secondary outcomes were health of babies born, ongoing pregnancies, clinical pregnancies, miscarriages, multiple pregnancies, implantation rate, cryopreservation rate, embryo quality and fertilization rate. For those media that were evaluated in more than one comparison, an unconventional meta-analysis was performed by pooling the data of the media they were compared to. RESULTS Twenty-two RCTs were included that evaluated 31 different comparisons. Conventional meta-analysis was not possible for any of the outcomes as nearly all trials compared different culture media. Only four trials reported on live birth, and one of them reported a significant difference. Nine trials reported on ongoing and/or clinical pregnancy rates, of which four showed a significant difference. Pooling the data did not reveal a superior culture medium. CONCLUSIONS It is yet unknown what culture medium leads to the best success rates in IVF/ICSI. Given the potential importance of culture media for treatment outcome, rigorously designed RCTs are needed for currently available, as well as newly introduced culture media.

Objective: Guidelines are not in agreement on the most effective diagnostic scenario for tubal patency testing; therefore, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of invasive tubal testing in subfertile couples compared with no testing and treatment., Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis., Setting: Decision analytic framework., Population: Computer-simulated cohort of subfertile women., Methods: We evaluated six scenarios: (1) no tests and no treatment; (2) immediate treatment without tubal testing; (3) delayed treatment without tubal testing; (4) hysterosalpingogram (HSG), followed by immediate or delayed treatment, according to diagnosis (tailored treatment); (5) HSG and a diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) in case HSG does not prove tubal patency, followed by tailored treatment; and (6) DL followed by tailored treatment., Main Outcome Measures: Expected cumulative live births after 3 years. Secondary outcomes were cost per couple and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio., Results: For a 30-year-old woman with otherwise unexplained subfertility for 12 months, 3-year cumulative live birth rates were 51.8, 78.1, 78.4, 78.4, 78.6 and 78.4%, and costs per couple were €0, €6968, €5063, €5410, €5405 and €6163 for scenarios 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared with scenario 1 (reference strategy), were €26,541, €19,046, €20,372, €20,150 and €23,184 for scenarios 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed the model to be robust over a wide range of values for the variables., Conclusions: The most cost-effective scenario is to perform no diagnostic tubal tests and to delay in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment for at least 12 months for women younger than 38 years old, and to perform no tubal tests and start immediate IVF treatment from the age of 39 years. If an invasive diagnostic test is planned, HSG followed by tailored treatment, or a DL if HSG shows no tubal patency, is more cost-effective than DL., (© 2013 The Authors BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology © 2013 RCOG.)

Background: Costs of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) are high, which is partly due to the use of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH). FSH is usually administered in a standard dose. However, due to differences in ovarian reserve between women, ovarian response also differs with potential negative consequences on pregnancy rates. A Markov decision-analytic model showed that FSH dose individualisation according to ovarian reserve is likely to be cost-effective in women who are eligible for IVF. However, this has never been confirmed in a large randomised controlled trial (RCT). The aim of the present study is to assess whether an individualised FSH dose regime based on an ovarian reserve test (ORT) is more cost-effective than a standard dose regime., Methods/design: Multicentre RCT in subfertile women indicated for a first IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle, who are aged < 44 years, have a regular menstrual cycle and no major abnormalities at transvaginal sonography. Women with polycystic ovary syndrome, endocrine or metabolic abnormalities and women undergoing IVF with oocyte donation, will not be included. Ovarian reserve will be assessed by measuring the antral follicle count. Women with a predicted poor response or hyperresponse will be randomised for a standard versus an individualised FSH regime (150 IU/day, 225-450 IU/day and 100 IU/day, respectively). Participants will undergo a maximum of three stimulation cycles during maximally 18 months. The primary study outcome is the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate resulting in live birth achieved within 18 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are parameters for ovarian response, multiple pregnancies, number of cycles needed per live birth, total IU of FSH per stimulation cycle, and costs. All data will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed to assess whether the health and associated economic benefits of individualised treatment of subfertile women outweigh the additional costs of an ORT., Discussion: The results of this study will be integrated into a decision model that compares cost-effectiveness of the three dose-adjustment strategies to a standard dose strategy. The study outcomes will provide scientific foundation for national and international guidelines., Trial Registration: NTR2657.

Objective: The current evidence concerning the best treatment option for couples with unexplained and male subfertility is inconclusive. Most studies that have evaluated the effectiveness of treatment options, such as expectant management (EM), intrauterine insemination (IUI), with or without controlled ovarian stimulation (COS), and in vitro fertilisation (IVF), have not taken the couples' prognosis into account. It is very likely that the individual prognosis of the couple influences the effect of treatment. Individual patient data analyses allow us to take these prognostic factors into account, and to evaluate their effect on treatment outcome. This study aims to use anonymised data from relevant published trials to perform an individual patient data meta-analysis, evaluating the effect of couples' prognosis on the effectiveness of EM, IUI, with or without COS, and IVF., Methods: Based on earlier systematic reviews and an updated search, randomised controlled trials will be considered for inclusion. Untreated subfertile couples with unexplained or male subfertility included in trials comparing EM, IUI, with or without COS, and IVF are included. Authors of the included studies will be invited to share their original anonymised data. The data will be assessed on validity, quality and completeness. The prognosis of the individual couple will be calculated with existing prognostic models. The effect of the prognosis on treatment outcome will be analysed with marker-by-treatment predictiveness curves, illustrating the effect of prognosis on treatment outcome. This study is registered in PROSPERO (registration number CRD42011001832)., Conclusion: Ultimately, this study may help to select the appropriate fertility treatment, tailored to the needs of an individual couple., (© 2012 The Authors BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology © 2012 RCOG.)

Objective: To evaluate the role of corifollitropin alfa, a newly developed weekly administrated long-acting recombinant FSH (rFSH), as an alternative for daily rFSH administration in women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation in GnRH antagonist down-regulated in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment cycles., Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials., Setting: University and private centers., Patient(s): Infertile women undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment., Intervention(s): Comparing long-acting rFSH corifollitropin alfa versus standard daily administrated rFSH in GnRH antagonist IVF/ICSI cycles., Main Outcome Measure(s): Ongoing pregnancy rate, live birth rate, clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, duration of stimulation, amount of FSH, number of retrieved oocytes, number of mature oocytes, number of embryos obtained, fertilization rate, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) incidence, and adverse events. Searches (of literature through November 2011) were conducted in Medline, Embase, Science Direct, the Cochrane Library, and databases of abstracts., Result(s): Four randomized trials involving 2,326 women were included. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in ongoing pregnancy rate for corifollitropin alfa versus rFSH. There was evidence of increased ovarian response and risk of OHSS in corifollitropin alfa., Conclusion(s): In view of its equivalence and safety profile, corifollitropin alfa in combination with daily GnRH antagonist seems to be an alternative for daily rFSH injections in normal responder patients undergoing ovarian stimulation in IVF/ICSI treatment cycles., (Copyright © 2012 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of IVF with elective single embryo transfer (IVF-eSET) vs. IUI with controlled ovarian stimulation (IUI-COS) as an alternative treatment to reduce the risk for a multiple pregnancy., Design: Randomized pilot trial., Setting: Three academic and six teaching hospitals in the Netherlands., Patient(s): Couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and an unfavorable prognosis for natural conception., Intervention(s): One cycle of IVF-eSET or three cycles of IUI-COS., Main Outcome Measure(s): Ongoing pregnancy per couple., Result(s): We randomly allocated 116 women to IVF-eSET (n = 58) or IUI-COH (n = 58). There were 14 ongoing pregnancies (24%) in the IVF-eSET group and 12 pregnancies (21%) in the IUI-COS group (relative ratio 1.17; 95% confidence interval 0.60-2.30). There were two twin pregnancies in the IVF-eSET group (14%) and two twin pregnancies and one triplet pregnancy in the IUI-COH group (25%)., Conclusion(s): In patients with unexplained or mild male subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, one cycle of IVF-eSET might be as effective as three cycles of IUI-COS as primary treatment. Elective single embryo transfer does not seem an effective strategy in preventing multiple pregnancies in this particular population. In the future a strict SET policy (i.e., compulsory SET) might be an option. Our trial provides evidence for the feasibility and highlights the importance of a large definitive trial to determine the effectiveness and side effects of both strategies., (Copyright © 2011 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the cost effectiveness of ovarian reserve testing in in vitro fertilization (IVF)., Design: A Markov decision model based on data from the literature and original patient data., Setting: Decision analytic framework., Patient(s): Computer-simulated cohort of subfertile women aged 20 to 45 years who are eligible for IVF., Intervention(s): [1] No treatment, [2] up to three cycles of IVF limited to women under 41 years and no ovarian reserve testing, [3] up to three cycles of IVF with dose individualization of gonadotropins according to ovarian reserve, and [4] up to three cycles of IVF with ovarian reserve testing and exclusion of expected poor responders after the first cycle, with no treatment scenario as the reference scenario., Main Outcome Measure(s): Cumulative live birth over 1 year, total costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios., Result(s): The cumulative live birth was 9.0% in the no treatment scenario, 54.8% for scenario 2, 70.6% for scenario 3 and 51.9% for scenario 4. Absolute costs per woman for these scenarios were €0, €6,917, €6,678, and €5,892 for scenarios 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for scenarios 2, 3, and 4 were €15,166, €10,837, and €13,743 per additional live birth. Sensitivity analysis showed the model to be robust over a wide range of values., Conclusion(s): Individualization of the follicle-stimulating hormone dose according to ovarian reserve is likely to be cost effective in women who are eligible for IVF, but this effectiveness needs to be confirmed in randomized clinical trials., (Copyright © 2011 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The addition of recombinant LH (rLH) to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) shows a beneficial effect on ongoing pregnancy rates in poor responder women, with an increase of ongoing pregnancy rate. Next to this possible beneficial effect, there are two potential drawbacks of adding rLH to COH; women have to administer extra injections, and daily rLH injections generate additional costs. We therefore investigated women's perspectives on an additional injection of rLH with respect to live birth rates (LBR) and out-of-pocket costs in a discrete choice experiment., Methods: Women eligible for IVF were asked to choose between treatments that differed in LBR after one IVF cycle, the amount of self-administered injections and out-of-pocket costs or reimbursement. The relative weights that women place on these attributes were estimated with a logistic regression model. To test for heterogeneity of preferences among women, patient characteristics were included in the model., Results: Two-hundred and thirty-four women were asked to participate in the study. In total, 223 women responded (response rate 95%) and 206 questionnaires were analysed. An increase of one daily injection did not alter women's treatment preference. LBR and costs did have a significant (P < 0.001) impact on women's choice of IVF treatment. Patient characteristics significantly influenced the effect of costs on women's preferences., Conclusions: One extra daily injection will not cause a woman to refrain from a certain IVF treatment. However, to compensate for the out-of-pocket costs of this extra daily injection, the expected LBR should at least be 6%.

Background: Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) has increasingly been used in the past decade. Here we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs on the effect of PGS on the probability of live birth after IVF., Methods: PubMed and trial registers were searched for RCTs on PGS. Trials were assessed following predetermined quality criteria. The primary outcome was live birth rate per woman, secondary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, multiple pregnancy rate and pregnancy outcome., Results: Nine RCTs comparing IVF with and without PGS were included in our meta-analysis. Fluorescence in situ hybridization was used in all trials and cleavage stage biopsy was used in all but one trial. PGS significantly lowered live birth rate after IVF for women of advanced maternal age (risk difference: -0.08; 95% confidence interval: -0. 13 to -0.03). For a live birth rate of 26% after IVF without PGS, the rate would be between 13 and 23% using PGS. Trials where PGS was offered to women with a good prognosis and to women with repeated implantation failure suggested similar outcomes., Conclusions: There is no evidence of a beneficial effect of PGS as currently applied on the live birth rate after IVF. On the contrary, for women of advanced maternal age PGS significantly lowers the live birth rate. Technical drawbacks and chromosomal mosaicism underlie this inefficacy of PGS. New approaches in the application of PGS should be evaluated carefully before their introduction into clinical practice.

Prediction models for IVF can be used to identify couples that will benefit from IVF treatment. Currently there is only one prediction model with a good predictive performance that can be used for predicting pregnancy chances after IVF. That model was developed almost 15 years ago and since IVF has progressed substantially during the last two decades it is questionable whether the model is still valid in current clinical practice. The objective of this study was to validate the prediction model of Templeton for calculating pregnancy chances after IVF. The performance of the prediction model was assessed in terms of discrimination, i.e. the area under the receiver operation characteristic (ROC) curve and calibration. Likely causes for miscalibration were evaluated by refitting the Templeton model to the study data. The area under the ROC curve for the Templeton model was 0.61. Calibration showed a significant and systematic underestimation of success in IVF. Although the Templeton model can distinguish somewhat between women with a high and low success rate in IVF, it systematically underestimates pregnancy chances and has therefore no real value for current IVF practice., (Copyright © 2011 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

To optimize success rates of IVF, selection of the most viable embryo(s) for transfer has always been essential, as embryos that are cryopreserved are thought to have a reduced chance of implanting after thawing. Recent developments challenge this concept. Evidence is accumulating that all embryos can now be cryopreserved and transferred in subsequent cycles without impairing pregnancy rates or maybe even with an improvement in pregnancy rates. In such a scenario no selection method will ever lead to improved live birth rates, as, by definition, the live birth rate per stimulated IVF cycle can never be improved when all embryos are serially transferred. In fact, selection could then only lower the live birth rate after IVF. The only parameter that could possibly be improved by embryo selection would be time to pregnancy, if embryos with the highest implantation potential are transferred first.

Background: Several systematic reviews compared recombinant gonadotrophin with urinary gonadotrophins (HMG, purified FSH, highly purified FSH) for ovarian hyperstimulation in IVF and ICSI cycles and these reported conflicting results. Each of these reviews used different inclusion and exclusion criteria for trials. Our aim in producing this review is to bring together all randomised studies in this field under common inclusion criteria with consistent and valid statistical methods., Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of recombinant gonadotrophin (rFSH) with the three main types of urinary gonadotrophins (i.e. HMG, FSH-P and FSH-HP) for ovarian stimulation in women undergoing IVF or ICSI treatment cycles., Search Strategy: An extended search was done according to Cochrane guidelines including the Menstrual Disorders & Subfertility Group's Specialised Register of controlled trials, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (1966 to May 2010), EMBASE (1980 to May 2010), CINAHL (1982 to May 2010), National Research Register, and Current Controlled Trials., Selection Criteria: All randomised controlled trials reporting data comparing clinical outcomes for women undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles and using recombinant FSH in comparison with HMG or highly purified HMG, purified urinary FSH (FSH-P), and highly purified urinary FSH (FSH-HP) for ovarian hyperstimulation in IVF or ICSI cycles were included., Data Collection and Analysis: Primary outcome measure was live birth rate and OHSS per randomised woman.Binary outcomes were analysed using odds ratios and also reported in absolute terms. Grouped analyses were carried out for all outcomes to explore whether relative effects differed due to key features of the trials., Main Results: We included 42 trials with a total of 9606 couples. Comparing rFSH to any of the other gonadotrophins irrespective of the down-regulation protocol used, did not result in any evidence of a statistically significant difference in live birth rate (28 trials, 7339 couples, odds ratio 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.08). This suggests that for a group with a 25% live birth rate using urinary gonadotrophins the rate would be between 22.5% and 26.5% using rFSH. There was also no evidence of a difference in the OHSS rate (32 trials, 7740 couples, OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.61). This means that for a group with 2% risk of OHSS using urinary gonadotrophins, the risk would be between 1.7% and 3.2% using rFSH., Authors' Conclusions: Clinical choice of gonadotrophin should depend on availability, convenience and costs. Further research on these comparisons is unlikely to identify substantive differences in effectiveness or safety.

Background: Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocols for pituitary down regulation in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) allow the use of GnRH agonists for triggering final oocyte maturation. Currently, human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) is still the standard medication for this purpose. The effectiveness of triggering with a GnRH agonist compared to HCG measured as pregnancy and ovarian hyperstimulation(OHSS) rates are unknown., Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of a GnRH agonist with HCG for triggering final oocyte maturation in IVF and ICSI patients undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in a GnRH antagonist protocol followed by embryo transfer. , Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE , EMBASE, the National Research Register, the Medical Research Council's Clinical Trials Register, and the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database. We also examined the reference lists of all known primary studies and review articles, citation lists of relevant publications and abstracts of major scientific meetings., Selection Criteria: All randomised controlled studies (RCTs) reporting data comparing clinical outcomes for women undergoing IVF and ICSI cycles and using a GnRH agonist in comparison with HCG for final oocyte maturation triggering., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data., Main Results: We identified 11 RCTs (n = 1055). Eight studies assessed fresh autologous cycles and three studies assessed donor-recipient cycles. In fresh-autologous cycles, GnRH agonist was less effective than HCG in terms of the live birth rate per randomised woman (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.68; 4 RCTs) and ongoing pregnancy rate per randomised woman (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.65; 8 RCTs). For a group with a 30% live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate using HCG, the rate would be between 12% and 22% using an GnRH agonist. Moderate to severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) incidence per randomised woman was significantly lower in the GnRH agonist group compared to the HCG group (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82; 5 RCTs). For a group with a 3% OHSS rate using HCG the rate would be between 0% and 2.6% using GnRH agonist. In donor recipient cycles, there was no evidence of a statistical difference in the live birth rate per randomised woman (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.61; 1 RCT)., Authors' Conclusions: We do not recommend that GnRH agonists be routinely used as a final oocyte maturation trigger in fresh autologous cycles because of lowered live birth rates and ongoing pregnancy rates. An exception could be made for women with high risk of OHSS, after appropriate counselling.

Background: Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocols for pituitary down regulation in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) allow the use of GnRH agonists for triggering final oocyte maturation. Currently, human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) is still the standard medication for this purpose. The effectiveness of triggering with a GnRH agonist compared to HCG measured as pregnancy and ovarian hyperstimulation(OHSS) rates are unknown., Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of a GnRH agonist with HCG for triggering final oocyte maturation in IVF and ICSI patients undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in a GnRH antagonist protocol followed by embryo transfer. , Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE , EMBASE, the National Research Register, the Medical Research Council's Clinical Trials Register, and the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database. We also examined the reference lists of all known primary studies and review articles, citation lists of relevant publications and abstracts of major scientific meetings., Selection Criteria: All randomised controlled studies (RCTs) reporting data comparing clinical outcomes for women undergoing IVF and ICSI cycles and using a GnRH agonist in comparison with HCG for final oocyte maturation triggering., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data., Main Results: We identified 11 RCTs (n = 1055). Eight studies assessed fresh autologous cycles and three studies assessed donor-recipient cycles. In fresh-autologous cycles, GnRH agonist was less effective than HCG in terms of the live birth rate per randomised woman (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.68; 4 RCTs) and ongoing pregnancy rate per randomised woman (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.65; 8 RCTs). For a group with a 30% live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate using HCG, the rate would be between 12% and 22% using an GnRH agonist. Moderate to severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) incidence per randomised woman was significantly lower in the GnRH agonist group compared to the HCG group (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82; 5 RCTs). For a group with a 3% OHSS rate using HCG the rate would be between 0% and 2.6% using GnRH agonist. In donor recipient cycles, there was no evidence of a statistical difference in the live birth rate per randomised woman (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.61; 1 RCT)., Authors' Conclusions: We do not recommend that GnRH agonists be routinely used as a final oocyte maturation trigger in fresh autologous cycles because of lowered live birth rates and ongoing pregnancy rates. An exception could be made for women with high risk of OHSS, after appropriate counselling.

Background: Various models have been developed for the prediction of pregnancy after in vitro fertilization (IVF). These models differ from one another in the predictors they include. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the most relevant predictors for success in IVF., Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies evaluating IVF/ICSI outcome. Studies were included if they reported an unconditional odds ratio (OR) or whenever one could be calculated for one or more of the following factors: age, type of infertility, indication, duration of infertility, basal FSH, number of oocytes, fertilization method, number of embryos transferred and embryo quality., Results: Fourteen studies were identified. A summary OR could be calculated for five factors. We found negative associations between pregnancy and female age [OR: 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.94-0.96], duration of subfertility (OR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.98-1.00) and basal FSH (OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.88-1.00). We found a positive association with number of oocytes (OR 1.04, 95% CI: 1.02-1.07). Better embryo quality was associated with higher pregnancy chances. No significant association was found for the type of infertility and fertilization method. A summary OR for IVF indication and number of embryos transferred could not be calculated, because studies reporting on these used different reference categories., Conclusions: Female age, duration of subfertility, bFSH and number of oocytes, all reflecting ovarian function, are predictors of pregnancy after IVF. Better quality studies are necessary, especially studies that focus on embryo factors that are predictive of success in IVF.

Background: Pregnancies induced by in vitro fertilisation (IVF) often result in twin gestations, which are associated with both maternal and perinatal complications. An effective way to reduce the number of IVF twin pregnancies is to decrease the number of embryos transferred from two to one. The interpretation of current studies is limited because they used live birth as outcome measure and because they applied limited time horizons. So far, research on long-term outcomes of IVF twins and singletons is scarce and inconclusive. The objective of this study is to investigate the short (1-year) and long-term (5 and 18-year) costs and health outcomes of IVF singleton and twin children and to consider these in estimating the cost-effectiveness of single embryo transfer compared with double embryo transfer, from a societal and a healthcare perspective., Methods/design: A multi-centre cohort study will be performed, in which IVF singletons and IVF twin children born between 2003 and 2005 of whom parents received IVF treatment in one of the five participating Dutch IVF centres, will be compared. Data collection will focus on children at risk of health problems and children in whom health problems actually occurred. First year of life data will be collected in approximately 1,278 children (619 singletons and 659 twin children). Data up to the fifth year of life will be collected in approximately 488 children (200 singletons and 288 twin children). Outcome measures are health status, health-related quality of life and costs. Data will be obtained from hospital information systems, a parent questionnaire and existing registries. Furthermore, a prognostic model will be developed that reflects the short and long-term costs and health outcomes of IVF singleton and twin children. This model will be linked to a Markov model of the short-term cost-effectiveness of single embryo transfer strategies versus double embryo transfer strategies to enable the calculation of the long-term cost-effectiveness., Discussion: This is, to our knowledge, the first study that investigates the long-term costs and health outcomes of IVF singleton and twin children and the long-term cost-effectiveness of single embryo transfer strategies versus double embryo transfer strategies.

Cryopreservation of spermatozoa and embryos has been a standard procedure in Dutch fertility laboratories for several decades. Until recently, oocyte cryopreservation was rarely performed because of the low chance of survival. 'Vitrification' is a promising new technique for the freezing of oocytes. This ultra-quick freezing method can be used when no spermatozoa, or no viable spermatozoa, could be obtained during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), and for patients with cancer who have to undergo potentially damaging oncology treatment. The Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam has performed oocyte vitrification for 20 patients in the period March 2006 - October 2009. Ten of these patients have undergone ICSI treatment; this resulted in three pregnancies and the birth of two healthy babies from two of these pregnancies.

Background: Multiple pregnancies are high risk pregnancies with higher chances of maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity. In the past decades the number of multiple pregnancies has increased. This trend is partly due to the fact that women start family planning at an increased age, but also due to the increased use of ART.Couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility generally receive intrauterine insemination IUI with controlled hormonal stimulation (IUI COH). The cumulative pregnancy rate is 40%, with a 10% multiple pregnancy rate.This study aims to reveal whether alternative treatments such as IVF elective Single Embryo Transfer (IVF e SET) or Modified Natural Cycle IVF (MNC IVF) can reduce the number of multiple pregnancy rates, but uphold similar pregnancy rates as IUI COH in couples with mild male or unexplained subfertility. Secondly, the aim is to perform a cost effective analyses and assess treatment preference of these couples., Methods/design: We plan a multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial in the Netherlands comparing six cycles of intra-uterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation or six cycles of Modified Natural Cycle (MNC) IVF or three cycles with IVF-elective Single Embryo Transfer (eSET) plus cryo-cycles within a time frame of 12 months.Couples with unexplained subfertility or mild male subfertility and a poor prognosis for treatment independent pregnancy will be included. Women with anovulatory cycles, severe endometriosis, double sided tubal pathology or serious endocrine illness will be excluded.Our primary outcome is the birth of a healthy singleton. Secondary outcomes are multiple pregnancy, treatment costs, and patient experiences in each treatment arm. The analysis will be performed according tot the intention to treat principle. We will test for non-inferiority of the three arms with respect to live birth. As we accept a 12.5% loss in pregnancy rate in one of the two IVF arms to prevent multiple pregnancies, we need 200 couples per arm (600 couples in total)., Discussion: Determining the safest and most cost-effective treatment will ensure optimal chances of pregnancy for subfertile couples with substantially diminished perinatal and maternal complications. Should patients find the most cost-effective treatment acceptable or even preferable, this could imply the need for a world wide shift in the primary treatment., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 52843371.