Search

STUDY QUESTION What are the long-term outcomes after allocation to use of gonadotrophins versus clomiphene citrate (CC) with or without IUI in women with normogonadotropic anovulation and clomiphene failure? SUMMARY ANSWER About four in five women with normogonadotropic anovulation and CC failure had a live birth, with no evidence of a difference in pregnancy outcomes between the allocated groups. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY CC has long been used as first line treatment for ovulation induction in women with normogonadotropic anovulation. Between 2009 and 2015, a two-by-two factorial multicentre randomized clinical trial in 666 women with normogonadotropic anovulation and six cycles of CC failure was performed (M-ovin trial). This study compared a switch to gonadotrophins with continued treatment with CC for another six cycles, with or without IUI within 8 months. Switching to gonadotrophins increased the chance of conception leading to live birth by 11% over continued treatment with CC after six failed ovulatory cycles, at a cost of €15 258 per additional live birth. The addition of IUI did not significantly increase live birth rates. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION In order to investigate the long-term outcomes of switching to gonadotrophins versus continuing treatment with CC, and undergoing IUI versus continuing with intercourse, we conducted a follow-up study. The study population comprised all women who participated in the M-ovin trial. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The participating women were asked to complete a web-based questionnaire. The primary outcome of this study was cumulative live birth. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancies, multiple pregnancies, miscarriage, stillbirth, ectopic pregnancy, fertility treatments, neonatal outcomes and pregnancy complications. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE We approached 564 women (85%), of whom 374 (66%) responded (184 allocated to gonadotrophins; 190 to CC). After a median follow-up time of 8 years, 154 women in the gonadotrophin group had a live birth (83.7%) versus 150 women in the CC group (78.9%) (relative risk (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.96–1.17). A second live birth occurred in 85 of 184 women (49.0%) in the gonadotrophin group and in 85 of 190 women (44.7%) in the CC group (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.83–1.29). Women allocated to gonadotrophins had a third live birth in 6 of 184 women (3.3%) and women allocated to CC had a third live birth in 14 of 190 women (7.4%). There were respectively 12 and 11 twins in the gonadotrophin and CC groups. The use of fertility treatments in the follow-up period was comparable between both groups. In the IUI group, a first live birth occurred in 158 of 192 women (82.3%) and while in the intercourse group, 146 of 182 women (80.2%) reached at least one live birth (RR: 1.03 95% CI 0.93–1.13; 2.13%, 95% CI −5.95, 10.21). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We have complete follow-up results for 57% of the women. There were 185 women who did not respond to the questionnaire, while 102 women had not been approached due to missing contact details. Five women had not started the original trial. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Women with normogonadotropic anovulation and CC failure have a high chance of reaching at least one live birth. In terms of pregnancy rates, the long-term differences between initially switching to gonadotrophins are small compared to continuing treatment with CC. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The original study received funding from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw number: 80-82310-97-12067). A.H. reports consultancy for development and implementation of a lifestyle App, MyFertiCoach, developed by Ferring Pharmaceutical Company. M.G. receives unrestricted grants for scientific research and education from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigatorgrant (GNT1176437). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva and Merck and travel support from Merck. All other authors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER This follow-up study was registered in the OSF Register, https://osf.io/pf24m. The original M-ovin trial was registered in the Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR1449. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Is endometrial thickness (EMT) a biomarker to select between women who should switch to gonadotropins and those who could continue clomiphene citrate (CC) after six failed ovulatory cycles?Summary Answer: Using a cut-off of 7 mm for EMT, we can distinguish between women who are better off switching to gonadotropins and those who could continue CC after six earlier failed ovulatory CC cycles.What Is Already Known: For women with normogonadotropic anovulation, CC has been a long-standing first-line treatment in conjunction with intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI). We recently showed that a switch to gonadotropins increases the chance of live birth by 11% in these women over continued treatment with CC after six failed ovulatory cycles, at a cost of €15 258 per additional live birth. It is unclear whether EMT can be used to identify women who can continue on CC with similar live birth rates without the extra costs of gonadotropins.Study Design, Size, Duration: Between 8 December 2008 and 16 December 2015, 666 women with CC failure were randomly assigned to receive an additional six cycles with a change to gonadotropins (n = 331) or an additional six cycles continuing with CC (n = 335), both in conjunction with intercourse or IUI. The primary outcome was conception leading to live birth within 8 months after randomisation. EMT was measured mid-cycle before randomisation during their sixth ovulatory CC cycle. The EMT was available in 380 women, of whom 190 were allocated to gonadotropins and 190 were allocated to CC.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: EMT was determined in the sixth CC cycle prior to randomisation. We tested for interaction of EMT with the treatment effect using logistic regression. We performed a spline analysis to evaluate the association of EMT with chance to pregnancy leading to a live birth in the next cycles and to determine the best cut-off point. On the basis of the resulting cut-off point, we calculated the relative risk and 95% CI of live birth for gonadotropins versus CC at EMT values below and above this cut-off point. Finally, we calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER).Main Results and the Role Of Chance: Mid-cycle EMT in the sixth cycle interacted with treatment effect (P < 0.01). Spline analyses showed a cut-off point of 7 mm. There were 162 women (45%) who had an EMT ≤ 7 mm in the sixth ovulatory cycle and 218 women (55%) who had an EMT > 7 mm. Among the women with EMT ≤ 7 mm, gonadotropins resulted in a live birth in 44 of 79 women (56%), while CC resulted in a live birth in 28 of 83 women (34%) (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.13-2.19). Per additional live birth with gonadotropins, the ICER was €9709 (95% CI: €5117 to €25 302). Among the women with EMT > 7 mm, gonadotropins resulted in a live birth in 53 of 111 women (48%) while CC resulted in a live birth in 52 of 107 women (49%) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75-1.29).Limitations, Reasons For Caution: This was a post hoc analysis of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and therefore mid-cycle EMT measurements before randomisation during their sixth ovulatory CC cycle were not available for all included women.Wider Implications Of the Findings: In women with six failed ovulatory cycles on CC and an EMT ≤ 7 mm in the sixth cycle, we advise switching to gonadotropins, since it improves live birth rate over continuing treatment with CC at an extra cost of €9709 to achieve one additional live birth. If the EMT > 7 mm, we advise to continue treatment with CC, since live birth rates are similar to those with gonadotropins, without the extra costs.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The original MOVIN trial received funding from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw number: 80-82310-97-12067). C.B.L.A. reports unrestricted grant support from Merck and Ferring. B.W.M. is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for Merck, ObsEva, IGENOMIX and Guerbet. All other authors have nothing to declare.Trial Registration Number: Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR1449. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Are six cycles of ovulation induction with gonadotrophins more cost-effective than six cycles of ovulation induction with clomiphene citrate (CC) with or without IUI in normogonadotropic anovulatory women not pregnant after six ovulatory cycles with CC?Summary Answer: Both gonadotrophins and IUI are more expensive when compared with CC and intercourse, and gonadotrophins are more effective than CC.What Is Known Already: In women with normogonadotropic anovulation who ovulate but do not conceive after six cycles with CC, medication is usually switched to gonadotrophins, with or without IUI. The cost-effectiveness of these changes in policy is unknown.Study Design, Size, Duration: We performed an economic evaluation of ovulation induction with gonadotrophins compared with CC with or without IUI in a two-by-two factorial multicentre randomized controlled trial in normogonadotropic anovulatory women not pregnant after six ovulatory cycles with CC. Between December 2008 and December 2015 women were allocated to six cycles with gonadotrophins plus IUI, six cycles with gonadotrophins plus intercourse, six cycles with CC plus IUI or six cycles with CC plus intercourse. The primary outcome was conception leading to a live birth achieved within 8 months of randomization.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis on direct medical costs. We calculated the direct medical costs of ovulation induction with gonadotrophins versus CC and of IUI versus intercourse in six subsequent cycles. We included costs of medication, cycle monitoring, interventions, and pregnancy leading to live birth. Resource use was collected from the case report forms and unit costs were derived from various sources. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for gonadotrophins compared to CC and for IUI compared to intercourse. We used non-parametric bootstrap resampling to investigate the effect of uncertainty in our estimates. The analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: We allocated 666 women in total to gonadotrophins and IUI (n = 166), gonadotrophins and intercourse (n = 165), CC and IUI (n = 163), or CC and intercourse (n = 172). Mean direct medical costs per woman receiving gonadotrophins or CC were €4495 versus €3006 (cost difference of €1475 (95% CI: €1457-€1493)). Live birth rates were 52% in women allocated to gonadotrophins and 41% in those allocated to CC (relative risk (RR) 1.24:95% CI: 1.05-1.46). The ICER was €15 258 (95% CI: €8721 to €63 654) per additional live birth with gonadotrophins. Mean direct medical costs per woman allocated to IUI or intercourse were €4497 versus €3005 (cost difference of €1510 (95% CI: €1492-€1529)). Live birth rates were 49% in women allocated to IUI and 43% in those allocated to intercourse (RR = 1.14:95% CI: 0.97-1.35). The ICER was €24 361 (95% CI: €-11 290 to €85 172) per additional live birth with IUI.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: We allowed participating hospitals to use their local protocols for ovulation induction and IUI, which may have led to variation in costs, but which increases generalizability. Indirect costs generated by transportation or productivity loss were not included. We did not evaluate letrozole, which is potentially more effective than CC.Wider Implications Of the Findings: Gonadotrophins are more effective, but more expensive than CC, therefore, the use of gonadotrophins in women with normogonadotropic anovulation who have not conceived after six ovulatory CC cycles depends on society's willingness to pay for an additional child. In view of the uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness estimate of IUI, these data are not sufficient to make recommendations on the use of IUI in these women. In countries where ovulation induction regimens are reimbursed, policy makers and health care professionals may use our results in their guidelines.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This trial was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw number: 80-82310-97-12067). The Eudract number for this trial is 2008-006171-73. The Sponsor's Protocol Code Number is P08-40. CBLA reports unrestricted grant support from Merck and Ferring. BWM is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for Merck, ObsEva and Guerbet.Trial Registration Number: NTR1449. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]