Search

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 (sic)4495 versus (sic)3006 (cost difference of (sic)1475 (95% CI: (sic)1457-(sic)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 (sic)15 258 (95% CI: (sic)8721 to (sic)63 654) per additional live birth with gonadotrophins. Mean direct medical costs per woman allocated to IUI or intercourse were (sic)4497 versus (sic)3005 (cost difference of (sic)1510 (95% CI: (sic)1492-(sic)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 (sic)24 361 (95% CI: (sic)-11 290 to (sic)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.

The authors of the above article would like to apologise for errors in Figure 3 of their article. An old version of the figure file image was uploaded by the authors, with sub-sections A, B, C and D rearranged. The correct version of Figure 3 is included overpage. The electronic version of this article has been updated at https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dez065. The authors would liketo assure readers that this does not affect any content of the article. (Figure Presented).

STUDY QUESTION: Is FSH or clomiphene citrate (CC) the most effective stimulation regimen in terms of ongoing pregnancies in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with adherence to strict cancellation criteria as a measure to reduce the number of multiple pregnancies? SUMMARY ANSWER: In IUI with adherence to strict cancellation criteria, ovarian stimulation with FSH is not superior to CC in terms of the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate, and yields a similar, low multiple pregnancy rate. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: FSH has been shown to result in higher pregnancy rates compared to CC, but at the cost of high multiple pregnancy rates. To reduce the risk of multiple pregnancy, new ovarian stimulation regimens have been suggested, these include strict cancellation criteria to limit the number of dominant follicles per cycle i.e. withholding insemination when more than three dominant follicles develop. With such a strategy, it is unclear whether the ovarian stimulation should be done with FSH or with CC. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an open-label multicenter randomized superiority controlled trial in the Netherlands (NTR 4057). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We randomized couples diagnosed with unexplained subfertility and scheduled for a maximum of four cycles of IUI with ovarian stimulation with 75 IU FSH or 100 mg CC. Cycles were cancelled when more then three dominant follicles developed. The primary outcome was cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate. Multiple pregnancy was a secondary outcome. We analysed the data on intention to treat basis. We calculated relative risks and absolute risk difference with 95% CI. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between July 2013 and March 2016, we allocated 369 women to ovarian stimulation with FSH and 369 women to ovarian stimulation with CC. A total of 113 women (31%) had an ongoing pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with FSH and 97 women (26%) had an ongoing pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with CC (RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.93-1.47, ARD = 0.04, 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.11). Five women (1.4%) had a multiple pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with FSH and eight women (2.2%) had a multiple pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with CC (RR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.21-1.89, ARD = -0.01, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.01). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We were not able to blind this study due to the nature of the interventions. We consider it unlikely that this has introduced performance bias, since pregnancy outcomes are objective outcome measures. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We revealed that adherence to strict cancellation criteria is a successful solution to reduce the number of multiple pregnancies in IUI. To decide whether ovarian stimulation with FSH or with CC should be the regimen of choice, costs and patients' preferences should be taken into account. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This trial received funding from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw). Prof. Dr B.W.J. Mol is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for Merck, ObsEva and Guerbet. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Nederlands Trial Register NTR4057. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 1 July 2013. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT: The first patient was randomized at 27 August 2013.

STUDY QUESTION: Is vascular health associated with ovarian reserve status using type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM-1) as a model for vascular compromise? SUMMARY ANSWER: No conclusive evidence for an association between vascular health and ovarian ageing was found in women with DM-1. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The mechanism behind advanced ovarian ageing has not yet been elucidated. We hypothesize that vascular impairment precedes ovarian ageing. DM-1 is hallmarked by premature vascular complications that may consequently play a role in the rate of primordial follicle decline. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A cross-sectional, patient-control study was performed in 150 premenopausal, regular cycling women with DM-1, as well as a reference population of 177 healthy, fertile women. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In a single-study visit, an inventory of both ovarian reserve and vascular status was carried out in the DM-1 group. A transvaginal ultrasound to calculate the antral follicle count (AFC) and blood sampling for anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), lipids, C-reactive protein and HbA1c measurements were performed. Furthermore, vascular screening including measurements of blood pressure, flow-mediated dilation, peripheral arterial tonometry, pulse wave velocity, pulse wave analysis and intima-media thickness was carried out. The relative decrease in serum AMH levels in women with DM-1 compared with healthy references was investigated. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Systolic blood pressure was negatively correlated with both serum AMH (P= 0.006) and AFC (P= 0.004) in the DM-1 group. A non-linear relationship between HDL-cholesterol and serum AMH was found (P= 0.0001). No associations were detected between other vascular risk factors or vascular function tests and serum AMH or AFC in women with DM-1. With regard to the comparison of AMH levels between women with and without DM-1, mean AMH levels were 2.5 ± 1.9 ng/ml and 3.0 ± 2.8 ng/ml, respectively. After adjustment for confounders the difference in AMH levels between both groups appeared non-significant (fold change: 0.92, 95% confidence interval: 0.68-1.23). LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION: The use of different AMH assays and the cross-sectional design may limit the interpretation of this study. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The lack of evident association between vascular health and ovarian ageing may be the result of an insufficient vascular compromise in the relatively young, DM-1 group. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No external funding was received for conducting or publishing this study. F.Y., W.S., A.F., F.L.J.V., M.J.C.E. and H.W.d.V. have nothing to disclose. F.J.M.B. has received fees and grant support from the following companies: Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Merck Serono, Medical Specialties Distributors and Roche. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

STUDY QUESTION: Is type 1 diabetes a determinant of advanced ovarian ageing, resulting in an early age at natural menopause? SUMMARY ANSWER: No clear evidence was provided that type 1 diabetes is a determinant of accelerated ovarian ageing resulting in an early menopause. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The association between type 1 diabetes and early menopause has been examined previously with inconsistent results. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A cross-sectional study was performed in 140 post-menopausal women with, and 5426 postmenopausal women without, diabetes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Both women with and without diabetes had experienced natural menopause. Study participants filled out a standardized questionnaire including report of their age at last menstrual period. Differences in menopausal age were analysed using linear regression analyses, with adjustment for possible confounders. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Mean age at natural menopause was 49.8 +/- 4.7 years in women with type 1 diabetes and 49.8 +/- 4.1 in women without diabetes. Linear regression analyses showed that type 1 diabetes was not associated with an earlier menopause compared with the reference group without diabetes, after adjustment for age, smoking history and parity (difference in age at menopause between women with type 1 diabetes and reference group 0.34 years, 95% confidence interval -0.34, 1.01). LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION: Age at menopause was self-reported and assessed retrospectively. We had no information regarding microvascular complications therefore a possible association between vascular health and menopausal age could not be investigated. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: It has been hypothesized that the possible mechanism behind an accelerated ovarian ageing process in type 1 diabetes is prolonged poor glycaemic control and subsequent effects on vascular health. The improved glycaemic control during the last decades may have prevented vascular damage from occurring to an extent that would affect organ function. Nevertheless, the present findings are reassuring for reproductive health prospects in women with type 1 diabetes.