Search

BACKGROUND Poor ovarian response is a common clinical problem, affecting up to 26% of IVF cycles. For these women, addition of recombinant luteinizing hormone (rLH) to ovarian hyperstimulation with recombinant FSH has a beneficial effect on ongoing pregnancy rates, but its effect on the yield of top-quality embryos is unknown. METHODS We conducted a randomized controlled trial in women expected to respond poorly under ovarian hyperstimulation during their first IVF cycle [all women aged 35–41 and women with FSH > 12 IU/ml and antral follicle count (AFC) ≤ 5]. Women were randomly allocated to rFSH and rLH (2:1 ratio) or rFSH alone (control group) after down-regulation with a GnRH agonist. The primary outcome was the proportion of top-quality embryos per woman on the day of transfer. Secondary outcomes were the number of stimulation days, the number of follicles ≥17 mm, the number of oocytes, the fertilization rate, the number of embryos, the number of women with ≥1 top-quality embryo, the biochemical, clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates and the miscarriage rate. RESULTS There were 116 women allocated to the rLH group and 128 allocated to the control group. The proportion of top-quality embryos per woman was 17% in the rLH group and 11% in the control group [mean difference 0.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.01–0.14]. In the rLH and control groups respectively, 47 (41%) and 41 (32%) women had at least one top-quality embryo on the day of transfer (relative risk: 1.3, 95% CI 0.91–1.77). The ongoing pregnancy rate was 13 versus 12% (relative risk: 1.1; 95% CI 0.57–2.16) for the rLH group compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS This study found no significant difference in embryo quality after the addition of rLH to rFSH for ovarian stimulation in women with poor ovarian reserve. CLINICAL TRIALS IDENTIFIER NTR1457 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Does offering the Pleasure&Pregnancy (P&P) programme rather than expectant management improve naturally conceived ongoing pregnancy rates in couples diagnosed with unexplained infertility?, Summary Answer: The P&P programme had no effect on the ongoing pregnancy rates of couples with unexplained infertility., What Is Known Already: Underpowered studies suggested that face-to-face interventions targeting sexual health may increase pregnancy rates. The impact of an eHealth sexual health programme had yet to be evaluated by a large randomized controlled trial., Study Design, Size, Duration: This is a nationwide multi-centre, unblinded, randomized controlled superiority trial (web-based randomization programme, 1:1 allocation ratio). This RCT intended to recruit 1164 couples within 3 years but was put on hold after having included 700 couples over 5 years (2016-2021). The web-based P&P programme contains psychosexual information and couple communication, mindfulness and sensate focus exercises aiming to help maintain or improve sexual health, mainly pleasure, and hence increase pregnancy rates. The P&P programme additionally offers information on the biology of conception and enables couples to interact online with peers and via email with coaches., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Heterosexual couples with unexplained infertility and a Hunault-prognosis of at least 30% chance of naturally conceiving a live-born child within 12 months were included, after their diagnostic work-up in 41 Dutch secondary and tertiary fertility centres. The primary outcome was an ongoing pregnancy, defined as a viable intrauterine pregnancy of at least 12 weeks duration confirmed by an ultrasound scan, conceived naturally within 6 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes were time to pregnancy, live birth, sexual health, and personal and relational well-being at baseline and after 3 and 6 months. The primary analyses were according to intention-to-treat principles. We calculated relative risks (RRs, pregnancy rates) and a risk difference (RD, pregnancy rates), Kaplan-Meier survival curves (live birth over time), and time, group, and interactive effects with mixed models analyses (sexual health and well-being)., Main Results and the Role of Chance: Totals of 352 (one withdrawal) and 348 (three withdrawals) couples were allocated to, respectively the P&P group and the expectant management group. Web-based tracking of the intervention group showed a high attrition rate (57% of couples) and limited engagement (i.e. median of 16 visits and 33 min total visitation time per couple). Intention-to-treat analyses showed that 19.4% (n = 68/351) of the P&P group and 22.6% (n = 78/345) of the expectant management group achieved a naturally conceived ongoing pregnancy (RR = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.64-1.15, RD = -3.24%; 95% CI -9.28 to 2.81). The time to pregnancy did not differ between the groups (Log rank = 0.23). Live birth occurred in 18.8% (n = 66/351) of the couples of the P&P group and 22.3% (n = 77/345) of the couples of the expectant management group (RR = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.63-1.1). Intercourse frequency decreased equally over time in both groups. Sexual pleasure, orgasm, and satisfaction of women of the P&P group improved while these outcomes remained stable in the expectant management group. Male orgasm, intercourse satisfaction, and overall satisfaction decreased over time with no differences between groups. The intervention did not affect personal and relational well-being. Non-compliance by prematurely starting medically assisted reproduction, and clinical loss to follow-up were, respectively, 15.1% and 1.4% for the complete study population. Per protocol analysis for the primary outcome did not indicate a difference between the groups. Comparing the most engaged users with the expectant management group added that coital frequency decreased less, and that male sexual desire improved in the intervention group., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: The intended sample size of 1164 was not reached because of a slow recruitment rate. The achieved sample size was, however, large enough to exclude an improvement of more than 8% of the P&P programme on our primary outcome., Wider Implications of the Findings: The P&P programme should not be offered to increase natural pregnancy rates but may be considered to improve sexual health. The attrition from and limited engagement with the P&P programme is in line with research on other eHealth programmes and underlines the importance of a user experience study., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): Funded by The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw, reference: 843001605) and Flanders Research Foundation. C.B.L. is editor-in-chief of Human Reproduction. H.W.L. received royalties or licences from Prometheus Publishers Springer Media Thieme Verlag. J.B. received support from MercK for attending the ESHRE course 'The ESHRE guideline on ovarian stimulation, do we have agreement?' J.v.D. reports consulting fees and lecture payments from Ferring, not related to the presented work, and support for attending ESHRE from Goodlife and for attending NFI Riga from Merck. A.H. reports consulting fees by Ferring Pharmaceutical company, The Netherlands, paid to institution UMCG, not related to the presented work. H.V. reports consulting fees from Ferring Pharmaceutical company, The Netherlands, and he is a member of the ESHRE guideline development group unexplained infertility and Chair of the Dutch guideline on unexplained infertility (unpaid). M.G. declares unrestricted research and educational grants from Ferring not related to the presented work, paid to their institution VU Medical Centre. The other authors have no conflicts to declare., Trial Registration Number: NTR5709., Trial Registration Date: 4 February 2016., Date of First Patient’s Enrolment: 27 June 2016., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Background: ART differs in effectiveness, side-effects, administration, and costs. To improve the decision-making process, we need to understand what factors patients consider to be most important., Objective and Rationale: We conducted this systematic review to assess which aspects of ART treatment (effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, and genetic parenthood) are most important in the decision-making of patients with an unfulfilled wish to have a child., Search Methods: We searched studies indexed in Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL prior to November 2023. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs), surveys, interviews, and conjoint analyses (CAs) about ART were included. Studies were included if they described two or more of the following attributes: effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, and genetic parenthood.Participants were men and women with an unfulfilled wish to have a child. From each DCE/CA study, we extracted the beta-coefficients and calculated the relative importance of treatment attributes or, in case of survey studies, extracted results. We assessed the risk of bias using the rating developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. Attributes were classified into effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, genetic parenthood, and others., Outcomes: The search identified 938 studies of which 20 were included: 13 DCEs, three survey studies, three interview studies, and one conjoint analysis, with a total of 12 452 patients. Per study, 47-100% of the participants were women. Studies were assessed as having moderate to high risk of bias (critical: six studies, serious: four studies, moderate: nine studies, low: one study). The main limitation was the heterogeneity in the questionnaires and methodology utilized. Studies varied in the number and types of assessed attributes. Patients' treatment decision-making was mostly driven by effectiveness, followed by safety, burden, costs, and patient-centeredness. Effectiveness was rated as the first or second most important factor in 10 of the 12 DCE studies (83%) and the relative importance of effectiveness varied between 17% and 63%, with a median of 34% (moderate certainty of evidence). Of eight studies evaluating safety, five studies valued safety as the first or second most important factor (63%), and the relative importance ranged from 8% to 35% (median 23%) (moderate certainty of evidence). Cost was rated as first or second most important in five of 10 studies, and the importance relative to the other attributes varied between 5% and 47% (median 23%) (moderate certainty of evidence). Burden was rated as first or second by three of 10 studies (30%) and the relative importance varied between 1% and 43% (median 13%) (low certainty of evidence). Patient-centeredness was second most important in one of five studies (20%) and had a relative importance between 7% and 24% (median 14%) (low certainty of evidence). Results suggest that patients are prepared to trade-off some effectiveness for more safety, or less burden and patient-centeredness. When safety was evaluated, the safety of the child was considered more important than the mother's safety. Greater burden (cycle cancellations, number of injections, number of hospital visits, time) was more likely to be accepted by patients if they gained effectiveness, safety, or lower costs. Concerning patient-centeredness, information provision and physician attitude were considered most important, followed by involvement in decision-making, and treatment continuity by the same medical professional. Non-genetic parenthood did not have a clear impact on decision-making., Wider Implications: The findings of this review can be used in future preference studies and can help healthcare professionals in guiding patients' decision-making and enable a more patient-centered approach., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Study Question: For couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, is 6 months expectant management (EM) inferior to IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS), in terms of live births?, Summary Answer: In couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, 6 months of EM is inferior compared to IUI-OS in terms of live births., What Is Known Already: Couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis are often treated with IUI-OS. In couples with unexplained subfertility and a relatively good prognosis for natural conception (>30% in 12 months), IUI-OS does not increase the live birth rate as compared to 6 months of EM. However, in couples with a poor prognosis for natural conception (<30% in 12 months), the effectiveness of IUI-OS is uncertain., Study Design, Size, Duration: We performed a non-inferiority multicentre randomized controlled trial within the infrastructure of the Dutch Consortium for Healthcare Evaluation and Research in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. We intended to include 1091 couples within 3 years. The couples were allocated in a 1:1 ratio to 6 months EM or 6 months IUI-OS with either clomiphene citrate or gonadotrophins., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: We studied heterosexual couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception (<30% in 12 months). The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to a live birth. Non-inferiority would be shown if the lower limit of the one-sided 90% risk difference (RD) CI was less than minus 7% compared to an expected live birth rate of 30% following IUI-OS. We calculated RD, relative risks (RRs) with 90% CI and a corresponding hazard rate for live birth over time based on intention-to-treat and per-protocol (PP) analysis., Main Results and the Role of Chance: Between October 2016 and September 2020, we allocated 92 couples to EM and 86 to IUI-OS. The trial was halted pre-maturely owing to slow inclusion. Mean female age was 34 years, median duration of subfertility was 21 months. Couples allocated to EM had a lower live birth rate than couples allocated to IUI-OS (12/92 (13%) in the EM group versus 28/86 (33%) in the IUI-OS group; RR 0.40 90% CI 0.24 to 0.67). This corresponds to an absolute RD of minus 20%; 90% CI: -30% to -9%. The hazard ratio for live birth over time was 0.36 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.70). In the PP analysis, live births rates were 8 of 70 women (11%) in the EM group versus 26 of 73 women (36%) in the IUI-OS group (RR 0.32, 90% CI 0.18 to 0.59; RD -24%, 90% CI -36% to -13%) in line with inferiority of EM., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: Our trial did not reach the planned sample size, therefore the results are limited by the number of participants., Wider Implications of the Findings: This study confirms the results of a previous trial that in couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, EM is inferior to IUI-OS., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The trial was supported by a grant of the SEENEZ healthcare initiative. The subsidizing parties were The Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW 837004023, www.zonmw.nl) and the umbrella organization of 10 health insurers in The Netherlands. E.R.G. receives personal fees from Titus Health care outside the submitted work. M.G. declares unrestricted research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring not related to the presented work, paid to their institution VU medical centre. A.B.H. reports receiving travel and speakers fees from Nordic Pharma and Merck and he is member of the Nordic Pharma ANGEL group and of the Safety Monitoring Board of Womed. C.B.L. reports speakers fee from Inmed and Yingming, and his department receives research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet paid to VU medical centre. B.W.J.M. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437) and reports consultancy for ObsEva and Merck. M.v.W. received a grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development ZonMW (80-8520098-91072). F.M. received two grants from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development ZonMW (NTR 5599 and NTR 6590). The other authors report no competing interest., Trial Registration Number: Dutch Trial register NL5455 (NTR5599)., Trial Registration Date: 18 December 2015., Date of First Patient’s Enrolment: 26 January 2017., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Background: Intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) is a first-line treatment for unexplained infertility. Gonadotrophins, letrozole and clomiphene citrate (CC) are commonly used agents during IUI-OS and have been compared in multiple aggregate data meta-analyses, with substantial heterogeneity and no analysis on time-to-event outcomes. Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) is considered the gold standard for evidence synthesis as it can offset inadequate reporting of individual studies by obtaining the IPD, and allows analyses on treatment-covariate interactions to identify couples who benefit most from a particular treatment., Objective and Rationale: We performed this IPD-MA to compare the effectiveness and safety of ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophins, letrozole and CC and to explore treatment-covariate interactions for important baseline characteristics in couples undergoing IUI., Search Methods: We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from their inception to 28 June 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IUI-OS with gonadotrophins, letrozole and CC among couples with unexplained infertility. We contacted the authors of eligible RCTs to share the IPD and established the IUI IPD-MA Collaboration. The primary effectiveness outcome was live birth and the primary safety outcome was multiple pregnancy. Secondary outcomes were other reproductive outcomes, including time to conception leading to live birth. We performed a one-stage random effects IPD-MA., Outcomes: Seven of 22 (31.8%) eligible RCTs provided IPD of 2495 couples (62.4% of the 3997 couples participating in 22 RCTs), of which 2411 had unexplained infertility and were included in this IPD-MA. Six RCTs (n = 1511) compared gonadotrophins with CC, and one (n = 900) compared gonadotrophins, letrozole and CC. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that gonadotrophins increased the live birth rate compared to CC (6 RCTs, 2058 women, RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.12-1.51, I2 = 26%). Low-certainty evidence showed that gonadotrophins may also increase the multiple pregnancy rate compared to CC (6 RCTs, 2058 women, RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.33-3.54, I2 = 69%). Heterogeneity on multiple pregnancy could be explained by differences in gonadotrophin starting dose and choice of cancellation criteria. Post-hoc sensitivity analysis on RCTs with a low starting dose of gonadotrophins (≤75 IU) confirmed increased live birth rates compared to CC (5 RCTs, 1457 women, RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05-1.51), but analysis on only RCTs with stricter cancellation criteria showed inconclusive evidence on live birth (4 RCTs, 1238 women, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.94-1.41). For multiple pregnancy, both sensitivity analyses showed inconclusive findings between gonadotrophins and CC (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.45-1.96; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.32-2.03, respectively). Moderate certainty evidence showed that gonadotrophins reduced the time to conception leading to a live birth when compared to CC (6 RCTs, 2058 women, HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15-1.63, I2 = 22%). No strong evidence on the treatment-covariate (female age, BMI or primary versus secondary infertility) interactions was found., Wider Implications: In couples with unexplained infertility undergoing IUI-OS, gonadotrophins increased the chance of a live birth and reduced the time to conception compared to CC, at the cost of a higher multiple pregnancy rate, when not differentiating strategies on cancellation criteria or the starting dose. The treatment effects did not seem to differ in women of different age, BMI or primary versus secondary infertility. In a modern practice where a lower starting dose and stricter cancellation criteria are in place, effectiveness and safety of different agents seem both acceptable, and therefore intervention availability, cost and patients' preferences should factor in the clinical decision-making. As the evidence for comparisons to letrozole is based on one RCT providing IPD, further RCTs comparing letrozole and other interventions for unexplained infertility are needed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

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.)

Research Question: Are unmet needs for psychosocial counselling, peer support and friends/family support in parents directly and/or indirectly related to the mental health of parents and their donor-children?, Design: A cross-sectional sample of 214 parents participated in this quantitative study via an online questionnaire. The sample comprised mothers and fathers in a heterosexual relationship (n = 85), mothers in a lesbian relationship (n = 67) and single mothers (n = 62). Parents were recruited via three Dutch fertility clinics and four network organizations. Unmet support needs were measured with an adapted version of the Unmet Needs for Parenting Support questionnaire, changing the original items into items about donor conception. The items were derived from a qualitative study and checked by experts in donor conception. The parents' mental health was measured with the Adult Self Report and the donor-children's mental health with the Child Behaviour Checklist. A multigroup mediation analysis was conducted to explore relationships between parents' unmet support needs and their child's mental health, with the parents' mental health as a possible mediator., Results: There were no direct relations between parents' unmet support needs and the mental health of donor-children. Unmet needs for psychosocial counselling, peer support and friends/family support for parents and children's mental health were indirectly related through the mental health of the parents: 0.074 (CI 95%  = 0.013-0.136; P = 0.017), 0.085 (CI 95% = 0.018-0.151; P = 0.036) and 0.063 (CI 95% = 0.019-0.106; P = 0.013), respectively., Conclusions: We recommend that fertility clinics, network organizations and authorities for infertility counsellors make their support available to parents for extended periods after their treatment. Further qualitative studies are necessary to assess how to relieve unmet support needs during donor sperm treatment., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Study Question: What is the prevalence of pre-eclampsia (PE) in pregnancies after oocyte donation (OD) compared to natural conception (NC) and to IVF with autologous oocytes (AO)?, Summary Answer: Overall the prevalence of PE after OD was 4-5 times higher than after NC and 2-3 times higher than after IVF with AO., What Is Known Already: The indication for OD is expanding to lesbian women requesting shared lesbian motherhood. Previous reviews have shown that the risk of PE is higher in pregnancies after OD than after NC and after IVF with AO. Classification on the severity of PE is lacking as is the relationship with known risk factors such as maternal age and multiple gestations. Furthermore the actual prevalence of PE in pregnancies resulting from OD is not known., Study Design, Size, Duration: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. A literature search was performed using the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL, OpenGrey and Greynet from January 1980 through July 2020., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: We included retrospective and prospective cohort studies. The study population consisted of pregnancies after OD and NC or IVF and data had to be available about prevalence of PE. We compared the risk of (severe) PE in OD versus NC and IVF pregnancies, subgrouped by plurality and maternal age. We calculated individual and pooled odds ratios (OR) and prevalence estimates with 95% CI using a random effect model, while heterogeneity was assessed by the I2., Main Results and the Role of Chance: In total, 27 studies comprising of 7089 OD pregnancies, 1 139 540 NC pregnancies and 72 742 IVF pregnancies were available for analysis. The risks of PE and severe PE was increased in OD pregnancies compared to NC pregnancies (pooled OR of all subgroups: 5.09, 95% CI: 4.29-6.04; I2 = 19% and OR: 7.42, 95% CI: 4.64-11.88; I2 = 49%, respectively). This suggests that compared to a PE risk of 2.9% with NC, the risk with OD was between 11.5% and 15.4%. Compared to a severe PE risk of 0.5% with NC, the risk with OD was between 2.3% and 5.6%. The pooled adjusted OR for PE was 3.24 (95% 2.74-3.83) for OD versus NC pregnancies. The risks of PE and severe PE were also increased in OD pregnancies compared to IVF pregnancies (pooled OR of all subgroups: 2.97, 95% CI: 2.49-3.53; I2 = 51% and OR: 2.97, 95% CI: 2.15-4.11; I2 = 0%, respectively). This suggests that compared to a PE risk of 5.9% with IVF, the risk with OD was between 13.5% and 18.0%. Compared to a severe PE risk of 3.3% with IVF, the risk with OD was between 6.8% and 12.2%. The pooled adjusted OR for PE was 2.67 (95% 2.28-3.13) for OD versus IVF. The pooled prevalence of PE in singleton pregnancies after OD was 10.7% (95% CI 6.6-15.5) compared to 2.0% (95% CI 1.0-3.1) after NC and 4.1% (95% CI 2.7-5.6) after IVF. The prevalence in multiple pregnancies was 27.8% (95% CI 23.6-32.2) after OD, 7.5% (95% CI 7.2-7.8) after NC and 9.7% (95% CI 6.2-13.9) after IVF., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: The precise definition of PE is still a matter of debate. The different criteria could have affected the prevalence estimate., Wider Implications of the Findings: Nearly one in six women will suffer PE after OD. Although it is uncertain whether these risks are consistent for lesbian couples undergoing shared motherhood, we feel that women who can conceive naturally could be advised to reconsider. In women with primary ovarian insufficiency, we feel that factors that may increase risk of PE ever further, such as double embryo transfer, should be avoided whenever possible., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): No funding or competing interests., Registration Number: CRD42020166899., (© The Author(s) 2021. 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: Does assisted reproduction, such as ovarian stimulation and/or laboratory procedures, have impact on perinatal outcomes of singleton live births compared to natural conception in couples with unexplained subfertility?, Summary Answer: Compared to natural conception, singletons born after intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) had a lower birthweight, while singletons born after IVF had comparable birthweights, in couples with unexplained subfertility., What Is Known Already: Singletons conceived by assisted reproduction have different perinatal outcomes such as low birthweight and a higher risk of premature birth than naturally conceived singletons. This might be due to the assisted reproduction, such as laboratory procedures or the ovarian stimulation, or to an intrinsic factor in couples with subfertility., Study Design, Size, Duration: We performed a prospective cohort study using the follow-up data of two randomized clinical trials performed in couples with unexplained subfertility. We evaluated perinatal outcomes of 472 live birth singletons conceived after assisted reproduction or after natural conception within the time horizon of the studies., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: To assess the possible impact of ovarian stimulation we compared the singletons conceived after IUI with FSH or clomiphene citrate (CC) and IVF in a modified natural cycle (IVF-MNC) or standard IVF with single embryo transfer (IVF-SET) to naturally conceived singletons in the same cohorts. To further look into the possible effect of the laboratory procedures, we put both IUI and IVF groups together into IUI-OS and IVF and compared both to singletons born after natural conception. We only included singletons conceived after fresh embryo transfers. The main outcome was birthweight presented as absolute weight in grams and gestational age- and gender-adjusted percentiles. We calculated differences in birthweight using regression analyses adjusted for maternal age, BMI, smoking, parity, duration of subfertility and child gender., Main Results and the Role of Chance: In total, there were 472 live birth singletons. Of the 472 singleton pregnancies, 209 were conceived after IUI-OS (136 with FSH and 73 with CC as ovarian stimulation), 138 after IVF (50 after IVF-MNC and 88 after IVF-SET) and 125 were conceived naturally.Singletons conceived following IUI-FSH and IUI-CC both had lower birthweights compared to naturally conceived singletons (adjusted difference IUI-FSH -156.3 g, 95% CI -287.9 to -24.7; IUI-CC -160.3 g, 95% CI -316.7 to -3.8). When we compared IVF-MNC and IVF-SET to naturally conceived singletons, no significant difference was found (adjusted difference IVF-MNC 75.8 g, 95% CI -102.0 to 253.7; IVF-SET -10.6 g, 95% CI -159.2 to 138.1). The mean birthweight percentile was only significantly lower in the IUI-FSH group (-7.0 percentile, 95% CI -13.9 to -0.2). The IUI-CC and IVF-SET group had a lower mean percentile and the IVF-MNC group a higher mean percentile, but these groups were not significant different compared to the naturally conceived group (IUI-CC -5.1 percentile, 95% CI -13.3 to 3.0; IVF-MNC 4.4 percentile, 95% CI -4.9 to 13.6; IVF-SET -1.3 percentile, 95% CI -9.1 to 6.4).Looking at the laboratory process that took place, singletons conceived following IUI-OS had lower birthweights than naturally conceived singletons (adjusted difference -157.7 g, 95% CI -277.4 to -38.0). The IVF group had comparable birthweights with the naturally conceived group (adjusted difference 20.9 g, 95% CI -110.8 to 152.6). The mean birthweight percentile was significantly lower in the IUI-OS group compared to the natural group (-6.4 percentile, 95% CI -12.6 to -0.1). The IVF group was comparable (0.7 percentile, 95% CI -6.1 to 7.6)., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: The results are limited by the number of cases. The data were collected prospectively alongside the randomized controlled trials, but analyzed as treated., Wider Implications of the Findings: Our data suggest IUI in a stimulated cycle may have a negative impact on the birthweight of the child and possibly on pre-eclampsia. Further research should look into the effect of different methods of ovarian stimulation on placenta pathology and pre-eclampsia in couples with unexplained subfertility using naturally conceived singletons in the unexplained population as a reference., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): Both initial trials were supported by a grant from ZonMW, the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (INeS 120620027, SUPER 80-83600-98-10192). The INeS study also had a grant from Zorgverzekeraars Nederland, the Dutch association of healthcare insurers (09-003). B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC investigator Grant (GNT1176437) and reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck Merck KGaA, Guerbet and iGenomix, outside the submitted work. A.H. reports grants from Ferring Pharmaceutical company (the Netherlands), outside the submitted work. F.J.M.B. receives monetary compensation as a member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono (the Netherlands), Ferring Pharmaceutics BV (the Netherlands) and Gedeon Richter (Belgium), he receives personal fees from educational activities for Ferring BV (the Netherlands) and for advisory and consultancy work for Roche and he receives research support grants from Merck Serono and Ferring Pharmaceutics BV, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose., Trial Registration Number: INeS study Trial NL915 (NTR939); SUPER Trial NL3895 (NTR4057)., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Research Question: What are the unmet needs after psychosocial counselling and mental health of women who opt for donor sperm treatment (DST), and are unmet counselling needs related to their mental health?, Design: This quantitative study included women in a heterosexual relationship (n = 19), women in a lesbian relationship (n = 25) and single women (n = 51) who opted for DST. Women were included if they had passed the DST intake procedure at a Dutch fertility clinic, were not pregnant and had no previous donor-child. Unmet needs were measured by a self-developed questionnaire based on specific topics identified in a previous qualitative study with added items from experts in the field of DST. The Adult Self Report was used to measure mental health. Relationships between unmet counselling needs and mental health were explored by multiple regression analyses., Results: Fifty-two women (55%) reported unmet counselling needs. Women in heterosexual relationships mostly had unmet counselling needs on the topics of the decision to opt for DST (n = 11, 58%) and non-genetic parenthood (n = 11, 58%); women in lesbian relationships (n = 10, 40%) and single women (n = 14, 27%) mostly had unmet needs on the topic of choosing a sperm donor. In general, women had good mental health, but 13 (14%) met the criteria for clinical mental health problems. Women with more unmet counselling needs also had more mental health problems., Conclusions: Evidence-based guidelines for psychosocial counselling in DST should be developed. Only then can counselling be improved and be fit for purpose., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective : This study aimed to explore which topics intended parents who opt for donor sperm treatment find relevant to discuss in psychosocial counselling. Background : The choice for donor sperm treatment has psychosocial implications for intended parents and therefore psychosocial counselling is advised as an integral part of DST. To date, little is known about which topics intended parents find relevant to discuss in psychosocial counselling. Methods : We conducted 25 semi-structured in-depth interviews between 2015 and 2017 with heterosexual men and women, lesbian women and single women who opted for donor sperm treatment and had a counselling session as part of their intake. They were recruited through three Dutch fertility centres, three network organisations and by snowball sampling. Results : Intended parents found it relevant to discuss the following seven topics in psychosocial counselling: the decision to opt for donor sperm treatment, choosing a sperm donor, coping with questions from family and friends, non-genetic parenthood, single motherhood, openness and disclosure, and future contact between the child and half-siblings. Conclusion : We recommend that counsellors take a more active role in bringing up the topics found in our study and that a clear distinction is made between counselling with the aim to screen intended parents and counselling with the aim to offer guidance.

Study Question: What is the rate of natural conception leading to ongoing pregnancy or livebirth over 6-12 months for infertile women of age ≥35 years?, Summary Answer: Natural conception rates were still clinically relevant in women aged 35 years and above and were significantly higher in women with unexplained infertility compared to those with other diagnoses., What Is Known Already: In recent years, increasing numbers of women have attempted to conceive at a later age, resulting in a commensurate increase in the need for ART. However, there is a lack of data on natural fertility outcomes (i.e. no interventions) in women with increasing age., Study Design, Size, Duration: A systematic review with individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis was carried out. PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov were searched until 1 July 2018 including search terms 'fertility service', 'waiting list', 'treatment-independent' and 'spontaneous conception'. Language restrictions were not imposed., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Inclusion criteria were studies (at least partly) reporting on infertile couples with female partner of age ≥35 years who attended fertility services, underwent fertility workup (e.g. history, semen analysis, tubal status and ovulation status) and were exposed to natural conception (e.g. independent of treatment such as IVF, ovulation induction and tubal surgery). Studies that exclusively studied only one infertility diagnosis, without including other women presenting to infertility services for other causes of infertility, were excluded. For studies that met the inclusion criteria, study authors were contacted to provide IPD, after which fertility outcomes for women of age ≥35 years were retrieved. Time to pregnancy or livebirth and the effect of increasing age on fertility outcomes after adjustment for other prognostic factors were analysed. Quality of studies was graded with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (non-randomised controlled trials (RCTs)) or the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (for RCTs)., Main Results and the Role of Chance: We included nine studies (seven cohort studies and two RCTs) (n = 4379 women of at least age 35 years), with the observed composite primary outcome of ongoing pregnancy or livebirth occurring in 429 women (9.8%) over a median follow-up of 5 months (25th to 75th percentile: 2.5-8.5 months). Studies were of moderate to high quality. The probability of natural conception significantly decreased with any diagnosis of infertility, when compared with unexplained infertility. We found non-linear effects of female age and duration of infertility on ongoing pregnancy and tabulated the predicted probabilities for unexplained infertile women aged 35-42 years with either primary or secondary infertility and with a duration of infertility from 1 to 6 years. For a 35-year-old woman with 2 years of primary unexplained infertility, the predicted probability of natural conception leading to ongoing pregnancy or livebirth was 0.15 (95% CI 0.11-0.19) after 6 months and 0.24 (95% CI 0.17-0.30) after 12 months. For a 42-year-old woman, this decreased to 0.08 (95% CI 0.04-0.11) after 6 months and 0.13 (95% CI 0.07-0.18) after 12 months., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: In the studies selected, there were different study designs, recruitment strategies in different centres, protocols and countries and different methods of assessment of infertility. Data were limited for women above the age of 40 years., Wider Implications of the Findings: Women attending fertility services should be encouraged to pursue natural conception while waiting for treatment to commence and after treatment if it is unsuccessful. Our results may aid in counselling women, and, in particular, for those with unexplained infertility., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): S.J.C. received funding from the University of Adelaide Summer Research Scholarship. B.W.M. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437), B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Merck KGaA, iGenomix and Guerbet. B.W.M. reports research support by Merck and Guerbet., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42018096552., (© The Author(s) 2020. 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: What is, in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI, the impact of gonadotrophins compared to clomiphene citrate (CC) on endometrial thickness (EMT) in relation to ongoing pregnancy?, Summary Answer: In women with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with ovarian stimulation, gonadotrophins lead to a thicker endometrium compared to CC, but this does not affect ongoing pregnancy rates., What Is Known Already: A systematic review and meta-analysis among couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with ovarian stimulation showed that women who conceived had, on average, a thicker endometrium than women who did not conceive, but this evidence is not robust due to a high level of heterogeneity. There was insufficient data to draw any conclusions on EMT and the effect on pregnancy outcomes., Study Design Size Duration: We performed a secondary analysis of a multicentre randomized controlled superiority trial in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with adherence to strict cancellation criteria. In total, 738 couples recruited between July 2013 and March 2016 were allocated to ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophins ( n  = 369) or with CC ( n  = 369) for a maximum of four IUI cycles. According to local protocol, recombinant FSH, urinary FSH or hMG was used. Natural conceptions and cancelled cycles were removed from this secondary analysis, as they do not provide any information on pregnancy in relation to stimulation after IUI. Ongoing pregnancy was defined as a positive heartbeat at or beyond 12 weeks of gestation., Participants/materials Setting Methods: We first determined the difference in EMT between women randomized to gonadotrophins (75 IU) and CC (100 mg) over all cycles using a linear mixed model. We then investigated the association between EMT and ongoing pregnancy after IUI using a logistic regression model, adjusted for the allocated drug, number of dominant follicles, female age, BMI, duration of subfertility, primary or secondary subfertility, referral status, smoking status, cycle number and total motile sperm count. To conclude, we investigated the association between EMT and ongoing pregnancy by logistic regression separately in women allocated to gonadotrophins and in women allocated to CC., Main Results and the Role of Chance: A total of 666 couples underwent 1968 IUI cycles. Of these, 330 couples were allocated to gonadotrophins, of which 85 conceived leading to ongoing pregnancy (rate per cycle 8.9%) and 336 couples were allocated to CC, of which 71 conceived leading to ongoing pregnancy (rate per cycle 7.0%) (relative risk (RR) 1.22, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.61). The mean EMT was 8.9 mm (SD 2.1) in women treated with gonadotrophins and 7.5 mm (SD 2.1) in women treated with CC (adjusted mean difference 1.4 mm; 95% CI: 1.1-1.7). The overall mean EMT was 8.4 mm (SD 2.2) in women that conceived leading to ongoing pregnancy and 8.2 mm (SD 2.2) in women that did not conceive (adjusted odds ratio (OR): 1.03 per 1 mm increase, 95% CI 0.95-1.12). There was no association between EMT and ongoing pregnancy in women treated with gonadotrophins or CC (OR: 1.01 per 1 mm increase, 95% CI 0.90-1.13, and 1.10 per 1 mm increase, 95% CI 0.99-1.23, respectively)., Limitations Reason for Caution: Since this is a secondary analysis, the data should be interpreted prudently as secondary analyses are prone to false-positive findings or could be underpowered to show associations that the study is not primarily set up for., Wider Implications of the Findings: In women with unexplained subfertility and treated with IUI, gonadotrophins lead to a significantly thicker endometrium compared to CC, but there was no evidence of a consistent association between EMT in women treated with gonadotrophins or CC and the ongoing pregnancy rate. A relatively thin endometrium after CC is therefore not a valid reason to prefer gonadotrophins as the stimulation agent in IUI for unexplained subfertility., Study Funding/competing Interests: The initial trial was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) (Health Care Efficiency Research; project number: 80-83600-98-10 192). The EudraCT number for this trial was 2013-001034-18. Prof. Dr B.W.J.M. is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for Merck, ObsEva and Guerbet. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., Trial Registration Number: NTR 4057., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Background: IUI for unexplained infertility can be performed in a natural cycle or in combination with ovarian stimulation. A disadvantage of ovarian stimulation is an increased risk of multiple pregnancies with its inherent maternal and neonatal complication risks. Stimulation agents for ovarian stimulation are clomiphene citrate (CC), Letrozole or gonadotrophins. Although studies have compared two or three of these drugs to each other in IUI, they have never been compared to one another in one analysis., Objective and Rationale: The objective of this network meta-analysis was to compare the effectiveness and safety of IUI with CC, Letrozole or gonadotrophins with each other and with natural cycle IUI., Search Methods: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL and the Clinical Trial Registration Database indexed up to 16 August 2018. We included randomized controlled trials that compared a stimulation regimen with CC, Letrozole or gonadotrophins to each other or to natural cycle IUI among couples with unexplained infertility. We performed the network meta-analysis within a multivariate random effects model., Outcomes: We identified 26 studies reporting on 5316 women. The relative risk (RR) for live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates comparing IUI with CC to natural cycle IUI was 1.05 (95% CI 0.63-1.77, low quality of evidence), while comparing IUI with Letrozole to natural cycle IUI was 1.15 (95% CI 0.63-2.08, low quality of evidence) and comparing IUI with gonadotrophins to natural cycle IUI was 1.46 (95% CI 0.92-2.30, low quality of evidence). The RR for live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates comparing gonadotrophins to CC was 1.39 (95% CI 1.09-1.76, moderate quality of evidence), comparing Letrozole to CC was 1.09 (95% CI 0.76-1.57, moderate quality of evidence) and comparing Letrozole to gonadotrophins was 0.79 (95% CI 0.54-1.15, moderate quality of evidence). We did not perform network meta-analysis on multiple pregnancy due to high inconsistency. Pairwise meta-analyses showed an RR for multiple pregnancy rates of 9.11(95% CI 1.18-70.32) comparing IUI with gonadotrophins to natural cycle IUI. There was no data available on multiple pregnancy rates following IUI with CC or Letrozole compared to natural cycle IUI. The RR for multiple pregnancy rates comparing gonadotrophins to CC was 1.42 (95% CI 0.68-2.97), comparing Letrozole to CC was 0.97 (95% CI 0.47-2.01) and comparing Letrozole to gonadotrophins was 0.29 (95% CI 0.14-0.58).In a meta-analysis among studies with adherence to strict cancellation criteria, the RR for live births/ongoing pregnancy rates comparing gonadotrophins to CC was 1.20 (95% CI 0.95-1.51) and the RR for multiple pregnancy rates comparing gonadotropins to CC was 0.80 (95% CI 0.38-1.68)., Wider Implications: Based on low to moderate quality of evidence in this network meta-analysis, IUI with gonadotrophins ranked highest on live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates, but women undergoing this treatment protocol were also at risk for multiple pregnancies with high complication rates. IUI regimens with adherence to strict cancellation criteria led to an acceptable multiple pregnancy rate without compromising the effectiveness. Within a protocol with adherence to strict cancellation criteria, gonadotrophins seem to improve live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates compared to CC. We, therefore, suggest performing IUI with ovarian stimulation using gonadotrophins within a protocol that includes strict cancellation criteria. Obviously, this ignores the impact of costs and patients preference., (© 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.)

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.)

Unexplained infertility is a common diagnosis among couples with infertility. Pragmatic treatment options in these couples are directed at trying to improve chances to conceive, and consequently intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian stimulation and in vitro fertilization (IVF) are standard clinical practice, while expectant management remains an important alternative. While evidence on IVF or IUI with ovarian stimulation versus expectant management was inconclusive, these interventions seem more effective in couples with a poor prognosis of natural conception. Strategies such as strict cancellation criteria and single-embryo transfer aim to reduce multiple pregnancies without compromising cumulative live birth. We propose a prognosis-based approach to manage couples with unexplained infertility so as to expose less couples to unnecessary interventions and less mothers and children to the potential adverse effects of ovarian stimulation or laboratory procedures., Competing Interests: The authors do not have conflict of interest to declare., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The OPTIMIST trial revealed that for women starting in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment, no substantial differences exist in first cycle and cumulative live birth rates between an antral follicle count (AFC)-based individualized follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) dose and a standard dose. Female age and body weight have been suggested to cause heterogeneity in the effect of FSH dose individualization. The objective of the current study is to evaluate whether these patient characteristics modify the effect of AFC-based individualized FSH dosing in IVF/ICSI treatment., Material and Methods: A secondary data-analysis of the OPTIMIST trial. Women initiating IVF/ICSI treatment were classified as predicted poor (AFC 0-7), suboptimal (AFC 8-10) or hyper responders (AFC >15), and randomly allocated to a standard FSH dose (150 IU/d) or an individualized FSH dose (450, 225 or 100 IU/d for predicted poor, suboptimal and hyper responders, respectively). In each predicted response category, logistic regression models with interaction terms were used to evaluate the presence of effect modification. The first cycle was analyzed, and the primary outcomes were first complete cycle live birth rate (including fresh plus frozen-thawed embryo transfers) and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) risks., Results: No effect modification was revealed in the predicted poor (n = 234) and suboptimal (n = 277) responders. In the predicted hyper responders (n = 521), the effect of the individualized FSH dose on the first cycle live birth rate was modified by female age (P = 0.02) and the effect on OHSS risks was modified by body weight (P = 0.02). A dose reduction from 150 to 100 IU/d generally decreased the OHSS risks in predicted hyper responders, but also reduced the chance of a live birth in young women, and had no beneficial impact on OHSS risks in women with a relatively low body weight., Conclusions: In women with a predicted hyper response undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment, female age and body weight seem to modify the effect of FSH dose individualization. Although a reduced FSH starting dose generally decreases the OHSS risks, it may also reduce the chance of a live birth, specifically for young women. Future studies could consider these findings when investigating the optimal approach to reduce OHSS risks while maintaining the probability of a live birth for predicted hyper responders in IVF/ICSI treatment., (© 2019 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology.)

Background: Clinical management for unexplained infertility includes expectant management as well as active treatments, including ovarian stimulation (OS), intrauterine insemination (IUI), OS-IUI,  and in vitro fertilisation (IVF) with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).Existing systematic reviews have conducted head-to-head comparisons of these interventions using pairwise meta-analyses. As this approach allows only the comparison of two interventions at a time and is contingent on the availability of appropriate primary evaluative studies, it is difficult to identify the best intervention in terms of effectiveness and safety. Network meta-analysis compares multiple treatments simultaneously by using both direct and indirect evidence and provides a hierarchy of these treatments, which can potentially better inform clinical decision-making., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different approaches to clinical management (expectant management, OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF/ICSI) in couples with unexplained infertility., Search Methods: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We searched electronic databases including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL, up to 6 September 2018, as well as reference lists, to identify eligible studies. We also searched trial registers for ongoing trials., Selection Criteria: We included RCTs comparing at least two of the following clinical management options in couples with unexplained infertility: expectant management, OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF (or combined with ICSI)., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts identified by the search strategy. We obtained the full texts of potentially eligible studies to assess eligibility and extracted data using standardised forms. The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of cumulative live birth or ongoing pregnancy, and the primary safety outcome was multiple pregnancy. We performed a network meta-analysis within a random-effects multi-variate meta-analysis model. We presented treatment effects by using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For the network meta-analysis, we used Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA) to evaluate the overall certainty of evidence., Main Results: We included 27 RCTs (4349 couples) in this systematic review and 24 RCTs (3983 couples) in a subsequent network meta-analysis. Overall, the certainty of evidence was low to moderate: the main limitations were imprecision and/or heterogeneity.Ten RCTs including 2725 couples reported on live birth. Evidence of differences between OS, IUI, OS-IUI, or IVF/ICSI versus expectant management was insufficient (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.98; low-certainty evidence; OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.43; low-certainty evidence; OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.94; low-certainty evidence; OR 1.88, 95 CI 0.81 to 4.38; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following expectant management is assumed to be 17%, the chance following OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF would be 9% to 28%, 11% to 33%, 15% to 37%, and 14% to 47%, respectively. When only including couples with poor prognosis of natural conception (3 trials, 725 couples) we found OS-IUI and IVF/ICSI increased live birth rate compared to expectant management (OR 4.48, 95% CI 2.00 to 10.1; moderate-certainty evidence; OR 4.99, 95 CI 2.07 to 12.04; moderate-certainty evidence), while there was insufficient evidence of a difference between IVF/ICSI and OS-IUI (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.60; low-certainty evidence).Eleven RCTs including 2564 couples reported on multiple pregnancy. Compared to expectant management/IUI, OS (OR 3.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 9.41; low-certainty evidence) and OS-IUI (OR 3.34 95% CI 1.09 to 10.29; moderate-certainty evidence) increased the odds of multiple pregnancy, and there was insufficient evidence of a difference between IVF/ICSI and expectant management/IUI (OR 2.66, 95% CI 0.68 to 10.43; low-certainty evidence). These findings suggest that if the chance of multiple pregnancy following expectant management or IUI is assumed to be 0.6%, the chance following OS, OS-IUI, and IVF/ICSI would be 0.6% to 5.0%, 0.6% to 5.4%, and 0.4% to 5.5%, respectively.Trial results show insufficient evidence of a difference between IVF/ICSI and OS-IUI for moderate/severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (OR 2.50, 95% CI 0.92 to 6.76; 5 studies; 985 women; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of moderate/severe OHSS following OS-IUI is assumed to be 1.1%, the chance following IVF/ICSI would be between 1.0% and 7.2%., Authors' Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence of differences in live birth between expectant management and the other four interventions (OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF/ICSI). Compared to expectant management/IUI, OS may increase the odds of multiple pregnancy, and OS-IUI probably increases the odds of multiple pregnancy. Evidence on differences between IVF/ICSI and expectant management for multiple pregnancy is insufficient, as is evidence of a difference for moderate or severe OHSS between IVF/ICSI and OS-IUI.

Introduction: At present, studies comparing intrauterine insemination in the natural cycle versus intracervical insemination in the natural cycle in women undergoing artificial insemination with donor sperm are scarce., Methods and Analysis: We perform a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial among five secondary and tertiary fertility clinics in the Netherlands and one tertiary fertility clinic in Belgium. Women eligible for artificial insemination with donor sperm are included. We perform six cycles of artificial insemination with donor sperm within a time horizon of 8 months comparing intrauterine insemination in the natural cycle with intracervical insemination in the natural cycle. The primary outcome is ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth conceived within eight months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, multiple pregnancy rate, pregnancy complications (preterm birth, birth weight <2500 g, pregnancy induced hypertension, (pre-) eclampsia, Hemolysis Elevated Liver enzymes Low Platelets (HELLP)), time to ongoing pregnancy, direct and indirect costs. To demonstrate the non-inferiority of intracervical insemination with a margin of 12%, we need 208 women per arm., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has been approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of the Academic Medical Centre and from the Dutch Central Committee on research involving human subjects (47330-018-13). The boards of the participating hospitals approved the study. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at international scientific meetings., Trial Registration Number: NTR4462., Competing Interests: Competing interests: No, there are no competing interests for any author., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Study Question: Do cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs) over multiple IVF/ICSI cycles confirm the low prognosis in women stratified according to the POSEIDON criteria?, Summary Answer: The CLBR of low-prognosis women is ~56% over 18 months of IVF/ICSI treatment and varies between the POSEIDON groups, which is primarily attributable to the impact of female age., What Is Known Already: The POSEIDON group recently proposed a new stratification for low-prognosis women in IVF/ICSI treatment, with the aim to define more homogenous populations for clinical trials and stimulate a patient-tailored therapeutic approach. These new criteria combine qualitative and quantitative parameters to create four groups of low-prognosis women with supposedly similar biologic characteristics., Study Design, Size, Duration: This study analyzed the data of a Dutch multicenter observational cohort study including 551 low-prognosis women, aged <44 years, who initiated IVF/ICSI treatment between 2011 and 2014 and were treated with a fixed FSH dose of 150 IU/day in the first treatment cycle., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Low-prognosis women were categorized into one of the POSEIDON groups based on their age (younger or older than 35 years), anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level (above or below 0.96 ng/ml), and the ovarian response (poor or suboptimal) in their first cycle of standard stimulation. The primary outcome was the CLBR over multiple complete IVF/ICSI cycles, including all subsequent fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfers, within 18 months of treatment. Cumulative incidence curves were obtained using an optimistic and a conservative analytic approach., Main Results and the Role of Chance: The CLBR of the low-prognosis women was on average ~56% over 18 months of IVF/ICSI treatment. Younger unexpected poor (n = 38) and suboptimal (n = 179) responders had a CLBR of ~65% and ~68%, respectively, and younger expected poor responders (n = 65) had a CLBR of ~59%. The CLBR of older unexpected poor (n = 41) and suboptimal responders (n = 102) was ~42% and ~54%, respectively, and of older expected poor responders (n = 126) ~39%. For comparison, the CLBR of younger (n = 164) and older (n = 78) normal responders with an adequate ovarian reserve was ~72% and ~58% over 18 months of treatment, respectively. No large differences were observed in the number of fresh treatment cycles between the POSEIDON groups, with an average of two fresh cycles per woman within 18 months of follow-up., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: Small numbers in some (sub)groups reduced the precision of the estimates. However, our findings provide the first relevant indication of the CLBR of low-prognosis women in the POSEIDON groups. Small FSH dose adjustments between cycles were allowed, inducing therapeutic disparity. Yet, this is in accordance with current daily practice and increases the generalizability of our findings., Wider Implications of the Findings: The CLBRs vary between the POSEIDON groups. This heterogeneity is primarily determined by a woman's age, reflecting the importance of oocyte quality. In younger women, current IVF/ICSI treatment reaches relatively high CLBR over multiple complete cycles, despite reduced quantitative parameters. In older women, the CLBR remains relatively low over multiple complete cycles, due to the co-occurring decline in quantitative and qualitative parameters. As no effective interventions exist to counteract this decline, clinical management currently relies on proper counselling., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): No external funds were obtained for this study. J.A.L. is supported by a Research Fellowship grant and received an unrestricted personal grant from Merck BV. S.C.O., T.C.v.T., and H.L.T. received an unrestricted personal grant from Merck BV. C.B.L. received research grants from Merck, Ferring, and Guerbet. K.F. received unrestricted research grants from Merck Serono, Ferring, and GoodLife. She also received fees for lectures and consultancy from Ferring and GoodLife. A.H. declares that the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Centre Groningen received an unrestricted research grant from Ferring Pharmaceuticals BV, the Netherlands. J.S.E.L. has received unrestricted research grants from Ferring, Zon-MW, and The Dutch Heart Association. He also received travel grants and consultancy fees from Danone, Euroscreen, Ferring, AnshLabs, and Titus Healthcare. B.W.J.M. is supported by an National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy work for ObsEva, Merck, and Guerbet. He also received a research grant from Merck BV and travel support from Guerbet. F.J.M.B. received monetary compensation as a member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono (the Netherlands) and Ferring Pharmaceuticals BV (the Netherlands) for advisory work for Gedeon Richter (Belgium) and Roche Diagnostics on automated AMH assay development, and for a research cooperation with Ansh Labs (USA). All other authors have nothing to declare., Trial Registration Number: Not applicable., (© 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.)

Research Question: Can women be identified, on the basis of baseline patient characteristics, as having better chances of an ongoing pregnancy with FSH instead of clomiphene citrate as stimulation agent in intrauterine insemination for unexplained subfertility?, Design: A secondary analysis of a multicentre randomized controlled superiority trial; the SUPER study. Between July 2013 and March 2016, couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing intrauterine inemination (IUI) were allocated to an FSH or clomiphene citrate group. Female age, body mass index, duration of subfertility, primary versus secondary subfertility, antral follicle count and total motile count were assessed. For each of these factors, a logistic regression model was developed to assess if different estimated effects of FSH versus clomiphene citrate on ongoing pregnancy occurred within strata of each factor., Results: A total of 684 couples received 2259 IUI cycles; 338 couples were allocated to FSH, of which 84 conceived leading to ongoing pregnancy and 346 couples were allocated to clomiphene citrate, of which 71 conceived leading to ongoing pregnancy. None of the treatment selection markers was associated with better ongoing pregnancy chances after IUI with FSH compared with clomiphene citrate., Conclusion: In couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI, no baseline treatment selection markers could be identified to determine whether ovaries should be stimulated with FSH or clomiphene citrate., (Copyright © 2019 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.

Background: The first-line treatment in donor sperm treatment consists of inseminations that can be done by intrauterine insemination (IUI) or by intracervical insemination (ICI)., Objectives: To compare the effectiveness and safety of intrauterine insemination (IUI) and intracervical insemination (ICI) in women who start donor sperm treatment., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL in October 2016, checked references of relevant studies, and contacted study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, the Grey literature, and five trials registers on 15 December 2017., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on IUI versus ICI in natural cycles or with ovarian stimulation, and RCTs comparing different cointerventions in IUI and ICI. We included cross-over studies if pre-cross-over data were available., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We collected data on primary outcomes of live birth and multiple pregnancy rates, and on secondary outcomes of clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and cancellation rates., Main Results: We included six RCTs (708 women analysed) on ICI and IUI in donor sperm treatment. Two studies compared IUI and ICI in natural cycles, two studies compared IUI and ICI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles, and two studies compared timing of IUI and ICI. There was very low-quality evidence; the main limitations were risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision.IUI versus ICI in natural cyclesThere was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any clear difference in live birth rate between IUI and ICI in natural cycles (odds ratio (OR) 3.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 87.13; 1 RCT, 26 women; very low-quality evidence). There was only one live birth in this study (in the IUI group). IUI resulted in higher clinical pregnancy rates (OR 6.18, 95% CI 1.91 to 20.03; 2 RCTs, 76 women; I² = 48%; very low-quality evidence).No multiple pregnancies or miscarriages occurred in this study.IUI versus ICI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cyclesThere was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any clear difference in live birth rate between IUI and ICI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles (OR 2.55, 95% CI 0.72 to 8.96; 1 RCT, 43 women; very low-quality evidence). This suggested that if the chance of a live birth following ICI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles was assumed to be 30%, the chance following IUI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles would be between 24% and 80%. IUI may result in higher clinical pregnancy rates than ICI (OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.78; 2 RCTs, 131 women; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). IUI may be associated with higher multiple pregnancy rates than ICI (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.00 to 7.69; 2 RCTs, 131 women; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). This suggested that if the risk of multiple pregnancy following ICI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles was assumed to be 10%, the risk following IUI would be between 10% and 46%.We found insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any clear difference between the groups in miscarriage rates in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles (OR 1.97, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.04; 2 RCTs, overall 67 pregnancies; I² = 50%; very low-quality evidence).Timing of IUI and ICIWe found no studies that reported on live birth rates.We found a higher clinical pregnancy rate when IUI was timed one day after a rise in blood levels of luteinising hormone (LH) compared to IUI two days after a rise in blood levels of LH (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.53; 1 RCT, 351 women; low-quality evidence). We found insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any clear difference in clinical pregnancy rates between ICI timed after a rise in urinary levels of LH versus a rise in basal temperature plus cervical mucus scores (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.42 to 4.11; 1 RCT, 56 women; very low-quality evidence).Neither of these studies reported multiple pregnancy or miscarriage rates as outcomes., Authors' Conclusions: There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a clear difference in live birth rates between IUI and ICI in natural or gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles in women who started with donor sperm treatment. There was insufficient evidence available for the effect of timing of IUI or ICI on live birth rates. Very low-quality data suggested that in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles, ICI may be associated with a higher clinical pregnancy rate than IUI, but also with a higher risk of multiple pregnancy rate. We concluded that the current evidence was too limited to choose between IUI or ICI, in natural cycles or with ovarian stimulation, in donor sperm treatment.

Study Question: Is there a difference in live birth rate and/or cost-effectiveness between antral follicle count (AFC)-based individualized FSH dosing or standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF or ICSI treatment?, Summary Answer: In women initiating IVF/ICSI, AFC-based individualized FSH dosing does not improve live birth rates or reduce costs as compared to a standard FSH dose., What Is Known Already: In IVF or ICSI, ovarian reserve testing is often used to adjust the FSH dose in order to normalize ovarian response and optimize live birth rates. However, no robust evidence for the (cost-)effectiveness of this practice exists., Study Design, Size, Duration: Between May 2011 and May 2014 we performed a multicentre prospective cohort study with two embedded RCTs in women scheduled for IVF/ICSI. Based on the AFC, women entered into one of the two RCTs (RCT1: AFC < 11; RCT2: AFC > 15) or the cohort (AFC 11-15). The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy achieved within 18 months after randomization resulting in a live birth (delivery of at least one live foetus after 24 weeks of gestation). Data from the cohort with weight 0.5 were combined with both RCTs in order to conduct a strategy analysis. Potential half-integer numbers were rounded up. Differences in costs and effects between the two treatment strategies were compared by bootstrapping., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: In both RCTs women were randomized to an individualized (RCT1:450/225 IU, RCT2:100 IU) or standard FSH dose (150 IU). Women in the cohort all received the standard dose (150 IU). Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) was measured to assess AMH post-hoc as a biomarker to individualize treatment. For RCT1 dose adjustment was allowed in subsequent cycles based on pre-specified criteria in the standard group only. For RCT2 dose adjustment was allowed in subsequent cycles in both groups. Both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the strategies were evaluated from an intention-to-treat perspective., Main Results and the Role of Chance: We included 1515 women, of whom 483 (31.9%) entered the cohort, 511 (33.7%) RCT1 and 521 (34.4%) RCT2. Live births occurred in 420/747 (56.3%) women in the individualized strategy and 447/769 (58.2%) women in the standard strategy (risk difference -0.019 (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.02), P = 0.39; a total of 1516 women due to rounding up the half integer numbers). The individualized strategy was more expensive (delta costs/woman = €275 (95% CI, 40 to 499)). Individualized dosing reduced the occurrence of mild and moderate ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and subsequently the costs for management of these OHSS categories (costs saved/woman were €35). The analysis based on AMH as a tool for dose individualization suggested comparable results., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: Despite a training programme, the AFC might have suffered from inter-observer variation. In addition, although strict cancel criteria were provided, selective cancelling in the individualized dose group (for poor response in particular) cannot be excluded as observers were not blinded for the FSH dose and small dose adjustments were allowed in subsequent cycles. However, as both first cycle live birth rates and cumulative live birth rates show no difference between strategies, the open design probably did not mask a potential benefit for the individualized group. Despite increasing consensus on using GnRH antagonist co-treatment in women predicted for a hyper response in particular, GnRH agonists were used in almost 80% of the women in this study. Hence, in those women, the AFC and bloodsampling for the post-hoc AMH analysis were performed during pituitary suppression. As the correlation between AFC and ovarian response is not compromised during GnRH agonist use, this will probably not have influenced classification of response., Wider Implications of the Findings: Individualized FSH dosing for the IVF/ICSI population as a whole should not be pursued as it does not improve live birth rates and it increases costs. Women scheduled for IVF/ICSI with a regular menstrual cycle are therefore recommended a standard FSH starting dose of 150 IU per day. Still, safety management by individualized dosing in predicted hyper responders is open for further research., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This study was funded by The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW number 171102020). AMH measurements were performed free of charge by Roche Diagnostics. TCT, HLT and SCO received an unrestricted personal grant from Merck BV. AH declares that the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Centre Groningen receives an unrestricted research grant from Ferring pharmaceutics BV, The Netherlands. CBL receives grants from Merck, Ferring and Guerbet. BWJM is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for OvsEva, Merck and Guerbet. FJMB receives monetary compensation as a member of the external advisory board for Ferring pharmaceutics BV (the Netherlands) and Merck Serono (the Netherlands) for consultancy work for Gedeon Richter (Belgium) and Roche Diagnostics on automated AMH assay development (Switzerland) and for a research cooperation with Ansh Labs (USA). All other autors have nothing to declare., Trial Registration Number: Registered at the ICMJE-recognized Dutch Trial Registry (www.trialregister.nl). Registration number: NTR2657., (© 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: One of the various ovarian stimulation regimens used for in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles is the use of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) in combination with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue. GnRH analogues prevent premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surges. Since they deprive the growing follicles of LH, the question arises as to whether supplementation with recombinant LH (rLH) would increase live birth rates. This is an updated Cochrane Review; the original version was published in 2007., Objectives: To compare the effectiveness and safety of recombinant luteinizing hormone (rLH) combined with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) for ovarian stimulation compared to rFSH alone in women undergoing in-vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI)., Search Methods: For this update we searched the following databases in June 2016: the Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and ongoing trials registers, and checked the references of retrieved articles., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rLH combined with rFSH versus rFSH alone in IVF/ISCI cycles., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We combined data to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I 2 statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. Our primary outcomes were live birth rate and incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Secondary outcomes included ongoing pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate and cancellation rates (for poor response or imminent OHSS)., Main Results: We included 36 RCTs (8125 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods) and imprecision.Live birth rates: There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between rLH combined with rFSH versus rFSH alone in live birth rates (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.06; n = 499; studies = 4; I 2 = 63%, very low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the live birth rate following treatment with rFSH alone is 17% it will be between 15% and 30% using rLH combined with rFSH.OHSS: There may be little or no difference between rLH combined with rFSH versus rFSH alone in OHSS rates (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.01; n = 2178; studies = 6; I 2 = 10%, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of OHSS following treatment with rFSH alone is 1%, it will be between 0% and 1% using rLH combined with rFSH.Ongoing pregnancy rate: The use of rLH combined with rFSH probably improves ongoing pregnancy rates, compared to rFSH alone (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.42; participants = 3129; studies = 19; I 2 = 2%, moderate-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the ongoing pregnancy rate following treatment with rFSH alone is 21%, it will be between 21% and 27% using rLH combined with rFSH.Miscarriage rate: The use of rLH combined with rFSH probably makes little or no difference to miscarriage rates, compared to rFSH alone (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.36; n = 1711; studies = 13; I 2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the miscarriage rate following treatment with rFSH alone is 7%, the miscarriage rate following treatment with rLH combined with rFSH will be between 4% and 9%.Cancellation rates: There may be little or no difference between rLH combined with rFSH versus rFSH alone in rates of cancellation due to low response (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.10; n = 2251; studies = 11; I 2 = 16%, low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the risk of cancellation due to low response following treatment with rFSH alone is 7%, it will be between 4% and 7% using rLH combined with rFSH.We are uncertain whether use of rLH combined with rFSH improves rates of cancellation due to imminent OHSS compared to rFSH alone. Use of a fixed effect model suggested a benefit in the combination group (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.89; n = 2976; studies = 8; I 2 = 60%, very low quality evidence) but use of a random effects model did not support the conclusion that there was a difference between the groups (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.97)., Authors' Conclusions: We found no clear evidence of a difference between rLH combined with rFSH and rFSH alone in rates of live birth or OHSS. The evidence for these comparisons was of very low-quality for live birth and low quality for OHSS. We found moderate quality evidence that the use of rLH combined with rFSH may lead to more ongoing pregnancies than rFSH alone. There was also moderate-quality evidence suggesting little or no difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of cancellation due to low response or imminent OHSS, but the evidence for these outcomes was of low or very low quality.We conclude that the evidence is insufficient to encourage or discourage stimulation regimens that include rLH combined with rFSH in IVF/ICSI cycles.

Study Question: Is pre-ovulatory endometrial thickness (EMT) in women with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with ovarian stimulation (OS) associated with pregnancy chances?, Summary Answer: We found no evidence for an association between EMT and pregnancy chances., What Is Known Already: It has been suggested that OS with clomiphene citrate (CC) results in a lower EMT than with gonadotrophins or aromatase inhibitors, but the clinical consequences in terms of pregnancy are unclear., Study Design, Size, Duration: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing CC, gonadotrophins or aromatase inhibitors in an IUI program reporting on EMT and pregnancy rates in women with unexplained subfertility., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the non-MEDLINE subset of PubMed from inception to 28th June 2016 and cross-checked references of relevant articles. Outcome measures were clinical pregnancy rate and mean pre-ovulatory EMT. We calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs with a fixed effect model, and in case of heterogeneity with an I2 > 50% a random effect model. We performed a meta-regression analysis to determine if stimulating drugs interacted with the estimated effect of EMT., Main Results and the Role of Chance: Our search retrieved 1563 articles of which 23 were included, totaling 3846 women. There were 17 RCTs and 6 cohort studies. The average study quality was low and there was considerable to substantial statistical heterogeneity. Seven studies provided data on EMT in relation to pregnancy. There was no evidence of a difference in EMT between women who conceived and women that did not conceive (1525 women, MDrandom: 0.51 mm, 95% CI: -0.05 to 1.07). Women treated with CC had a significantly thinner EMT than women treated with gonadotrophins (two studies, MD: -0.33, 95% CI: -0.64 to -0.01). There was no evidence of a difference in EMT when comparing CC with letrozole (five studies, MDrandom: -0.84, 95% CI: -1.97 to 0.28). The combination of CC plus gonadotrophins resulted in a slightly thinner endometrium than letrozole (nine studies, MDrandom: -0.79, 95% CI: -1.37 to -0.20). Letrozole resulted in a thinner EMT than gonadotrophins (two studies, MDrandom: -1.31, 95% CI: -2.08 to -0.53)., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: The overall quality of the included studies was low to moderate. We found considerable to substantial heterogeneity in the comparisons, hampering firm conclusions., Wider Implications of the Findings: We found no evidence for an association between EMT and pregnancy rates during IUI -OS. As a consequence, canceling IUI cycles because of a thin endometrial lining may negatively affect clinical care. Although we found some evidence for very small differences in EMT when comparing various drugs, we cannot make inferences on their effect on pregnancy chances since these differences may be coincidental., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): None., 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 email: journals.permissions@oup.com)

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.)

Objective: To evaluate at the age of 5 years the behavioral, cognitive, and motor performance and physical development of children born after testicular sperm extraction (TESE) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)., Design: A prospective longitudinal cohort study., Setting: Two university medical centers., Patient(s): A total of 103 5-year-olds who were born after TESE-ICSI., Intervention(s): The follow-up of the children was performed by questionnaires at birth and again at 1 year and at 4 years of age. Five-year-old children were invited for individual assessment. Behavioral performance was assessed with the use of the Child Behavior Checklist for parents and teachers. Cognitive performance was assessed with the use of the Dutch Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence test, 3rd version. Motor performance was assessed with the use of the Dutch Movement Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd version. Physical development was assessed by means of physical examination and medical history., Main Outcome Measure(s): Behavioral, cognitive, and motor performance and physical development., Result(s): Eighty-nine children were completely assessed, and 14 were partially assessed at the age of 5 years. The 5-year-old cohort assessed significantly better on behavioral and cognitive performance and significantly worse on motor performance-but still in the normal range-compared with the theoretic distribution in the general population. Four children (3.8%) of the 5-year-old cohort had developmental problems/delays. Two of them were previously diagnosed with a form of autism (pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified). Two children had developmental problems based on our behavioral, cognitive, and/or motor assessments., Conclusion(s): The long-term effects on development and health in children born after TESE-ICSI procedures seem to be reassuring., (Copyright © 2016 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Question: Which parameters have a predictive value for live birth in couples undergoing ICSI after successful testicular sperm extraction (TESE-ICSI)?, Summary Answer: Female age, a first or subsequent started TESE-ICSI cycle, male LH, male testosterone, motility of the spermatozoa during the ICSI procedure and the initial male diagnosis before performing TESE were identified as relevant and independent parameters for live birth after TESE-ICSI., What Is Known Already: In reproductive medicine prediction models are used frequently to predict treatment success, but no prediction model currently exists for live birth after TESE-ICSI., Study Design, Size, Duration: A retrospective cohort study between 2007 and 2015 in two academic hospitals including 1559 TESE-ICSI cycles. The prediction model was developed using data from one centre and validation was performed with data from the second centre., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: We included couples undergoing ICSI treatment with surgically retrieved sperm from the testis for the first time. In the development set we included 526 couples undergoing 1006 TESE-ICSI cycles. In the validation set we included 289 couples undergoing 553 TESE-ICSI cycles. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed in a stepwise fashion (P < 0.2 for entry). The external validation was based on discrimination and calibration., Main Results and the Role of Chance: We included 224 couples (22.3%) with a live birth in the development set. The occurrence of a live birth was associated with lower female age, first TESE-ICSI cycle, lower male LH, higher male testosterone, the use of motile spermatozoa for ICSI and having obstructive azoospermia as an initial suspected diagnosis. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.62. From validation data, the model had moderate discriminative capacity (c-statistic 0.67, 95% confidence interval: 0.62-0.72) but calibrated well, with a range from 0.06 to 0.56 in calculated probabilities., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: We had a lack of data about the motility of spermatozoa during TESE, therefore, we used motility of the spermatozoa used for ICSI after freeze-thawing, information which is only available during treatment. We had to exclude data on paternal BMI in the model because too many missing values in the validation data hindered testing. We did not include a histologic diagnosis, which would have made our data set less heterogeneous and, finally, our model may not be applicable in centres which have a different policy for the indication for performing sperm extraction. The prognostic value of the model is limited because of a low 'area under the curve'., Wider Implications of the Findings: This model enables the differentiation between couples with a low or high chance to reach a live birth using TESE-ICSI. As such it can aid in the counselling of patients and in clinical decision-making., Study Funding/competing Interests: This study was partly supported by an unconditional grant from Merck Serono (to D.D.M.B. and K.F.) and by the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Den Bosch, The Netherlands, and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Merck Serono had no influence in concept, design, nor elaboration of this study., Trial Registration Number: Not applicable., (© 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.)

Study Question: Can an externally validated model, based on biological variables, be developed to predict successful sperm retrieval with testicular sperm extraction (TESE) in men with non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) using a large nationwide cohort?, Summary Answer: Our prediction model including six variables was able to make a good distinction between men with a good chance and men with a poor chance of obtaining spermatozoa with TESE., What Is Known Already: Using ICSI in combination with TESE even men suffering from NOA are able to father their own biological child. Only in approximately half of the patients with NOA can testicular sperm be retrieved successfully. The few models that have been developed to predict the chance of obtaining spermatozoa with TESE were based on small datasets and none of them have been validated externally., Study Design, Size, Duration: We performed a retrospective nationwide cohort study. Data from 1371 TESE procedures were collected between June 2007 and June 2015 in the two fertility centres., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: All men with NOA undergoing their first TESE procedure as part of a fertility treatment were included. The primary end-point was the presence of one or more spermatozoa (regardless of their motility) in the testicular biopsies.We constructed a model for the prediction of successful sperm retrieval, using univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression analysis and the dataset from one centre. This model was then validated using the dataset from the other centre. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated and model calibration was assessed., Main Results and the Role of Chance: There were 599 (43.7%) successful sperm retrievals after a first TESE procedure. The prediction model, built after multivariable logistic regression analysis, demonstrated that higher male age, higher levels of serum testosterone and lower levels of FSH and LH were predictive for successful sperm retrieval. Diagnosis of idiopathic NOA and the presence of an azoospermia factor c gene deletion were predictive for unsuccessful sperm retrieval. The AUC was 0.69 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.66-0.72). The difference between the mean observed chance and the mean predicted chance was <2.0% in all groups, indicating good calibration. In validation, the model had moderate discriminative capacity (AUC 0.65, 95% CI: 0.62-0.72) and moderate calibration: the predicted probability never differed by more than 9.2% of the mean observed probability., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: The percentage of men with Klinefelter syndrome among men diagnosed with NOA is expected to be higher than in our study population, which is a potential selection bias. The ability of the sperm retrieved to fertilize an oocyte and produce a live birth was not tested., Wider Implications of the Findings: This model can help in clinical decision-making in men with NOA by reliably predicting the chance of obtaining spermatozoa with TESE., Study Funding/competing Interest: This study was partly supported by an unconditional grant from Merck Serono (to D.D.M.B. and K.F.) and by the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Den Bosch, The Netherlands, and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Merck Serono had no influence in concept, design nor elaboration of this study., Trial Registration Number: Not applicable., (© 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.)

Study Question: Would couples diagnosed with non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) consider two future treatments with artificial gametes (AGs) as alternatives for testicular sperm extraction followed by ICSI (TESE-ICSI)?, Summary Answer: Most couples with NOA (89%) would opt for treatment with AGs before attempting TESE-ICSI and/or after failed TESE-ICSI., What Is Known Already: Couples with NOA who undergo TESE-ICSI have a 25% chance of conceiving a child. Two future treatments that are being developed are 'ICSI with artificial sperm formed from somatic cells' (ICSI with AGs) and 'natural conception after autotransplantation of in vitro proliferated spermatogonial stem cells' (natural conception with AGs). It is unknown what treatment preferences patients have., Study Design, Size, Duration: A cross-sectional survey conducted in 2012-2013, addressing all 921 couples diagnosed with NOA and treated with TESE-ICSI in Dutch fertility clinics between 2007 and 2012. The coded questionnaires were sent by mail and followed up with two reminders., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: We developed the questionnaire based on a literature review and previous qualitative interviews, and included treatment preference and the valuation of nine treatment characteristics. We assessed reliability of the questionnaires and calculated mean importance scores (MISs: 0-10) of each treatment characteristic. We assessed which patient and treatment characteristics were associated with a couple's hypothetical treatment preference using binominal regression., Main Results and the Role of Chance: The vast majority (89%) of the 494 responding couples (response rate: 54%) would potentially opt for AGs as a first and/or a last resort treatment option. More specifically, as a first treatment couples were likely (67%) to prefer natural conception with AGs over TESE-ICSI and less likely to prefer ICSI with AGs over TESE-ICSI (34%). After failed TESE-ICSI, the majority of couples (75%) would want to attempt ICSI with AGs as a last resort option. The most important characteristics of treatment were safety for children (MIS: 8.2), pregnancy rates (MIS: 7.7) and curing infertility (MIS: 6.8). Costs, burden, naturalness and technological sophistication were of about equal importance (MIS: 3.1-4.0). The majority of patients rated conception at home and moral acceptability as not important (MIS: 1.7 and 0.8, respectively), but the importance attributed to these variables did still affect patients' likeliness to opt for AGs., Limitations and Reasons for Caution: Couples with NOA not opting for TESE-ICSI were not included and might have other perspectives. Couples' hypothetical choices for AGs might differ from their actual choices once data on the costs, safety and pregnancy rates become available from these new treatment options., Wider Implications of the Findings: The interest of couples with NOA in potential future treatments with AGs encourages further pre-clinical research. Priority setting for research and future decision-making on clinical application of AGs should take all characteristics important to patients into account., Study Funding/competing Interests: The authors report no financial or other conflict of interest relevant to the subject of this article., (© 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.)

Study Question: What do identifiable sperm donors feel about psychosocial counselling?, Summary Answer: Identifiable sperm donors found it important that psychosocial counselling focused on emotional consequences and on rules and regulations and they expected to have access to psychosocial counselling at the time that donor-offspring actually sought contact., What Is Known Already: Most studies on sperm donors are on anonymous donors and focus on recruitment, financial compensation, anonymity and motivations. There is limited knowledge on the value that identifiable sperm donors place on psychosocial counselling and what their needs are in this respect., Study Design, Size and Duration: We performed a qualitative study from March until June 2014 with 25 identifiable sperm donors, who were or had been a donor at the Centre for Reproductive Medicine of the Academic Medical Centre in Amsterdam any time between 1989 and 2014., Participants/materials, Setting and Methods: We held semi-structured in-depth interviews with identifiable sperm donors with an average age of 44 years. The interviews were fully transcribed and analysed using the constant comparative method of grounded theory., Main Results and the Role of Change: Twelve out of 15 donors (former donors ITALIC! n = 8, active donors ITALIC! n = 7) who had received a counselling session during their intake procedure found it important that they had been able to talk about issues such as the emotional consequences of donation, disclosure to their own children, family and friends, future contact with donor-offspring and rules and regulations. Of the 10 former donors who had received no counselling session, 8 had regretted the lack of intensive counselling. In the years following their donation, most donors simply wanted to know how many offspring had been born using their sperm and had no need for further counselling. Nevertheless, they frequently mentioned that they were concerned about the well-being of 'their' offspring. In addition, they would value the availability of psychosocial counselling in the event that donor-offspring actually sought contact., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: A limitation of our study is its generalizability, since only a small number of identifiable donors at a single centre were studied. Variation in how donors are counselled upon intake may affect how donors value psychosocial counselling., Wider Implications of the Findings: This study reports on the issues that identifiable donors value being addressed during their intake procedure, as well as during counselling in the event that donor-offspring actually seek contact. These findings can be used to achieve a higher quality of care for identifiable sperm donors and may be the starting point for developing guidelines on psychosocial counselling for sperm donors., Study Funding/competing Interests: No funding was obtained for this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (© 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.)

Study Question: Does intrauterine insemination in the natural cycle lead to better pregnancy rates than intracervical insemination (ICI) in the natural cycle in women undergoing artificial insemination with cryopreserved donor sperm., Summary Answer: In a large cohort of women undergoing artificial insemination with cryopreserved donor sperm, there was no substantial beneficial effect of IUI in the natural cycle over ICI in the natural cycle., What Is Known Already: At present, there are no studies comparing IUI in the natural cycle versus ICI in the natural cycle in women undergoing artificial insemination with cryopreserved donor sperm., Study Design, Size, Duration: We performed a retrospective cohort study among all eight sperm banks in the Netherlands. We included all women who underwent artificial insemination with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle between January 2009 and December 2010. We compared time to ongoing pregnancy in the first six cycles of IUI and ICI, after which controlled ovarian stimulation was commenced. Ongoing pregnancy rates (OPRs) over time were compared using life tables. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to compare the chances of reaching an ongoing pregnancy after IUI or ICI adjusted for female age and indication., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: We included 1843 women; 1163 women underwent 4269 cycles of IUI and 680 women underwent 2345 cycles of ICI with cryopreserved donor sperm., Main Results and the Role of Chance: Baseline characteristics were equally distributed (mean age 34.0 years for the IUI group versus 33.8 years for the ICI group), while in the IUI group, there were more lesbian women than in the ICI group (40.6% for IUI compared with 31.8% for ICI). Cumulative OPRs up to six treatment cycles were 40.5% for IUI and 37.9% for ICI. This corresponds with a hazard rate ratio of 1.02 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84-1.23] after controlling for female age and indication. Increasing female age was associated with a lower OPR, in both the IUI and ICI groups with a hazard ratio for ongoing pregnancy of 0.94 per year (95% CI 0.93-0.97)., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: This study is prone to selection bias due to its retrospective nature. As potential confounders such as parity and duration of subfertility were not registered, the effect of these potential confounders could not be evaluated., Wider Implications of the Findings: In women inseminated with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle, we found no substantial benefit of IUI over ICI. A randomized controlled trial with economic analysis alongside, it is needed to allow a more definitive conclusion on the cost-effectiveness of insemination with cryopreserved donor sperm., Study Funding/competing Interests: No funding was used and no conflicts of interest are declared., (© 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.)

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.)

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.

Concerns have been expressed about the rapid introduction of new fertility treatments into clinical practice. Patients' perspectives on new treatments and their introduction into clinical practice are unexplored. Two alternative treatments for testicular sperm extraction followed by intracytoplasmic sperm injection in men with nonobstructive azoospermia (NOA), the formation of artificial sperm and autotransplantation of in vitro proliferated spermatogonial stem cells, are in a preclinical phase of development. This study aimed to explore, prior to future clinical introduction, which treatment aspects are valued by NOA patients and would be taken into account in deciding to undergo these future treatment options. In-depth telephone interviews were conducted with 14 men with NOA. Interviews were transcribed, analysed with content analysis and data saturation was reached. Besides the obvious factors, success rates and safety, patients valued 'the intensity of the procedure', 'the treatments' resemblance to natural conception' and 'feeling cured'. Patients supported the development of these treatments and were eager to take part if such treatments would become available in the future. The patient's perspective on innovative treatments can (co)direct reproductive research. More research into the patients' perspectives on innovations and minimal thresholds to be met prior to their introduction into clinical practice is required., (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.)

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.)

In recent years much has changed in care for artificial insemination with donor sperm (AID). Since new laws and regulations were implemented, a large number of sperm banks have closed and the total number of sperm donors and their availability have decreased. Long waiting times and the use of sperm donors recruited by foreign commercial sperm banks can indicate a shortage of sperm donors. The fact that the internet offers women the possibility of ordering donor sperm and starting treatment without the intervention of a sperm bank means that future donor-conceived children may be prevented from obtaining the identity of their sperm donor as stipulated in the Dutch law on donor information in the context of artificial insemination. In order to comply with this law, an active recruitment policy is needed for Dutch sperm donors, to prevent waiting lists and treatments outside Dutch sperm banks. Only then can current AID care be guaranteed in the Netherlands in the future.

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.)

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: The evidence underpinning the timing of an oocyte collection in IVF or ICSI is limited. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of the follicle diameter size of the dominant follicle on ongoing pregnancy rates., Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial, including women aged between 18 and 43 years who were scheduled for GnRH agonist down-regulated IVF/ICSI treatment in four assisted conception units. Women were randomized between timing oocyte collection when the leading follicle had a diameter of 22 mm or when the leading follicle had a diameter of 18 mm. The primary end-point was ongoing pregnancy, defined as a viable pregnancy at 12 weeks of gestation., Results: The trial had major problems with recruiting patients and after the planned 2 years of recruiting only half of the aimed 400 inclusions were obtained. We allocated 97 women to the 22-mm group and 93 women to the 18-mm group. In the 22-mm group more women reached an ongoing pregnancy (37 of 97 women, 38%) compared with the 18-mm group (22 of 93 women, 24%) resulting in a relative risk of 1.6 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03-2.5]. In a logistic regression analysis, the timing of oocyte collection, adjusted for female age, IVF/ICSI and centre, was still associated with ongoing pregnancy, although the association was no longer statistically significant (OR: 2.0; 95% CI: 0.96-4.2) CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that delaying the timing of oocyte collection in IVF or ICSI results in better ongoing pregnancy rates, however, larger studies have to be performed to prove or refute these findings., Trial Registration: ISRCTN24724622.

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.