Search

STUDY QUESTION How well informed are Australian women who undergo IVF about their chances of having a baby? SUMMARY ANSWER Only one in four women estimated their individual chance of success with IVF accurately, with most women overestimating their chance. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Limited knowledge about infertility and infertility treatment in the general population is well-documented. The few studies that have investigated patients' knowledge about the chance of IVF success suggest that while IVF patients are aware of average success rates, they tend to be unrealistic about their own chance of success. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION We conducted an anonymous online survey of 217 women who had started IVF since 2018 in Australia. The survey was advertised on social media, enabling women from across Australia to participate. Responses were collected in June 2021. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The survey included questions on demographic characteristics and IVF history. It asked what participants thought their chance of having a baby from one IVF treatment cycle was, how they rated their knowledge about chance of success, and about their experience of receiving IVF-related information. Participants' estimations of their chance of success were compared with their chance as calculated by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology's (SART) online calculator. Responses to a free-text question about what information women wished they had been given when they started treatment were analysed thematically. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Only about a quarter (58/217, 27%) of participants accurately estimated their chance of having a baby within 20% relative to their SART calculated chance, with more than half (118/217, 54%) overestimating their chance. Ninety percent of women indicated that their preferred source of treatment information was a consultation with their doctor, despite less than half (44%) reporting that doctors explained the probability of having a baby with IVF well (mean 5.9/10). In free-text responses, many women also reported that they wished they had been given more realistic information about IVF and their chance of success. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The dissemination method precludes calculation of response rate, and it is not possible to know if participants are representative of all women undergoing IVF. Additionally, we only surveyed women undergoing IVF, while those who decided not to have IVF were not included. Therefore, women who overestimated their chance may have been overrepresented. There is also inherent imprecision in the way understanding of chance of success was estimated. The potential impact of recall bias could neither be quantified nor excluded. It is difficult to determine to what extent women's lack of understanding of what is possible with IVF is due to poor information-provision by clinicians and the clinic, and how much can be explained by optimism bias. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The finding of poor understanding of personal chance of success amongst women undergoing IVF in Australia requires further investigation to determine potential reasons for this. The findings can be used by clinics to develop strategies for improvement in the information-provision process to ensure that women can make informed decisions about their fertility treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study received no external funding. S.L. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator Grant (APP1195189). R.W. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator Grant (APP2009767). B.W.M. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator Grant (GNT1176437). B.W.M. reports consultancy for Merck and ObsEva and has received research funding and travel funding from Merck. The other authors have no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Study Question: Is a strategy starting with transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy (THL) cost-effective compared to a strategy starting with hysterosalpingography (HSG) in the work-up for subfertility?Summary Answer: A strategy starting with THL is cost-effective compared to a strategy starting with HSG in the work-up for subfertile women.What Is Known Already: Tubal pathology is a common cause of subfertility and tubal patency testing is one of the cornerstones of the fertility work-up. Both THL and HSG are safe procedures and can be used as a first-line tubal patency test.Study Design, Size, Duration: This economic evaluation was performed alongside a randomized clinical trial comparing THL and HSG in 300 subfertile women, between May 2013 and October 2016. For comparisons of THL and HSG, the unit costs were split into three main categories: costs of the diagnostic procedure, costs of fertility treatments and the costs for pregnancy outcomes.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Subfertile women scheduled for tubal patency testing were eligible. Women were randomized to a strategy starting with THL or a strategy starting with HSG. The primary outcome of the study was conception leading to a live birth within 24 months after randomization. The mean costs and outcomes for each treatment group were compared. We used a non-parametric bootstrap resampling of 1000 re-samples to investigate the effect of uncertainty and we created a cost-effectiveness plane and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: We allocated 149 women to THL and 151 to HSG, and we were able to achieve complete follow-up of 142 versus 148 women, respectively. After the fertility work-up women were treated according to the Dutch guidelines and based on a previously published prognostic model. In the THL group, 83 women (58.4%) conceived a live born child within 24 months after randomization compared to 82 women (55.4%) in the HSG group (difference 3.0% (95% CI: -8.3 to 14.4)). The mean total costs per woman were lower in the THL group compared to the HSG group (THL group €4991 versus €5262 in the HSG group, mean cost difference = -€271 (95% CI -€273 to -€269)). Although the costs of only the diagnostic procedure were higher in the THL group, in the HSG group more women underwent diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopies and also had higher costs for fertility treatments.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: Our trial was conducted in women with a low risk of tubal pathology; therefore, the results of our study are not generalizable to women with high risk of tubal pathology. Furthermore, this economic analysis was based on the Dutch healthcare system, and possibly our results are not generalizable to countries with different strategies or costs for fertility treatments.Wider Implications Of the Findings: After 2 years of follow-up, we found a live birth rate of 58.4% in the THL group versus 55.4% in the HSG group and a lower mean cost per woman in the THL group, with a cost difference of -€271. The findings of our trial suggest that a strategy starting with THL is cost-effective compared to a strategy starting with HSG in the workup for subfertile women. However, the cost difference between the two diagnostic strategies is limited compared to the total cost per woman in our study and before implementing THL as a first-line strategy for tubal patency testing, more research in other fields, such as patient preference and acceptance, is necessary.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The authors received no external financial support for the research. B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator Grant (GNT1176437). B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA, Guerbet. B.W.J.M. reports receiving travel support from Merck KGaA. C.T.P. reports consultancy for Guerbet, outside of this manuscript. All other authors have no conflicts to declare.Trial Registration Number: NTR3462. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]