Search

The current definition of infertility acknowledges the importance of duration of pregnancy seeking but fails to recognize the prevalent negative impact of female age. In fact, the diagnosis of unexplained infertility increases with women's age because of our incapacity to discern between age-related infertility and real unexplained infertility. Physicians' response to the pressures of increased female age has been to take prompt refuge in assisted reproduction despite the lack of robust evidence and the inherent risks and costs of these procedures. Moreover, the prioritization of immediate health gains over those in the future, preference for accessing active treatment rapidly and reluctance to wait for spontaneous pregnancy expose patients to additional risks of overtreatment. Solutions are not simple to find but an alternative and innovative vision of infertility based on prognosis may be a valid solution. The availability of validated dynamic models based on real-life data that could predict both natural and ART-mediated conceptions may be of benefit. They could facilitate patients' counselling and could optimize the chances of success without exposing patients to unnecessary, expensive and demanding treatments.

BACKGROUND Pregnancy rates among infertile women have been reported to increase after hysterosalpingography, but it is unclear whether the type of contrast medium used (oil-based or water-soluble contrast) influences this potential therapeutic effect. METHODSWe performed a multicenter, randomized trial in 27 hospitals in the Netherlands in which infertile women who were undergoing hysterosalpingography were randomly assigned to undergo this procedure with the use of oil-based or water-based contrast. Subsequently, couples received expectant management or the women underwent intrauterine insemination. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy within 6 months after randomization. Outcomes were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTSA total of 1119 women were randomly assigned to hysterosalpingography with oil contrast (557 women) or water contrast (562 women). A total of 220 of 554 women in the oil group (39.7%) and 161 of 554 women in the water group (29.1%) had an ongoing pregnancy (rate ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16 to 1.61

Item does not contain fulltext STUDY QUESTION: Do couples who were eligible for tailored expectant management (TEM) and did not start treatment within 6 months after the fertility work-up, have different experiences with the quality of care than couples that were also eligible for TEM but started treatment right after the fertility work-up? SUMMARY ANSWER: Tailored expectant management of at least 6 months in couples with unexplained infertility is not associated with the experiences with quality of care or trust in their physician. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In couples with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis of natural conception within 1 year, expectant management for 6-12 months does not compromise ongoing birth rates and is equally as effective as starting medically assisted reproduction immediately. Therefore, TEM is recommended by various international clinical guidelines. Implementation of TEM is still not optimal because of existing barriers on both patient and professional level. An important barrier is the hesitance of professionals to counsel their patients for TEM because they fear that patients will be dissatisfied with care. However, if and how adherence to TEM actually affects the couples' experience with care is unknown. Experiences with the quality care can be measured by evaluating the patient-centredness of care and the patients' trust in their physician. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a retrospective cross-sectional study. A survey with written questionnaires was performed among all couples who participated in the retrospective audit of guideline adherence on TEM in 25 Dutch clinics. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Couples were eligible to participate if they were diagnosed with unexplained infertility and had a good prognosis (>30%) of natural conception within 1 year based on the Hunault prediction model. We used patient's questionnaires to collect data on the couples' experience with the quality of care and possible confounders for their experiences other than having undergone TEM or not. Multilevel regression analyses were performed to investigate case-mix adjusted association of TEM with the patient-centredness of care (PCQ-Infertility) and the patients' trust in their physician (Wake Forest Trust Scale). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Couples who adhered to TEM experienced the quality of care on the same level as couples who were exposed to early treatment, i.e. started fertility treatment within 6 months after fertility work-up. There were no associations between adherence to TEM and the patient-centredness of care or the patients' trust in their physician. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Because this study is retrospective, recall bias might occur. Furthermore, we were unable to measure the difference in experience with care over time. Therefore, our results have to be interpreted carefully. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Prospective research on couples undergoing TEM have to be performed to provide more detailed insight in the patients' experiences with the decision making process and subsequently the expectant period. Tackling the barriers surrounding TEM, i.e. better counselling and more patient information material, could further improve patient experiences with the quality of care for couples who are advised TEM. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: Supported by Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW). ZonMW had no role in designing the study, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data or writing of the report. Competing interests: none. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: www.trialregister.nl NTR3405.

The use of the term 'infertility' and related terms in reproductive medicine is reviewed. Current terminology is found to be ambiguous, confusing, and misleading. We recommend that the fertility investigation report of a couple should consist of statements concerning description, diagnosis, and prognosis. The description concerns the duration of nonpregnancy before consulting the clinician. A system for prognostic grading is proposed. The fertility investigation report forms the basis for further action, including the possibility of waiting with treatment in case of almost normal or only slightly reduced fertility. The use of the terms 'infertility', 'subfertility', and 'fecundity' is not necessary, and it is recommended to avoid them.

Knowledge of the chance to conceive for the subfertile couple is important in the process of counselling and clinical decision making. There are no data available on the reproducibility of the clinician's ability to assess the chance to conceive, both after expectant management or treatment with in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-embryo transfer). We evaluated this reproducibility by means of a set of case histories presented to a panel of gynaecologists and endocrinologists, A poor reproducibility would indicate a strong need for the use of prognostic models. In 1995, 57 gynaecologists and 32 reproductive endocrinologists were asked to appraise the 1 year spontaneous conception chance as well as the cumulative success rate of three cycles for IVF-embryo transfer of four couples with different medical histories. The clinical and laboratory data of these couples were presented as case histories. The difference between the estimated spontaneous pregnancy chances and the success rate of IVF-embryo transfer was also calculated. Calculation of intra-class correlation coefficients, which can be considered as measures of the reproducibility, demonstrated a substantial reproducibility of the assessment of spontaneous conception chances, but a slight to fair reproducibility of the assessment of IVF-embryo transfer success rates. We conclude that the use of reliable prognostic models for IVF-embryo transfer in the management of subfertility is warranted.

Background: The global obesity epidemic has paralleled a decrease in semen quality. Yet, the association between obesity and sperm parameters remains controversial. The purpose of this report was to update the evidence on the association between BMI and sperm count through a systematic review with meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic review of available literature (with no language restriction) was performed to investigate the impact of BMI on sperm count. Relevant studies published until June 2012 were identified from a Pubmed and EMBASE search. We also included unpublished data (n ¼ 717 men) obtained from the Infertility Center of Bondy, France. Abstracts of relevant articles were examined and studies that could be included in this review were retrieved. Authors of relevant studies for the meta-analysis were contacted by email and asked to provide standardized data. Results: A total of 21 studies were included in the meta-analysis, resulting in a sample of 13 077 men from the general population and attending fertility clinics. Data were stratified according to the total sperm count as normozoospermia, oligozoospermia and azoospermia. Standardized weighted mean differences in sperm concentration did not differ significantly across BMI categories. There was a J-shaped relationship between BMI categories and risk of oligozoospermia or azoospermia. Compared with men of normal weight, the odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for oligozoospermia or azoospermia was 1.15 (0.93–1.43) for underweight, 1.11 (1.01–1.21) for overweight, 1.28 (1.06– 1.55) for obese and 2.04 (1.59–2.62) for morbidly obese men. Conclusions: Overweight and obesity were associated with an increased prevalence of azoospermia or oligozoospermia. The main limitation of this report is that studied populations varied, with men recruited from both the general population and infertile couples. Whether weight normalization could improve sperm parameters should be evaluated further. Fil: Sermondade, N.. Hôpital Jean Verdier; Francia. Universite de Paris 13-nord; Francia Fil: Faure, C.. Hôpital Jean Verdier; Francia. Universite de Paris 13-nord; Francia Fil: Fezeu, L.. Universite de Paris 13-nord; Francia Fil: Shayeb, A. G.. University Hospital of Wales; Reino Unido Fil: Bonde, J. P.. Bispebjerg Hospital of Copenhagen University; Dinamarca Fil: Jensen, J. K.. University Department of Growth and Reproduction; Dinamarca Fil: Van Wely, M.. Academic Medical Centre; Países Bajos Fil: Cao, J.. Third Military Medical University; China Fil: Martini, Ana Carolina. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Médicas; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas. Centro Cientifico Tecnologico Cordoba. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Salud; Argentina Fil: Eskandar, M.. King Khalid University; Arabia Saudita Fil: Chavarro, J. E.. Harvard University. Harvard School Of Public Health; Estados Unidos. Harvard Medical School; Estados Unidos Fil: Koloszar, S.. University of Szeged; Hungría Fil: Twigt, J. M.. University Medical Center; Países Bajos Fil: Ramlau Hansen, C. H.. Aarhus University; Dinamarca Fil: Borges Jr, E.. Fertility-Assisted Fertilization Center; Brasil Fil: Lotti, F.. Universita Degli Studi Di Firenze; Italia Fil: Steegers Theunissen, R. P. M.. University Medical Center; Países Bajos Fil: Zorn, B.. University Medical Center Ljubljana; Eslovenia Fil: Polotsky, A. J.. University of Colorado Denver; Estados Unidos Fil: La Vignera, S.. University of Catania; Italia Fil: Eskenazi, B.. University Of California Berkeley; Estados Unidos Fil: Tremellen, K.. University of South Australia; Australia Fil: Magnusdottir, E. V.. University of Iceland; Islandia Fil: Fejes, I.. University of Szeged; Hungría Fil: Hercberg, S.. Universite de Paris 13-nord; Francia. Hôpital Avicenne; Francia Fil: Lévy, R.. Hôpital Jean Verdier; Francia. Universite de Paris 13-nord; Francia Fil: Czernichow, S.. University of Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines; Francia. Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health; Francia

Objective: To compare dropout rates in couples undergoing conventional in vitro fertilization with single embryo transfer (IVF-SET), in vitro fertilization in a modified natural cycle (IVF-MNC) or intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS).Study design: Secondary analysis of a multicentre randomized controlled trial between January 2009 and February 2012. 602 couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility, allocated to IVF-SET (N= 201), IVF-MNC (N= 194) and IUI-OS (N=207).Main outcome measures: Dropouts, defined as couples who discontinued their allocated three cycles of IVF-SET, six cycles of IVF-MNC or IUI-OS, without having achieved a pregnancy. We classified dropouts as "following medical advice" or "patient initiated".Result(s): Thirty couples (15%) allocated to IVF-SET dropped out and 45 couples (23%) allocated to IVF-MNC, compared to 26 couples (13%) allocated to IUI-OS; relative risk (RR) 1.2 (95%CI; 0.73-1.9) for IVF-SET and 1.9 (95%CI; 1.2-2.9) for IVF-MNC, both compared to IUI-OS. Nine couples (4.5%) allocated to IVF-SET, 14 (7.2%) allocated to IVF-MNC and 14 (6.8%) allocated to IUI-OS dropped out following medical advice; RR of 0.51 (95%CI; 0.21-1.2) for IVF-SET and 0.84 (95%CI; 0.391.80) for IVF-MNC, both versus IUI-OS. Twenty-one couples (10%) allocated to IVF-SET were patient initiated dropouts, as were 31 (16%) allocated to IVF-MNC and 12 (5.8%) allocated to IUI-COS; RR 1.8 (95% CI; 0.91-3.6) for IVF-SET and 2.8 (95%CI; 1.5-5.2) for IVF-MNC both versus IUI-OS.Conclusion(s): IVF-SET and IUI-OS result in comparable drop-out rates, while drop-out rates after IVF-MNC are almost twice as high, mainly driven by patient preferences. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Objective: To describe the outcome of fertility work-up, treatment, and dropout in a cohort of subfertile couples in a well-defined area in Western Europe.Design: Prospective cohort study.Setting: Maastricht University Medical Center.Patient(s): Subfertile couples referred by their general physician between 2001 and 2003.Intervention(s): Demographic data, findings of the fertility investigation, and outcome of treatment were entered prospectively into a database. Follow-up was performed until November 2008.Main Outcome Measure(s): Diagnosis, treatment, dropout rate, pregnancy rate, and live-birth rate.Result(s): During the study period, 946 couples were referred, of whom 17% dropped out. Follow-up was complete in 94% of couples. Spontaneous pregnancies occurred in 28% of all couples, and there were 32% treatment-dependent pregnancies. IVF (51% live births in couples treated) and no treatment/expectant management (50%) were the most effective treatments.Conclusion(s): After 5-8 years, 51% of couples referred for subfertility had at least one live birth. (Fertil Steril (R) 2011;96:160-4. (C)2011 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

Objectives: We evaluated outcomes in couples treated for infertility with natural procreative technology (NaProTechnology, NPT), a systematic medical approach for optimizing physiologic conditions for conception in vivo, from an Irish general practice. Methods: All couples receiving treatment from 2 NPT-trained family physicians between February 1998 and January 2002 were studied. The main outcome was live birth, and secondary outcomes included conceptions and multiple births. Crude proportions and adjusted life-table proportions were calculated per 100 couples. Results: A total of 1239 couples had an initial consult for NPT, of which 1072 had been trying for at least a year to conceive and initiated treatment. The average female age was 35.8 years, the mean duration of attempting to conceive was 5.6 years, 24% had a prior birth, and 33% had previously attempted treatment with assisted reproductive technology (ART). All couples were taught to identify the fertile days of the menstrual cycle with the Creighton Model FertilityCare System, and most received additional medical treatment, including clomiphene (75%). In life-table analysis, the cumulative proportion of first live births for those completing up to 24 months of NPT treatment was 52.8 per 100 couples. The crude proportion was 25.5. Younger couples and couples without previous ART attempts had higher rates of live birth. Among live births, there were 4.6% twin births. Conclusion: NPT provided by trained general practitioners had live birth rates comparable to cohort studies of more invasive treatments, including ART. Further studies are warranted to compare NPT directly to other treatments. (J Am Board Fam Med 2008;21:375‐384.)

Knowledge of the chance to conceive for the subfertile couple is important in the process of counselling and clinical decision making. There are no data available on the reproducibility of the clinician's ability to assess the chance to conceive, both after expectant management or treatment with in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-embryo transfer). We evaluated this reproducibility by means of a set of case histories presented to a panel of gynaecologists and endocrinologists, A poor reproducibility would indicate a strong need for the use of prognostic models. In 1995, 57 gynaecologists and 32 reproductive endocrinologists were asked to appraise the 1 year spontaneous conception chance as well as the cumulative success rate of three cycles for IVF-embryo transfer of four couples with different medical histories. The clinical and laboratory data of these couples were presented as case histories. The difference between the estimated spontaneous pregnancy chances and the success rate of IVF-embryo transfer was also calculated. Calculation of intra-class correlation coefficients, which can be considered as measures of the reproducibility, demonstrated a substantial reproducibility of the assessment of spontaneous conception chances, but a slight to fair reproducibility of the assessment of IVF-embryo transfer success rates. We conclude that the use of reliable prognostic models for IVF-embryo transfer in the management of subfertility is warranted.