Gonadotrophins or clomiphene citrate in women with normogonadotropic anovulation and CC failure: does the endometrium matter?

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

Continuous oral contraceptives versus long-term pituitary desensitization prior to IVF/ICSI in moderate to severe endometriosis: study protocol of a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTIONS: The primary objective is to investigate if continuous use of oral contraceptives is non-inferior compared to long-term pituitary desensitization with a GnRH agonist prior to IVF/ICSI in patients with moderate to severe endometriosis with regard to treatment efficacy. Secondary objectives concern treatment safety and cost-effectiveness. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Long-term pituitary desensitization with a GnRH agonist for 3-6 months prior to IVF/ICSI improves clinical pregnancy rates in women suffering from endometriosis. However, discussion about this treatment strategy exists because of its uncomfortable side effects. Alternatively, IVF/ICSI pre-treatment with continuously administered oral contraceptives may offer fewer side-effects and lower (in)direct costs, as well as encouraging IVF outcomes in women with endometriosis. To date, these two different IVF/ICSI pre-treatment strategies in women with endometriosis have not been directly compared. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: An open-label, parallel two-arm randomized controlled multicenter trial is planned, including patients with moderate to severe endometriosis. To demonstrate an absolute difference of 13% (delta of 10% with non-inferiority margin of 3%) with a power of 80% 137 patients per group are sufficient. Taking into account a withdrawal of patients of 10% and a cancelation rate of embryo transfer after ovarian pick up of 10% (for instance due to fertilization failure), the sample size calculation is rounded off to 165 patients per group; 330 patients in total will be included. After informed consent, eligible patients will be randomly allocated to the intervention or reference group by using web based block randomization stratified per centre. Study inclusion is expected to be complete in 3-5 years. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: The research population consists of patients with moderate to severe endometriosis (ASRM III/IV) who are scheduled for their first, second or third IVF/ICSI treatment attempt. Women aged over 41 years, younger than 18 years, with a known contraindication for the use of oral contraceptives and/or GnRH agonists or with severe male factor infertility will be excluded from participation. After informed consent patients are allocated to the intervention group (one-phase oral contraceptive continuously during three subsequent months) or the reference group (three Leuprorelin 3.75 mg i.m./s.c. depot injections during three subsequent months). Tibolon 2.5 mg can be given daily as add-back therapy in the reference group. After 3 months of pre-treatment the IVF/ICSI stimulation phase will be started. The primary outcome is live birth rate after fresh embryo transfer. Secondary outcomes are cumulative live birth rate after one IVF/ICSI treatment cycle (including fresh and frozen embryo transfers up to 15 months after randomization), ongoing pregnancy rate and time to pregnancy. In addition, treatment outcome parameters, adverse events, side-effects during the first 3 months, complications, recurrence of endometriosis (complaints), quality of life, patient preferences, safety and costs effectiveness will be reported. Measurements will be performed at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 months after randomization. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: All authors have no conflict of interest related to this manuscript. The department of reproductive medicine of the Amsterdam UMC location VUmc has received several research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring not related to the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The trial is registered as the COPIE trial (Continuous use of Oral contraceptives as an alternative for long-term Pituitary desensitization with a GnRH agonist prior to IVF/ICSI in Endometriosis patients) in the Dutch Trial Register (Ref. No. NTR6357, http://www.trialregister.nl). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 16 March 2017. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: Enrollment is planned for November 2018.

Gonadotrophins versus clomiphene citrate with or without IUI in women with normogonadotropic anovulation and clomiphene failure: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

STUDY QUESTION: Are six cycles of ovulation induction with gonadotrophins more cost-effective than six cycles of ovulation induction with clomiphene citrate (CC) with or without IUI in normogonadotropic anovulatory women not pregnant after six ovulatory cycles with CC? SUMMARY ANSWER: Both gonadotrophins and IUI are more expensive when compared with CC and intercourse, and gonadotrophins are more effective than CC. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In women with normogonadotropic anovulation who ovulate but do not conceive after six cycles with CC, medication is usually switched to gonadotrophins, with or without IUI. The cost-effectiveness of these changes in policy is unknown. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an economic evaluation of ovulation induction with gonadotrophins compared with CC with or without IUI in a two-by-two factorial multicentre randomized controlled trial in normogonadotropic anovulatory women not pregnant after six ovulatory cycles with CC. Between December 2008 and December 2015 women were allocated to six cycles with gonadotrophins plus IUI, six cycles with gonadotrophins plus intercourse, six cycles with CC plus IUI or six cycles with CC plus intercourse. The primary outcome was conception leading to a live birth achieved within 8 months of randomization. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis on direct medical costs. We calculated the direct medical costs of ovulation induction with gonadotrophins versus CC and of IUI versus intercourse in six subsequent cycles. We included costs of medication, cycle monitoring, interventions, and pregnancy leading to live birth. Resource use was collected from the case report forms and unit costs were derived from various sources. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for gonadotrophins compared to CC and for IUI compared to intercourse. We used non-parametric bootstrap resampling to investigate the effect of uncertainty in our estimates. The analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We allocated 666 women in total to gonadotrophins and IUI (n = 166), gonadotrophins and intercourse (n = 165), CC and IUI (n = 163), or CC and intercourse (n = 172). Mean direct medical costs per woman receiving gonadotrophins or CC were €4495 versus €3006 (cost difference of €1475 (95% CI: €1457-€1493)). Live birth rates were 52% in women allocated to gonadotrophins and 41% in those allocated to CC (relative risk (RR) 1.24:95% CI: 1.05-1.46). The ICER was €15 258 (95% CI: €8721 to €63 654) per additional live birth with gonadotrophins. Mean direct medical costs per woman allocated to IUI or intercourse were €4497 versus €3005 (cost difference of €1510 (95% CI: €1492-€1529)). Live birth rates were 49% in women allocated to IUI and 43% in those allocated to intercourse (RR = 1.14:95% CI: 0.97-1.35). The ICER was €24 361 (95% CI: €-11 290 to €85 172) per additional live birth with IUI. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We allowed participating hospitals to use their local protocols for ovulation induction and IUI, which may have led to variation in costs, but which increases generalizability. Indirect costs generated by transportation or productivity loss were not included. We did not evaluate letrozole, which is potentially more effective than CC. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Gonadotrophins are more effective, but more expensive than CC, therefore, the use of gonadotrophins in women with normogonadotropic anovulation who have not conceived after six ovulatory CC cycles depends on society's willingness to pay for an additional child. In view of the uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness estimate of IUI, these data are not sufficient to make recommendations on the use of IUI in these women. In countries where ovulation induction regimens are reimbursed, policy makers and health care professionals may use our results in their guidelines. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This trial was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw number: 80-82310-97-12067). The Eudract number for this trial is 2008-006171-73. The Sponsor's Protocol Code Number is P08-40. CBLA reports unrestricted grant support from Merck and Ferring. BWM is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for Merck, ObsEva and Guerbet. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR1449.

Endometrial thickness in women undergoing IUI with ovarian stimulation. How thick is too thin? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

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.

Women's perspectives on ovulation induction with or without IUI as treatment for normogonadotrophic anovulation: a discrete choice experiment.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the treatment preferences of women with normogonadotrophic anovulation treated with ovulation induction with or without intrauterine insemination (IUI)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Women with normogonadotrophic anovulation differ in their treatment preference; half of them base their preference on the lowest burden and half of them on the highest effectiveness. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Common treatments for anovulatory women who wish to conceive are ovulation induction using clomiphene citrate or letrozole taken in tablet form or with injections containing gonadotrophins, all optionally combined with IUI. Patient preferences for these alternatives have not yet been examined in these women. STUDY DESIGN SIZE AND DURATION: Between August 2014 and February 2017 we conducted a multicentre discrete choice experiment (DCE). The target sample size was calculated by including 20 women for six attributes in the main analysis resulting in the inclusion of 120 women to be able to assess heterogeneity across choices. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: We invited treatment-naive women diagnosed with normogonadotropic anovulation and visiting the outpatient clinic of five Dutch centers (three teaching hospitals and two university hospitals) to participate in the DCE by completing a printed questionnaire. We asked women to indicate their preference in hypothetical alternative treatment scenarios by offering a series of choice sets from which they were to choose their preferred alternatives. The choice sets contained several treatment characteristics of interest, i.e. attributes concerning ovulation induction with clomiphene citrate or letrozole versus gonadotrophins, as well as intercourse and IUI. We selected six attributes: number of visits to the outpatient clinic during treatment; type of medication; intercourse or IUI; risk of side effects; willingness to pay; and pregnancy chances leading to the birth of a child after six treatment cycles.We used a multinominal logit model to determine the preferences of women and investigated heterogeneity in preferences through latent class analysis. To determine if women were willing to make a trade-off for higher pregnancy rates at the expense of a higher burden, we calculated the marginal rate of substitution. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The questionnaire was completed by 145 women. All six attributes influenced women's treatment preferences and those valued as most important were low risk of side effects, a minimal number of hospital visits and intercourse. A total of 55% of women were driven by the wish to conceive with the least medical interference and lowest burden. The remaining women were success driven and chose mainly for the highest chances to conceive, regardless of the burden. Age and duration of subfertility did not significantly differ between these women. Women were willing to trade-off some burden and costs for higher pregnancy chances. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The sample size of our study is relatively small which made it not possible to perform interaction tests and subgroup analyses. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our results may be used during the counseling of couples about their treatment options. These findings are an argument to explore if a woman prefers potentially fast success or a medically less intense route that might take longer. The preference for the less intense route would lead to the continuation of ovulation induction with oral drugs such as clomiphene citrate or letrozole rather than treatment with injected gonadotrophins, or even IVF. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: B.W.M. is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for Merck, ObsEva and Guerbet. CBL reports grants from Merck and Ferring. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: None.

Natural conception: repeated predictions over time.

STUDY QUESTION: How can we predict chances of natural conception at various time points in couples diagnosed with unexplained subfertility? SUMMARY ANSWER: We developed a dynamic prediction model that can make repeated predictions over time for couples with unexplained subfertility that underwent a fertility workup at a fertility clinic. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The most frequently used prediction model for natural conception (the 'Hunault model') estimates the probability of natural conception only once per couple, that is, after completion of the fertility workup. This model cannot be used for a second or third time for couples who wish to know their renewed chances after a certain period of expectant management. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A prospective cohort studying the long-term follow-up of subfertile couples included in 38 centres in the Netherlands between January 2002 and February 2004. Couples with bilateral tubal occlusion, anovulation or a total motile sperm count <1 × 106 were excluded. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The primary endpoint was time to natural conception, leading to an ongoing pregnancy. Follow-up time was censored at the start of treatment or at the last date of contact. In developing the new dynamic prediction model, we used the same predictors as the Hunault model, i.e. female age, duration of subfertility, female subfertility being primary or secondary, sperm motility and referral status. The performance of the model was evaluated in terms of calibration and discrimination. Additionally, we assessed the utility of the model in terms of the variability of the calculated predictions. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 4999 couples in the cohort, 1053 (21%) women reached a natural conception leading to an ongoing pregnancy within a mean follow-up of 8 months (5th and 95th percentile: 1-21). Our newly developed dynamic prediction model estimated the median probability of conceiving in the first year after the completion of the fertility workup at 27%. For couples not yet pregnant after half a year, after one year and after one and a half years of expectant management, the median probability of conceiving over the next year was estimated at 20, 15 and 13%, respectively. The model performed fair in an internal validation. The prediction ranges were sufficiently broad to aid in counselling couples for at least two years after their fertility workup. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The dynamic prediction model needs to be validated in an external population. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This dynamic prediction model allows reassessment of natural conception chances after various periods of unsuccessful expectant management. This gives valuable information to counsel couples with unexplained subfertility that are seen for a fertility workup. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was facilitated by grant 945/12/002 from ZonMW, The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, The Hague, The Netherlands. No competing interests.

Hysteroscopic proximal tubal occlusion versus laparoscopic salpingectomy as a treatment for hydrosalpinges prior to IVF or ICSI: an RCT.

STUDY QUESTION: Does hysteroscopic proximal tubal occlusion by intratubal devices as a treatment for hydrosalpinges result in comparable ongoing pregnancy rates following IVF/ICSI when compared with laparoscopic salpingectomy? SUMMARY ANSWER: Hysteroscopic proximal tubal occlusion by intratubal devices is inferior to laparoscopic salpingectomy in the treatment of hydrosalpinges in women undergoing IVF/ICSI with respect to ongoing pregnancy rates. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: It is known that women with hydrosalpinges undergoing IVF have poorer pregnancy outcomes compared with women with other forms of tubal infertility. In these women, both laparoscopic salpingectomy and laparoscopic proximal tubal ligation are known to improve IVF outcomes. At present, it is unclear whether a less-invasive hysteroscopic treatment with intratubal devices leads to similar ongoing pregnancy rates following IVF when compared with laparoscopic salpingectomy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A two-centre, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Between October 2009 and December 2014 a total of 85 women were included in this study; of whom, 42 were randomized to hysteroscopic proximal occlusion by intratubal device placement and 43 were randomized to laparoscopic salpingectomy. Randomization was based on a computer-generated randomization list. The study was unblinded. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy rate, defined as a fetal heartbeat on ultrasound beyond 10-week gestation following one IVF/ICSI treatment (fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfers). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied women aged 18-41 years, with uni- or bilateral ultrasound visible hydrosalpinges who were scheduled for an IVF/ICSI treatment. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The ongoing pregnancy rates per patient according to the intention-to-treat principle were 11/42 (26.2%) after hysteroscopic proximal occlusion by intratubal devices (intervention group) versus 24/43 (55.8%) after laparoscopic salpingectomy (control group) (P = 0.008) [absolute difference: 26.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.5-51.7, relative risk (RR): 0.56; 95% CI: 0.31-1.03, P = 0.01]. In the per protocol analysis, the ongoing pregnancy rate per patient following hysteroscopic proximal occlusion by intratubal devices was 9/27 (33.3%) compared with 19/32 (59.4%) following laparoscopic salpingectomy (P = 0.067) (absolute difference: 29.6%; 95% CI: 7.1 to 49.1, RR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.27-0.83, P = 0.062). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Masking participants and investigators would be difficult due to the nature of both interventions. Since we had objective outcome measurements, we withheld sham procedures, leaving the study unblinded. Furthermore, our low sample size resulted in wide CIs. A larger sample size would result in a more accurate treatment effect; however, this was non-feasible for recruitment and inclusion. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: In the treatment of hydrosalpinges prior to IVF/ICSI, hysteroscopic proximal occlusion by intratubal devices is inferior to laparoscopic salpingectomy. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The intratubal devices were received from Conceptus, Inc., San Carlos, CA, USA, which was acquired by Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Whippany, NJ, USA in 2013. Conceptus, Inc./Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. had no role in the study design, data collection and analyses, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. The study as a whole was funded by the SWOG (foundation for scientific investigation in obstetrics and gynaecology of the VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands). P.G.A.H. has received non-financial support from Conceptus, Inc. during the conduct of this study. He has received grants from Ferring B.V., Merck Serono and Abbott outside the submitted work. M.H.E. has received personal fees from Smith and Nephew and IQ Medical Ventures outside the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The Dutch Trial Register: NTR 2073. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: October 21, 2009. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: October 26, 2009.

Oestrogens are Not Related to Emotional Processing: a Study of Regional Brain Activity in Female-to-Male Transsexuals Under Gonadal Suppression.

Although the prevailing opinion is that emotional processes are influenced by sex hormones, the literature is still inconclusive. The aim of the current study was to examine the effects of gonadal suppression on brain activity during affective picture processing. Twenty-one female-to-male (FtM) transsexuals and 19 control women were recruited and underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging scanning while rating emotional pictures adapted from the International Affective Picture System. The gonadal hormone production of the FtMs was suppressed for 8 weeks, the control group did not receive any treatment before scanning. Under gonadal suppression, FtMs showed less brain activation in the superior temporal lobe compared with female controls during perception of positive affective pictures. Regression analysis showed that during processing of positive affective images, brain activity within the right superior temporal lobe was not correlated with levels of estradiol, luteinizing hormone, and follicle-stimulating hormone. In the absence of associations with hormonal levels, the difference in activation in the superior temporal lobe during positive emotional stimuli between FtMs and control women may be attributed to a priori differences between the 2 groups. Future studies should clarify if these differences are a result of atypical sexual differentiation of the brain in FtMs.

Is IVF-served two different ways-more cost-effective than IUI with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation?

STUDY QUESTION: What is the cost-effectiveness of in vitro fertilization (IVF) with conventional ovarian stimulation, single embryo transfer (SET) and subsequent cryocycles or IVF in a modified natural cycle (MNC) compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (IUI-COH) as a first-line treatment in couples with unexplained subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis on natural conception?. SUMMARY ANSWER: Both IVF strategies are significantly more expensive when compared with IUI-COH, without being significantly more effective. In the comparison between IVF-MNC and IUI-COH, the latter is the dominant strategy. Whether IVF-SET is cost-effective depends on society's willingness to pay for an additional healthy child. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IUI-COH and IVF, either after conventional ovarian stimulation or in a MNC, are used as first-line treatments for couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility. As IUI-COH is less invasive, this treatment is usually offered before proceeding to IVF. Yet, as conventional IVF with SET may lead to higher pregnancy rates in fewer cycles for a lower multiple pregnancy rate, some have argued to start with IVF instead of IUI-COH. In addition, IVF in the MNC is considered to be a more patient friendly and less costly form of IVF. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized noninferiority trial. Between January 2009 and February 2012, 602 couples with unexplained infertility and a poor prognosis on natural conception were allocated to three cycles of IVF-SET including frozen embryo transfers, six cycles of IVF-MNC or six cycles of IUI-COH. These couples were followed until 12 months after randomization. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We collected data on resource use related to treatment, medication and pregnancy from the case report forms. We calculated unit costs from various sources. For each of the three strategies, we calculated the mean costs and effectiveness. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH and for IVF-MNC compared with IUI-COH. Nonparametric bootstrap resampling was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in our estimates. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There were 104 healthy children (52%) born in the IVF-SET group, 83 (43%) the IVF-MNC group and 97 (47%) in the IUI-COH group. The mean costs per couple were €7187 for IVF-SET, €8206 for IVF-MNC and €5070 for IUI-COH. Compared with IUI-COH, the costs for IVF-SET and IVF-MNC were significantly higher (mean differences €2117; 95% CI: €1544-€2657 and €3136, 95% CI: €2519-€3754, respectively).The ICER for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH was €43 375 for the birth of an additional healthy child. In the comparison of IVF-MNC to IUI-COH, the latter was the dominant strategy, i.e. more effective at lower costs. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We only report on direct health care costs. The present analysis is limited to 12 months. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since we found no evidence in support of offering IVF as a first-line strategy in couples with unexplained and mild subfertility, IUI-COH should remain the treatment of first choice. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study was supported by a grant from ZonMw, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, (120620027) and a grant from Zorgverzekeraars Nederland, the Netherlands' association of health care insurers (09-003). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52843371; Nederlands Trial Register NTR939.

Prevention of multiple pregnancies in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility: randomised controlled trial of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer or in vitro fertilisation in modified natural cycle compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer or in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle with that of intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in terms of a healthy child. DESIGN: Multicentre, open label, three arm, parallel group, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. SETTING: 17 centres in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Couples seeking fertility treatment after at least 12 months of unprotected intercourse, with the female partner aged between 18 and 38 years, an unfavourable prognosis for natural conception, and a diagnosis of unexplained or mild male subfertility. INTERVENTIONS: Three cycles of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer (plus subsequent cryocycles), six cycles of in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, or six cycles of intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation within 12 months after randomisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was birth of a healthy child resulting from a singleton pregnancy conceived within 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were live birth, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, time to pregnancy, complications of pregnancy, and neonatal morbidity and mortality RESULTS: 602 couples were randomly assigned between January 2009 and February 2012; 201 were allocated to in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer, 194 to in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, and 207 to intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Birth of a healthy child occurred in 104 (52%) couples in the in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer group, 83 (43%) in the in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle group, and 97 (47%) in the intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation group. This corresponds to a risk, relative to intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation, of 1.10 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.34) for in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer and 0.91 (0.73 to 1.14) for in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle. These 95% confidence intervals do not extend below the predefined threshold of 0.69 for inferiority. Multiple pregnancy rates per ongoing pregnancy were 6% (7/121) after in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer, 5% (5/102) after in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, and 7% (8/119) after intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation (one sided P=0.52 for in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer compared with intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation; one sided P=0.33 for in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation). CONCLUSIONS: In vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer and in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle were non-inferior to intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in terms of the birth of a healthy child and showed comparable, low multiple pregnancy rates.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52843371; Nederlands Trial Register NTR939.

Should the individual preterm birth risk be incorporated into the embryo transfer policy in in vitro fertilisation? A decision analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess by proof of principle whether the individual risk for preterm birth (PTB) should be incorporated into the embryo transfer policy in in vitro fertilisation (IVF). DESIGN AND SETTING: A theoretical decision analysis. METHODS AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A decision tree was built to compare the consequences of different chances of PTB on the outcome of single embryo transfer (SET) or double embryo transfer (DET) in patients with different prognosis of conception. Based on patient characteristics, three scenarios of prognosis of conception were considered and the consequences of SET and DET were calculated for different chances of PTB in these groups. The primary outcome was the health of the children born. Sensitivity analyses were performed for both prognosis for conception and chances of PTB. RESULTS: In women with good fertility prospects, one IVF cycle with DET increases the ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) from 29 to 39% compared with SET, whereas the chances of poor neonatal outcome in these extra pregnancies range from 1.4 to 11% per pregnancy depending on the individual PTB risk. However, for women with poor fertility prospects, DET increases the OPR from 8 to 11% with minimal additional poor neonatal outcome, ranging from 0.3 to 4.0% per pregnancy for women with a low or high PTB risk, respectively. Our findings were robust in multiple sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: In an IVF programme, the optimal embryo transfer strategy is dependent on the singleton and multiple pregnancy chances of a woman, but also on her PTB risk. In women with low PTB risk, DET increases the OPR for a small additional risk of neonatal complications. Our analysis pleads for a tailored management strategy, taking into account the personalised prognosis for (multiple) pregnancy and PTB.

Increased breast cancer risk in in vitro fertilisation treated women with a multiple pregnancy: a new hypothesis based on historical in vitro fertilisation treatment data.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer risk is temporarily increased after a full-term pregnancy and declines thereafter, possibly due to increased levels of gonadal and placental hormones during pregnancy. Inconsistent results, however, have been reported after twin pregnancies with higher hormone levels. Among women treated with in vitro fertilisation (IVF), for whom the number of embryos available for implantation is known, we recently observed that a multiple birth after implantation of all transferred embryos is associated with higher levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). As VEGF is involved in breast cancer progression, we studied the effects of embryo implantation and a multiple birth on breast cancer risk in a nationwide Dutch cohort of IVF-treated women. METHODS: We performed a cohort analysis among 12,589 women who had been treated with IVF between 1983 and 1995 and completed a risk factor questionnaire between 1997 and 1999. Data on IVF treatment were obtained from medical records. Breast cancer cases were ascertained through linkage with the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry. Breast cancer risks associated with singleton and multiple births were estimated with Cox regression. FINDINGS: There were 1688 women (13.4%) with multiples, 6027 (47.9%) with singletons and 4874 (38.7%) nulliparous women. Breast cancer occurred in 317 women of whom 57 had multiples. Breast cancer risk was 1.44 times higher in mothers of multiples than in mothers of singletons (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06-1.97). Risk was highest in women who gave birth to multiples from all embryos transferred (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.86, 95% CI 1.01-3.43), and lower for those with multiples after incomplete embryo implantation (adjusted HR 1.31, 95% CI 0.76-2.25). INTERPRETATION: A woman's potential to implant all transferred embryos may be associated with breast cancer risk. Further research is needed to confirm our results and to identify the underlying biological mechanisms.

Short-term changes in hormonal profiles after laparoscopic ovarian laser evaporation compared with diagnostic laparoscopy for PCOS.

STUDY QUESTION: Which reproductive endocrine changes are attributed exclusively to laparoscopic ovarian drilling in polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Laser evaporation-specific endocrine effects were the prevention of an immediate increase in inhibin B and a sustained decrease in testosterone, androstenedione and anti-Müllarian hormone (AMH). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: All ovarian drilling procedures result in reproductive endocrine changes. It is not known which of these changes are the result of ovarian drilling and which are related to the surgery per se. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This prospective controlled study was performed at an outpatient academic fertility clinic. Between 2007 and 2010, a total of 21 oligo- or amenorrheic PCOS patients were included. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Included were oligo- or amenorrheic PCOS patients with all three of the Rotterdam criteria and luteinizing hormone (LH) >6.5 U/l. All PCOS patients had an indication for diagnostic surgery due to subfertility. There were 12 PCOS patients who chose to undergo ovarian laser evaporation (CO2 laser, 25 W, 20 times/ovary) and 9 PCOS who chose a diagnostic laparoscopy only (controls). Reproductive endocrinology was measured before, and until 5 days after, surgery, and four gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) 'double pulse' tests were included. The main outcome measures were changes in reproductive endocrinology and pituitary sensitivity/priming to GnRH after laser evaporation compared with diagnostic laparoscopy only. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In the first hours after surgery, both groups showed an increase in LH, follicle stimulating hormone, estrogen and a decrease in testosterone, androstenedione, AMH and insulin growth factor-1 (P < 0.05). Inhibin B increased in the laparoscopy only group (P < 0.05). In the first days after surgery, testosterone, androstenedione and AMH remained at lower than baseline levels exclusively in the laser group (P < 0.05). Pituitary sensitivity/priming to GnRH was not altered after either laser evaporation or laparoscopy only. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The limitations of this study are the short follow-up period and the relatively small groups. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The strength of this study is the integrally measured endocrine profiles in combination with an optimal control group of PCOS patients undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy only. Interestingly, most of the immediate endocrine changes after laser evaporation could be related to the surgical context and not to the ovarian drilling procedure itself. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study was funded by the Foundation of Scientific Research in Obstetrics and Gynaecology and the study medication, Lutrelef, was donated by Ferring, The Netherlands, Hoofdorphe There were no conflicts of interests mentioned by the authors.

How long should we continue clomiphene citrate in anovulatory women?

STUDY QUESTION: What is the effectiveness of continued treatment with clomiphene citrate (CC) in women with World Health Organization (WHO) type II anovulation who have had at least six ovulatory cycles with CC but did not conceive? SUMMARY ANSWER: When women continued CC after six treatment cycles, the cumulative incidence rate of the ongoing pregnancy rate was 54% (95% CI 37-78%) for cycles 7-12. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: If women with WHO type II anovulation fail to conceive with CC within six ovulatory cycles, guidelines advise switching to gonadotrophins, which have a high risk of multiple gestation and are expensive. It is however not clear what success rate could be achieved by continued treatment with CC. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a retrospective cohort study of women with WHO II anovulation who visited the fertility clinics of five hospitals in the Netherlands between 1994 and 2010. We included women treated with CC who had had at least six ovulatory cycles without successful conception (n = 114) after which CC was continued using dosages varying from 50 to 150 mg per day for 5 days. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Follow-up was a total of 12 treatment cycles. Primary outcome was the cumulative incidence rate of an ongoing pregnancy at the end of treatment. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We recruited 114 women that had ovulated on CC for at least six cycles but had not conceived. Of these 114 women, 35 (31%) had an ongoing pregnancy resulting in a cumulative incidence rate of an ongoing pregnancy of 54% after 7-12 treatment cycles with CC. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Limitations of our study are its retrospective approach. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Randomized trials comparing continued treatment with CC with the relatively established second line treatment with gonadotrophins are justified. In the meantime, we suggest to only begin this less convenient and more expensive treatment for women who do not conceive after 12 ovulatory cycles with CC. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: None. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Long-term follow up of couples initially randomized between immobilization and immediate mobilization subsequent to IUI.

A previous randomized clinical trial compared immobilization for 15 min with immediate mobilization subsequent to intrauterine insemination (IUI) and showed higher ongoing pregnancy rates in couples immobilizing subsequent to IUI. The current study compared the long-term effectiveness of immobilization subsequent to IUI. All couples (n = 391) included in the trial were followed for 3 years after randomization and pregnancies and treatments were recorded. After the initial trial period, couples in both groups were offered treatment according to local protocol. The primary outcome was an ongoing pregnancy during the 3 years after the initial trial. In this time period, there were 143 ongoing pregnancies in the immobilization group (n = 199 couples) and 112 ongoing pregnancies in the immediate mobilization group (n = 192). The ongoing pregnancy rates were 72% and 58%, respectively (relative risk 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.4). The persistent significant difference in ongoing pregnancy rates underpins the importance of immobilization after IUI. There is no valid reason to withhold women from immobilizing for 15 min after IUI.

No evidence that embryo selection by near-infrared spectroscopy in addition to morphology is able to improve live birth rates: results from an individual patient data meta-analysis.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the value of embryo selection by metabolomic profiling of culture medium with near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy as an adjunct to morphology, compared with embryo selection by morphology alone, based on an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPD MA)? SUMMARY ANSWER: The IPD MA indicates that the live birth rate after embryo selection by NIR spectroscopy and morphology is not significantly different compared with the live birth rate after embryo selection by morphology alone. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Retrospective proof of principle studies has consistently shown that high NIR viability scores are correlated with a high implantation potential of embryos. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have generally shown no benefit of the NIR technology over embryo morphology, although there have been some conflicting results between pregnancy outcomes on different days of embryo transfer. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This IPD MA included all existing RCTs (n = 4) in which embryo selection by morphology was compared with embryo selection by morphology and the use of NIR spectroscopy of spent embryo culture medium by the Viametrics-E(™). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Searches of PubMed, the Cochrane Library and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry were conducted and the sole manufacturer of the Viametrics-E(™) was consulted to identify clinics where an RCT comparing embryo selection by morphology to embryo selection by morphology and the use of the Viametrics-E(™) (NIR viability score) was performed. A total of 20 citations were potentially eligible for inclusion, two of which met the inclusion criteria. The manufacturer of the Viametrics-E(™) provided two additional clinical sites of use. In total, four RCTs were identified as eligible for inclusion. The IPD MA was based on a fixed effect model due to the lack of heterogeneity between included studies. Differences between study groups were tested and reported using logistic regression models adjusted for significant confounders. The pooled analysis of the primary outcome led to a total sample size of 924 patients: 484 patients in the control group (embryo selection by morphology alone) and 440 patients in the treatment group (embryo selection by morphology plus NIR spectroscopy). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The live birth rates in the control group and the NIR group were 34.7% (168 of 484) and 33.2% (146 of 440), respectively. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was 0.98 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-1.29], indicating no difference in live birth rates between the two study groups. The data of the four studies showed no significant heterogeneity (I(2) = 26.2% P = 0.26). The multivariate regression analysis including all confounders show that maternal age (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.87-0.94) and the number of previous IVF cycles (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71-0.96) were significantly related to live birth. The study group (i.e. embryo selection by morphology or embryo selection by morphology plus NIR) was not related to live birth (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.73-1.29). LIMITATIONS AND REASONS FOR CAUTION: The availability of at least two similar best quality embryos as an inclusion criterion prior to transfer in the two largest RCTs might have caused a selection bias towards a better prognosis patient group. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: There is at present no evidence that NIR spectroscopy of spent embryo culture media in its current form can be used in daily practice to improve live birth rates.

Costs and benefits of individuals conceived after IVF: a net tax evaluation in The Netherlands.

This study evaluated the lifetime future net tax revenues from individuals conceived after IVF relative to those naturally conceived. A model based on the method of generational accounting was developed to evaluate investments in IVF. Calculations were based on average investments paid and received from the government by an individual. All costs were discounted to their net present values and adjusted for survival. The lifetime net present value of IVF-conceived individuals was -€81,374 (the minus sign reflecting negative net present value). The lifetime net present value of IVF-conceived men and women were -€47,091 and -€123,177, respectively. The lifetime net present value of naturally conceived individuals was -€70,392; respective amounts for men and women were -€36,109 and -€112,195. The model was most sensitive to changes in the growth of healthcare costs, economic growth and the discount rate. Therefore, it is concluded that, similarly to naturally conceived individuals in the Netherlands, IVF-conceived individuals have negative discounted net tax revenue at the end of life. The analytic framework described here undervalues the incremental value of an additional birth because it only considers the fiscal consequences of life and does not take into consideration broader macroeconomic benefits. This study evaluated the lifetime future net tax revenues from individuals conceived after IVF relative those naturally conceived. A model based on the method of generational accounting to evaluate investments in IVF was used. Calculations were based on average investments paid and received from the government by an individual. The lifetime net present value of IVF-conceived individuals was -€81,374 (the minus sign reflecting negative net present value). The lifetime net present value of IVF-conceived men and women were -€47,091 and -€123,177, respectively. The lifetime net present value of naturally conceived individuals was -€70,392; respective amounts for men and women were -€36,109 and -€112,195. The model was most sensitive for changes in the growth in healthcare costs, economic growth and the discount rate. Just as naturally conceived individuals in the Netherlands, IVF-conceived individuals have negative discounted net tax revenue at the end of life. The analytic framework described here undervalues the incremental value of an additional birth because it only considers the fiscal consequences of life and does not take into consideration broader macroeconomic benefits.

Prognostic profiles and the effectiveness of assisted conception: secondary analyses of individual patient data.

BACKGROUND: At present, it is unclear which treatment strategy is best for couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility. We hypothesized that the prognostic profile influences the effectiveness of assisted conception. We addressed this issue by analysing individual patient data (IPD) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We performed an IPD analysis of published RCTs on treatment strategies for subfertile couples. Eligible studies were identified from Cochrane systematic reviews and we also searched Medline and EMBASE. The authors of RCTs that compared expectant management (EM), intracervical insemination (ICI), intrauterine insemination (IUI), all three with or without controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and IVF in couples with unexplained or male subfertility, and had reported live birth or ongoing pregnancy as an outcome measure, were invited to share their data. For each individual patient the chance of natural conception was calculated with a validated prognostic model. We constructed prognosis-by-treatment curves and tested whether there was a significant interaction between treatment and prognosis. RESULTS: We acquired data from 8 RCTs, including 2550 couples. In three studies (n = 954) the more invasive treatment strategies tended to be less effective in couples with a high chance of natural conception but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P-value for interaction between prognosis and treatment outcome were 0.71, 0.31 and 0.19). In one study (n = 932 couples) the strategies with COS (ICI and IUI) led to higher pregnancy rates than unstimulated strategies (ICI 8% versus 15%, IUI 13% versus 22%), regardless of prognosis (P-value for interaction in all comparisons >0.5), but at the expense of a high twin rate in the COS strategies (ICI 6% versus 23% and IUI 3% versus 30%, respectively). In two studies (n = 373 couples), the more invasive treatment strategies tended to be more effective in couples with a good prognosis but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P-value for interaction: 0.38 and 0.68). In one study (n = 253 couples) the differential effect of prognosis on treatment effect was limited (P-value for interaction 0.52), perhaps because prognosis was incorporated in the inclusion criteria. The only study that compared EM with IVF included 38 couples, too small for a precise estimate. CONCLUSIONS: In this IPD analysis of couples with unexplained or male subfertility, we did not find a large differential effect of prognosis on the effectiveness of fertility treatment with IUI, COS or IVF.

Influence of ovarian manipulation on reproductive endocrinology in polycystic ovarian syndrome and regularly cycling women.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the function of the ovarian neuronal network in humans. In many species, copulation influences endocrinology through this network. As a first step, the possible influence of ovarian mechanical manipulation on pituitary and ovarian hormones was evaluated in polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) and regularly cycling women. DESIGN: Prospective case-control study (2008-2010). METHODS: Ten PCOS women (Rotterdam criteria) undergoing ovulation induction with recombinant-FSH and ten normal ovulatory controls were included in an academic fertility clinic. In the late follicular phase blood was drawn every 10 min for 6 h. After 3 h the ovaries were mechanically manipulated by moving a transvaginal ultrasound probe firmly over each ovary ten times. Main outcome measures were LH and FSH pulsatility and ovarian hormones before and after ovarian manipulation. RESULTS: All PCOS patients showed an LH decline after the ovarian manipulation (before 13.0 U/l and after 10.4 U/l, P<0.01), probably based on a combination of a longer LH pulse interval and smaller amplitude (P=0.07). The controls showed no LH change (before 9.6 U/l and after 9.3 U/l, P=0.67). None of the ovarian hormones (estradiol, progesterone, anti-Müllerian hormone, inhibin B, androstenedione and testosterone) changed in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian mechanical manipulation lowers LH secretion immediately and typically only in preovulatory PCOS patients. The immediate LH change after the ovarian manipulation without any accompanying ovarian hormonal changes point to nonhormonal communication from the ovaries to the pituitary. A neuronal pathway from the ovaries communicating to the hypothalamic-pituitary system is the most reasonable explanation.

Recombinant LH supplementation to a standard GnRH antagonist protocol in women of 35 years or older undergoing IVF/ICSI: a randomized controlled multicentre study.

STUDY QUESTION: Does the addition of exogenous LH to an IVF/ICSI stimulation protocol with recombinant FSH (r-FSH) and a GnRH antagonist improve the ovarian response and pregnancy rates in women of 35 years and older? SUMMARY ANSWER: Supplementation of LH during the second half of the follicular phase has no effect on pregnancy rates, implantation rates or on ovarian response in women of 35 years and older undergoing GnRH antagonist IVF/ICSI cycles. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In IVF/ICSI stimulation protocols GnRH agonists or antagonists are administered to prevent a premature pituitary LH surge, which can have a detrimental effect on the IVF/ICSI procedure. In effect, GnRH analogues cause the levels of both gonadotrophins to drop. In order to allow follicle growth FSH is administered exogenously, whereas LH is usually not supplemented. Although GnRH analogues prevent LH surges, there is evidence that, particularly in older women, administration of GnRH analogues may cause endogenous LH levels to decrease excessively. Several studies have been performed to investigate whether the addition of recombinant LH (r-LH) to r-FSH improves cycle outcome. Only a few studies have analysed this issue in the GnRH antagonist protocol and the results of these trials obtained in older women (>35 years old) are conflicting. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A multicentre RCT was performed between 2004 and 2010 in 253 couples who were undergoing IVF or ICSI. Women were 35 years or older and received ovarian stimulation in a protocol with r-FSH (Gonal-F 225 IU/day) starting from cycle day 3 and GnRH antagonist (Cetrotide 0.25 mg/day) from stimulation day 6. Randomization took place on stimulation day 6 to receive both r-FSH and r-LH (Luveris 150 IU/day) or continue with FSH alone. Randomization for r-LH supplementation was performed centrally by serially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes, stratified by centre. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Of 253 subjects randomized, 125 received both r-FSH and r-LH and 128 received r-FSH only. Patients were recruited from the Division of Reproductive Medicine of the Obstetrics and Gynaecology department of four hospitals in the Netherlands. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There were no demographic or clinical differences between the groups. The intention-to-treat analysis revealed that of those receiving both r-FSH and r-LH, 35 (28.0%) had a clinical pregnancy, compared with 38 (29.7%) receiving only r-FSH (mean difference -1.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -9.4 to 12.7, P = 0.9). Ongoing pregnancy rates were 25 (20%) versus 28 (21.9%) (mean difference -1.9%; 95% CI -8.2 to 11.9, P = 0.9) and implantation rates 18.8 versus 20.7% (mean difference -1.9%; 95% CI -8.0 to 11.7, P = 0.6) in the 'r-FSH and r-LH' and 'r-FSH only' groups respectively. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: A limitation of our study is its early closure. This was done because the interim analysis after randomization of 250 patients indicated no benefit in any aspect of the experiment. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Given previous data, including a Cochrane review, and our own results the evidence indicates that LH supplementation has no benefit on ongoing pregnancy rates in women of 35 years or older. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Merck Serono Netherlands, an affiliate of Merck Serono SA- Geneva, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany has donated the r-LH (Luveris(®)). No conflict of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The trial was registered in the Dutch trial register (ISRCTN10841210).