Local production of 17ß-oestradiol in the endometrium during the implantation window: a pilot study.

Abstract: Sex steroids are converted to bioactive metabolites and vice versa by endometrial steroid-metabolising enzymes. Studies indicate that alterations in this metabolism might affect endometrial receptivity. This pilot study determined whether the endometrial formation and inactivation of 17ß-oestradiol differed between the supposedly embryo-receptive endometrium and non-receptive endometrium of women undergoing IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Endometrial biopsies were obtained from IVF/ICSI patients 5-8 days after ovulation in a natural cycle, prior to their second IVF/ICSI cycle with fresh embryo transfer (ET). Endometrial biopsies from patients who achieved clinical pregnancy after fresh ET (n = 15) were compared with endometrial biopsies from patients that did not conceive after fresh ET (n = 15). Formation of 17ß-oestradiol (oxidative 17ß-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenases (HSDs)), oestrone (reductive HSD17Bs) and inhibition of HSD17B1 activity were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography. The endometrial transcriptome was profiled using RNA sequencing followed by principal component analysis and differentially expressed gene analysis. The false discovery rate-adjusted P < 0.05 and log fold change >0.5 were selected as the screening threshold. Formation and inactivation of 17ß-oestradiol resulted similar between groups. Inhibition of HSD17B1 activity was significantly higher in the non-pregnant group when only primary infertile women (n = 12) were considered (27.1%, n = 5 vs 16.2%, n = 7, P = 0.04). Gene expression analysis confirmed the presence of HSD17B1 (encoding HSD17B1), HSD17B2 (encoding HSD17B2) and 33 of 46 analysed steroid metabolising enzymes in the endometrium. In the primary infertile subgroup (n = 10) 12 DEGs were found including LINC02349 which has been linked to implantation. However, the exact relationship between steroid-metabolising enzyme activity, expression and implantation outcome requires further investigation in larger, well-defined patient groups. Lay summary: Sex hormones are produced and broken down by enzymes that can be found in the endometrium (the inner lining of the womb). This enzyme activity might influence the chances of becoming pregnant. We compared (i) enzyme activity in the endometrium of 15 women who did and 15 women who did not become pregnant in their second in vitro fertilisation attempt, (ii) how enzyme activity can be blocked by an inhibitor, and (iii) differences in gene expression (the process by which instructions in our DNA are converted into a product). Enzyme activity was similar between groups. We found that in women who have never been pregnant in the past, inhibition of enzyme activity was higher and found differences in a gene that has been linked to the implantation of the embryo, but future studies should be performed in larger, well-defined patient groups to confirm these findings.

Obstetric and neonatal outcomes after natural versus artificial cycle frozen embryo transfer and the role of luteal phase support: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The number of frozen embryo transfers (FET) has increased dramatically over the past decade. Based on current evidence, there is no difference in pregnancy rates when natural cycle FET (NC-FET) is compared to artificial cycle FET (AC-FET) in subfertile women. However, NC-FET seems to be associated with lower risk of adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes compared with AC-FET cycles. Currently, there is no consensus about whether NC-FET needs to be combined with luteal phase support (LPS) or not. The question of how to prepare the endometrium for FET has now gained even more importance and taken the dimension of safety into account as it should not simply be reduced to the basic question of effectiveness. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: The objective of this project was to determine whether NC-FET, with or without LPS, decreases the risk of adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes compared with AC-FET. SEARCH METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out. A literature search was performed using the following databases: CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE from inception to 10 October 2022. Observational studies, including cohort studies, and registries comparing obstetric and neonatal outcomes between singleton pregnancies after NC-FET and those after AC-FET were sought. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. We calculated pooled odds ratios (ORs), pooled risk differences (RDs), pooled adjusted ORs, and prevalence estimates with 95% CI using a random effect model, while heterogeneity was assessed by the I2. OUTCOMES: The conducted search identified 2436 studies, 890 duplicates were removed and 1546 studies were screened. Thirty studies (NC-FET n = 56 445; AC-FET n = 57 231) were included, 19 of which used LPS in NC-FET. Birthweight was lower following NC-FET versus AC-FET (mean difference 26.35 g; 95% CI 11.61-41.08, I2 = 63%). Furthermore NC-FET compared to AC-FET resulted in a lower risk of large for gestational age (OR 0.88, 95% 0.83-0.94, I2 = 54%), macrosomia (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.71-0.93, I2 = 68%), low birthweight (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.77-0.85, I2 = 41%), early pregnancy loss (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.61-0.86, I2 = 70%), preterm birth (OR 0.80; 95% CI 0.75-0.85, I2 = 20%), very preterm birth (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53-0.84, I2 = 0%), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.50-0.65, I2 = 61%), pre-eclampsia (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.42-0.60, I2 = 44%), placenta previa (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.97, I2 = 0%), and postpartum hemorrhage (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.38-0.48, I2 = 53%). Stratified analyses on LPS use in NC-FET suggested that, compared to AC-FET, NC-FET with LPS decreased preterm birth risk, while NC-FET without LPS did not (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.70-0.81). LPS use did not modify the other outcomes. Heterogeneity varied from low to high, while quality of the evidence was very low to moderate. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: This study confirms that NC-FET decreases the risk of adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes compared with AC-FET. We estimate that for each adverse outcome, use of NC-FET may prevent 4 to 22 cases per 1000 women. Consequently, NC-FET should be the preferred treatment in women with ovulatory cycles undergoing FET. Based on very low quality of evidence, the risk of preterm birth be decreased when LPS is used in NC-FET compared to AC-FET. However, because of many uncertainties-the major being the debate about efficacy of the use of LPS-future research is needed on efficacy and safety of LPS and no recommendation can be made about the use of LPS.

Expectant management versus IUI in unexplained subfertility and a poor pregnancy prognosis (EXIUI study): a randomized controlled trial.

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.

Facilitators and barriers for home-based monitoring to time frozen embryo transfers in IVF among women and healthcare providers.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the facilitators and barriers concerning the implementation of home-based monitoring for natural cycle frozen embryo transfer (NC-FET) from the perspectives of patients and healthcare providers in the Netherlands? SUMMARY ANSWER: The most important facilitator was optimal pregnancy chance for both the patients and healthcare providers, and the most important barriers were the risk of missing an ovulation for the patients and laboratory capacity for the healthcare providers. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The share of FET cycles in IVF treatments is increasing and, therefore, it is important to optimize protocols for FET. Monitoring of ovulation, which is used in NC-FET, can be hospital-based (ultrasounds and ovulation triggering) or home-based (LH urine tests). Home-based monitoring has the advantage of being the most natural protocol for FET and provides the feeling of empowerment and discretion for patients. A systematic approach for the implementation of home-based monitoring has to start with an exploration of the perspectives of all stakeholders. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: Stakeholders (patients and healthcare providers) involved in the implementation process in the Netherlands participated in the present study. Patients were represented by the Dutch Patient Organisation for Couples with Fertility Problems (FREYA) and healthcare providers were represented by gynaecologists and their society (The Netherlands Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology), embryologists and their society (The Dutch Federation of Clinical Embryology) as well as fertility doctors. A panel of experts hypothesized on barriers and facilitators for the implementation of home-based monitoring during the proposal phase of the Antarctica-2 randomized controlled trial (RCT). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: All stakeholders were represented during the study. Two different questionnaires were developed in order to investigate facilitators and barriers for the patients and for healthcare providers. The facilitators and barriers were ranked on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the most important. Based on our power analysis, we aimed for a minimum of 300 completed questionnaires for the patients and a minimum of 90 completed questionnaires for the healthcare providers. Facilitators and barriers were analysed using frequencies, mean (SD) and ranking. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 311 patients filled out the questionnaire of whom 86.8% underwent FET previously. The most important facilitator for the patients was to implement the strategy with the highest chance of pregnancy (mean 9.7; 95% CI 9.6-9.7) and the most important barrier was risk of missing ovulation (mean 8.4; 95% CI 8.2-8.6). A total of 96 healthcare providers filled out the questionnaire. According to healthcare providers, patients would accept the strategy when it causes less interference with their work and private life (mean 7.5; 95% CI 7.1-8.0) and has a low risk of missing the ovulation (mean 7.6; 95% CI 7.1-8.0). The most important facilitator for the implementation of home-based monitoring for healthcare providers was optimizing cumulative pregnancy rates (mean 8.1; 95% CI 7.7-8.4) and the most important barrier was the lack of laboratory capacity and flexibility (mean 6.4; 95% CI 5.8-7.0). LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Facilitators and barriers were selected based on expert opinion. Currently, there are no validated questionnaires that aim to assess facilitators and barriers for the implementation of treatments in fertility care. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: During our study, we gained insight into barriers and facilitators for the implementation of home-based monitoring of NC-FET at an early phase. Early sharing and discussion of the results of this study with all stakeholders involved should stimulate a fast incorporation in guidelines, especially as key professionals in guideline development took part in this study. Also, based on our results, we can advise guideline developers to add tools to the guideline that may help overcome the implementation barriers. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The Antarctica-2 RCT is supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw 843002807). No authors have any competing interests to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Trial NL6414 (NTR6590).

Economic evaluation of endometrial scratching before the second IVF/ICSI treatment: a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial (SCRaTCH trial).

STUDY QUESTION: Is a single endometrial scratch prior to the second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment cost-effective compared to no scratch, when evaluated over a 12-month follow-up period? SUMMARY ANSWER: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for an endometrial scratch was €6524 per additional live birth, but due to uncertainty regarding the increase in live birth rate this has to be interpreted with caution. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Endometrial scratching is thought to improve the chances of success in couples with previously failed embryo implantation in IVF/ICSI treatment. It has been widely implemented in daily practice, despite the lack of conclusive evidence of its effectiveness and without investigating whether scratching allows for a cost-effective method to reduce the number of IVF/ICSI cycles needed to achieve a live birth. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This economic evaluation is based on a multicentre randomized controlled trial carried out in the Netherlands (SCRaTCH trial) that compared a single scratch prior to the second IVF/ICSI treatment with no scratch in couples with a failed full first IVF/ICSI cycle. Follow-up was 12 months after randomization.Economic evaluation was performed from a healthcare and societal perspective by taking both direct medical costs and lost productivity costs into account. It was performed for the primary outcome of biochemical pregnancy leading to live birth after 12 months of follow-up as well as the secondary outcome of live birth after the second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment (i.e. the first after randomization). To allow for worldwide interpretation of the data, cost level scenario analysis and sensitivity analysis was performed. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: From January 2016 until July 2018, 933 women with a failed first IVF/ICSI cycle were included in the trial. Data on treatment and pregnancy were recorded up until 12 months after randomization, and the resulting live birth outcomes (even if after 12 months) were also recorded.Total costs were calculated for the second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment and for the full 12 month period for each participant. We included costs of all treatments, medication, complications and lost productivity costs. Cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out by calculating ICERs for scratch compared to control. Bootstrap resampling was used to estimate the uncertainty around cost and effect differences and ICERs. In the sensitivity and scenario analyses, various unit costs for a single scratch were introduced, amongst them, unit costs as they apply for the United Kingdom (UK). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: More live births occurred in the scratch group, but this also came with increased costs over a 12-month period. The estimated chance of a live birth after 12 months of follow-up was 44.1% in the scratch group compared to 39.3% in the control group (risk difference 4.8%, 95% CI -1.6% to +11.2%). The mean costs were on average €283 (95% CI: -€299 to €810) higher in the scratch group so that the point average ICER was €5846 per additional live birth. The ICER estimate was surrounded with a high level of uncertainty, as indicated by the fact that the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) showed that there is an 80% chance that endometrial scratching is cost-effective if society is willing to pay ∼€17 500 for each additional live birth. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: There was a high uncertainty surrounding the effects, mainly in the clinical effect, i.e. the difference in the chance of live birth, which meant that a single straightforward conclusion could not be ascertained as for now. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first formal cost-effectiveness analysis of endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment. The results presented in this manuscript cannot provide a clear-cut expenditure for one additional birth, but they do allow for estimating costs per additional live birth in different scenarios once the clinical effectiveness of scratching is known. As the SCRaTCH trial was the only trial with a follow-up of 12 months, it allows for the most complete estimation of costs to date. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by ZonMW, the Dutch organization for funding healthcare research. A.E.P.C., F.J.M.B., E.R.G. and C.B. L. reported having received fees or grants during, but outside of, this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register (NL5193/NTR 5342).

Transfer of fresh or frozen embryos: a randomised controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Is IVF with frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer (freeze-all strategy) more effective than IVF with fresh and frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer (conventional strategy)? SUMMARY ANSWER: The freeze-all strategy was inferior to the conventional strategy in terms of cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate per woman. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IVF without transfer of fresh embryos, thus with frozen-thawed embryo transfer only (freeze-all strategy), is increasingly being used in clinical practice because of a presumed benefit. It is still unknown whether this new IVF strategy increases IVF efficacy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A single-centre, open label, two arm, parallel group, randomised controlled superiority trial was conducted. The trial was conducted between January 2013 and July 2015 in the Netherlands. The intervention was one IVF cycle with frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer(s) versus one IVF cycle with fresh and frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer(s). The primary outcome was cumulative ongoing pregnancy resulting from one IVF cycle within 12 months after randomisation. Couples were allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the freeze-all strategy or the conventional strategy with an online randomisation programme just before the start of down-regulation. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants were subfertile couples with any indication for IVF undergoing their first IVF cycle, with a female age between 18 and 43 years. Differences in cumulative ongoing pregnancy rates were expressed as relative risks (RR) with 95% CI. All outcomes were analysed following the intention-to-treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Two-hundred-and-five couples were randomly assigned to the freeze-all strategy (n = 102) or to the conventional strategy (n = 102). The cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate per woman was significantly lower in women allocated to the freeze-all strategy (19/102 (19%)) compared to women allocated to the conventional strategy (32/102 (31%); RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.36-0.98). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: As this was a single-centre study, we were unable to study differences in study protocols and clinic performance. This, and the limited sample size, should make one cautious in using the results as the basis for definitive policy. All patients undergoing IVF, including those with a poor prognosis, were included; therefore, the outcome could differ in women with a good prognosis of IVF treatment success. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our results indicate that there might be no benefit of a freeze-all strategy in terms of cumulative ongoing pregnancy rates. The efficacy of the freeze-all strategy in subgroups of patients, different stages of embryo development, and different freezing protocols needs to be further established and balanced against potential benefits and harms for mothers and children. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW grant 171101007). S.M., F.M. and M.v.W. stated they are authors of the Cochrane review 'Fresh versus frozen embryo transfers in assisted reproduction'. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register, NTR3187. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 9 December 2011. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 8 January 2013.

Cost-effectiveness of ovarian stimulation agents for IUI in couples with unexplained subfertility.

STUDY QUESTION: Which agent for ovarian stimulation (OS) is the most cost-effective option in terms of net benefit for couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI? SUMMARY ANSWER: In settings where a live birth is valued at €3000 or less, between €3000 and €55 000 and above €55 000, clomiphene citrate (CC), Letrozole and gonadotrophins were the most cost-effective option in terms of net benefit, respectively. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IUI-OS is a common first-line treatment for couples with unexplained subfertility and its increased uptake over the past decades and related personal or reimbursed costs are pressing concerns to patients and health service providers. However, there is no consensus on a protocol for conducting IUI-OS, with differences between countries, clinics and settings in the number of cycles, success rates, the agent for OS and the maximum number of dominant follicles in order to minimise the risk of a multiple pregnancy. In view of this uncertainty and the association with costs, guidance is needed on the cost-effectiveness of OS agents for IUI-OS. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We developed a decision-analytic model based on a decision tree that follows couples with unexplained subfertility from the start of IUI-OS to a protocoled maximum of six cycles, assuming couples receive four cycles on average within one year. We chose the societal perspective, which coincides with other perspectives such as that from health care providers, as the treatments are identical except for the stimulation agent. We based our model on parameters from a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials for IUI-OS. We compared the following three agents: CC (oral medication), Letrozole (oral medication) and gonadotrophins (subcutaneous injection). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The main health outcomes were cumulative live birth and multiple pregnancy. As the procedures are identical except for the agent used, we only considered direct medical costs of the agent during four cycles. The main cost-effectiveness measures were the differences in costs divided by the differences in cumulative live birth (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ICER) and the probability of the highest net monetary benefit in which costs for an agent were deducted from the live births gained. The live birth rate for IUI using CC was taken from trials adhering to strict cancellation criteria included in a network meta-analysis and extrapolated to four cycles. We took the relative risks for the live birth rate after Letrozole and gonadotrophins versus CC from that same network meta-analysis to estimate the remaining absolute live birth rates. The uncertainty around live birth rates, relative effectiveness and costs was assessed by probabilistic sensitivity analysis in which we drew values from distributions and repeated this procedure 20 000 times. In addition, we changed model assumptions to assess their influence on our results. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The agent with the lowest cumulative live birth rate over 4 IUI-OS cycles conducted within one year was CC (29.4%), followed by Letrozole (32.0%) and gonadotrophins (34.5%). The average costs per four cycles were €362, €434 and €1809, respectively. The ICER of Letrozole versus CC was €2809 per additional live birth, whereas the ICER of gonadotrophins versus Letrozole was €53 831 per additional live birth. When we assume a live birth is valued at €3000 or less, CC had the highest probability of maximally 65% to achieve the highest net benefit. Between €3000 and €55 000, Letrozole had the highest probability of maximally 62% to achieve the highest net benefit. Assuming a monetary value of €55 000 or more, gonadotrophins had the highest probability of maximally 56% to achieve the highest net benefit. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our model focused on population level and was thus based on average costs for the average number of four cycles conducted. We also based the model on a number of key assumptions. We changed model assumptions to assess the influence of these assumptions on our results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The high uncertainty surrounding our results indicate that more research is necessary on the relative effectiveness of using CC, Letrozole or gonadotrophins for IUI-OS in terms of the cumulative live birth rate. We suggest that in the meantime, CC or Letrozole are the preferred choice of agent. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was supported by ZonMw Doelmatigheidsonderzoek, grant 80-85200-98-91072. The funder had no role in the design, conduct or reporting of this work. BWM is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet and travel and research support from ObsEva, Merck and Guerbet. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Is home-based monitoring of ovulation to time frozen embryo transfer a cost-effective alternative for hospital-based monitoring of ovulation? Study protocol of the multicentre, non-inferiority Antarctica-2 randomised controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: The objective of this trial is to compare the effectiveness and costs of true natural cycle (true NC-) frozen embryo transfer (FET) using urinary LH tests to modified NC-FET using repeated ultrasound monitoring and ovulation trigger to time FET in the NC. Secondary outcomes are the cancellation rates of FET (ovulation before hCG or no dominant follicle, no ovulation by LH urine test, poor embryo survival), pregnancy outcomes (miscarriage rate, clinical pregnancy rates, multiple ongoing pregnancy rates, live birth rates, costs) and neonatal outcomes (including gestational age, birthweight and sex, congenital abnormalities or diseases of babies born). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: FET is at the heart of modern IVF. To allow implantation of the thawed embryo, the endometrium must be prepared either by exogenous oestrogen and progesterone supplementation (artificial cycle (AC)-FET) or by using the NC to produce endogenous oestradiol before and progesterone after ovulation to time the transfer of the thawed embryo (NC-FET). During an NC-FET, women visit the hospital repeatedly and receive an ovulation trigger to time FET (i.e. modified (m)NC-FET or hospital-based monitoring). From the woman's point of view, a more natural approach using home-based monitoring of the ovulation with LH urine tests to allow a natural ovulation to time FET may be desired (true NC-FET or home-based monitoring). STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This is a multicentre, non-inferiority prospective randomised controlled trial design. Consenting women will undergo one FET cycle using either true NC-FET or mNC-FET based on randomisation. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Based on our sample size calculation, the study group will consist of 1464 women between 18 and 45 years old who are scheduled for FET. Women with anovulatory cycles, women who need ovulation induction and women with a contra indication for pregnancy will be excluded. The primary outcome is ongoing pregnancy. Secondary outcomes are cancellation rates of FET, pregnancy outcomes (including miscarriage rate, clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy rate and live birth rate). Costs will be estimated by counting resource use and calculating unit prices. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study received a grant from the Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw 843002807; www.zonmw.nl). ZonMw has no role in the design of the study, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data or writing of the manuscript. F.B. reports personal fees from member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, grants from Research support grant Merck Serono, outside the submitted work. A.E.P.C. reports and Unrestricted grant of Ferring B.V. to the Center for Reproductive medicine, no personal fee. Author up-to-date on Hyperthecosis. Congress meetings 2019 with Ferring B.V. and Theramex B.V. M.G. reports Department research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring (location VUMC) outside the submitted work. E.R.G. reports personal fees from Titus Health Care, outside the submitted work. C.B.L. reports grants from Ferring, grants from Merck, from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. The other authors have none to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register (Trial NL6414 (NTR6590), https://www.trialregister.nl/). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 23 July 2017. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 10 April 2018.

Birthweight and other perinatal outcomes of singletons conceived after assisted reproduction compared to natural conceived singletons in couples with unexplained subfertility: follow-up of two randomized clinical trials.

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).

Endometrial scratching in women with one failed IVF/ICSI cycle-outcomes of a randomised controlled trial (SCRaTCH).

STUDY QUESTION: Does endometrial scratching in women with one failed IVF/ICSI treatment affect the chance of a live birth of the subsequent fresh IVF/ICSI cycle? SUMMARY ANSWER: In this study, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch group, with a likely certainty range between -0.7% and +9.9%. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Since the first suggestion that endometrial scratching might improve embryo implantation during IVF/ICSI, many clinical trials have been conducted. However, due to limitations in sample size and study quality, it remains unclear whether endometrial scratching improves IVF/ICSI outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The SCRaTCH trial was a non-blinded randomised controlled trial in women with one unsuccessful IVF/ICSI cycle and assessed whether a single endometrial scratch using an endometrial biopsy catheter would lead to a higher live birth rate after the subsequent IVF/ICSI treatment compared to no scratch. The study took place in 8 academic and 24 general hospitals. Participants were randomised between January 2016 and July 2018 by a web-based randomisation programme. Secondary outcomes included cumulative 12-month ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth rate. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women with one previous failed IVF/ICSI treatment and planning a second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment were eligible. In total, 933 participants out of 1065 eligibles were included (participation rate 88%). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: After the fresh transfer, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch compared to control group (110/465 versus 88/461, respectively, risk ratio (RR) 1.24 [95% CI 0.96-1.59]). These data are consistent with a true difference of between -0.7% and +9.9% (95% CI), indicating that while the largest proportion of the 95% CI is positive, scratching could have no or even a small negative effect. Biochemical pregnancy loss and miscarriage rate did not differ between the two groups: in the scratch group 27/153 biochemical pregnancy losses and 14/126 miscarriages occurred, while this was 19/130 and 17/111 for the control group (RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.71-2.07) and RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.38-1.40), respectively). After 12 months of follow-up, 5.1% more live births were observed in the scratch group (202/467 versus 178/466), of which the true difference most likely lies between -1.2% and +11.4% (95% CI). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study was not blinded. Knowledge of allocation may have been an incentive for participants allocated to the scratch group to continue treatment in situations where they may otherwise have cancelled or stopped. In addition, this study was powered to detect a difference in live birth rate of 9%. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The results of this study are an incentive for further assessment of the efficacy and clinical implications of endometrial scratching. If a true effect exists, it may be smaller than previously anticipated or may be limited to specific groups of women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Studying this will require larger sample sizes, which will be provided by the ongoing international individual participant data-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42017079120). At present, endometrial scratching should not be performed outside of clinical trials. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by ZonMW, the Dutch organisation for funding healthcare research. J.S.E. Laven reports grants and personal fees from AnshLabs (Webster, Tx, USA), Ferring (Hoofddorp, The Netherlands) and Ministry of Health (CIBG, The Hague, The Netherlands) outside the submitted work. A.E.P. Cantineau reports 'other' from Ferring BV, personal fees from Up to date Hyperthecosis, 'other' from Theramex BV, outside the submitted work. E.R. Groenewoud reports grants from Titus Health Care during the conduct of the study. A.M. van Heusden reports personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees from Ferring, personal fees from Goodlife, outside the submitted work. F.J.M. Broekmans reports personal fees as Member of the external advisory board for Ferring BV, The Netherlands, personal fees as Member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, The Netherlands, personal fees as Member of the external advisory for Gedeon Richter, Belgium, personal fees from Educational activities for Ferring BV, The Netherlands, grants from Research support grant Merck Serono, grants from Research support grant Ferring, personal fees from Advisory and consultancy work Roche, outside the submitted work. C.B. Lambalk reports grants from Ferring, grants from Merck, grants from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NL5193/NTR 5342). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 31 July 2015. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 26 January 2016.

Cost-effectiveness of medically assisted reproduction or expectant management for unexplained subfertility: when to start treatment?

STUDY QUESTION: Over a time period of 3 years, which order of expectant management (EM), IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) and IVF is the most cost-effective for couples with unexplained subfertility with the female age below 38 years? SUMMARY ANSWER: If a live birth is considered worth €32 000 or less, 2 years of EM followed by IVF was the most cost-effective, whereas above €32 000 this was 1 year of EM, 1 year of IUI-OS and then 1 year of IVF. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IUI-OS and IVF are commonly used fertility treatments for unexplained subfertility although many couples can conceive naturally, as no identifiable barrier to conception could be found by definition. Few countries have guidelines on when to proceed with medically assisted reproduction (MAR), mostly based on the expected probability of live birth after treatment, but there is a lack of evidence to support the strategies proposed by these guidelines. The increased uptake of IUI-OS and IVF over the past decades and costs related to reimbursement of these treatments are pressing concerns to health service providers. For MAR to remain affordable, sustainable and a responsible use of public funds, guidance is needed on the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for unexplained subfertility, including EM. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We developed a decision analytic Markov model that follows couples with unexplained subfertility of which the woman is under 38 years of age for a time period of 3 years from completion of the fertility workup onwards. We divided the time axis of 3 years into three separate periods, each comprising 1 year. The model was based on contemporary evidence, most notably the dynamic prediction model for natural conception, which was combined with MAR treatment effects from a network meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials. We changed the order of options for managing unexplained subfertility for the 1 year periods to yield five different treatment policies in total: IVF-EM-EM (immediate IVF), EM-IVF-EM (delayed IVF), EM-EM-IVF (postponed IVF), IUIOS-IVF-EM (immediate IUI-OS) and EM-IUIOS-IVF (delayed IUI-OS). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The main outcomes per policy over the 3-year period were the probability of live birth, the average treatment and delivery costs, the probability of multiple pregnancy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and finally, which policy yields the highest net benefit in which costs for a policy were deducted from the health effects, i.e. live births gained. We chose the Dutch societal perspective, but the model can be easily modified for other locations or other perspectives. The probability of live birth after EM was taken from the dynamic prediction model for natural conception and updated for Years 2 and 3. The relative effects of IUI-OS and IVF in terms of odds ratios, taken from the network meta-analysis, were applied to the probability of live birth after EM. We applied standard discounting procedures for economic analyses for Years 2 and 3. The uncertainty around effectiveness, costs and other parameters was assessed by probabilistic sensitivity analysis in which we drew values from distributions and repeated this procedure 20 000 times. In addition, we changed model assumptions to assess their influence on our results. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: From IVF-EM-EM to EM-IUIOS-IVF, the probability of live birth varied from approximately 54-64% and the average costs from approximately €4000 to €9000. The policies IVF-EM-EM and EM-IVF-EM were dominated by EM-EM-IVF as the latter yielded a higher cumulative probability of live birth at a lower cost. The policy IUIOS-IVF-EM was dominated by EM-IUIOS-IVF as the latter yielded a higher cumulative probability of live birth at a lower cost. After removal of policies that were dominated, the ICER for EM-IUIOS-IVF was approximately €31 000 compared to EM-EM-IVF. The range of ICER values between the lowest 25% and highest 75% of simulation replications was broad. The net benefit curve showed that when we assume a live birth to be worth approximately €20 000 or less, the policy EM-EM-IVF had the highest probability to achieve the highest net benefit. Between €20 000 and €50 000 monetary value per live birth, it was uncertain whether EM-EM-IVF was better than EM-IUIOS-IVF, with the turning point of €32 000. When we assume a monetary value per live birth over €50 000, the policy with the highest probability to achieve the highest net benefit was EM-IUIOS-IVF. Results for subgroups with different baseline prognoses showed the same policies dominated and the same two policies that were the most likely to achieve the highest net benefit but at different threshold values for the assumed monetary value per live birth. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our model focused on population level and was thus based on average costs for the average number of cycles conducted. We also based the model on a number of key assumptions. We changed model assumptions to assess the influence of these assumptions on our results. The change in relative effectiveness of IVF over time was found to be highly influential on results and their interpretation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: EM-EM-IVF and EM-IUIOS-IVF followed by IVF were the most cost-effective policies. The choice depends on the monetary value assigned to a live birth. The results of our study can be used in discussions between clinicians, couples and policy makers to decide on a sustainable treatment protocol based on the probability of live birth, the costs and the limitations of MAR treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was supported by the ZonMw Doelmatigheidsonderzoek (80-85200-98-91072). The funder had no role in the design, conduct or reporting of this work. B.W.M. is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet and travel and research support from ObsEva, Merck and Guerbet. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Home- or hospital-based monitoring to time frozen embryo transfer in the natural cycle? Patient-reported outcomes and experiences from the Antarctica-2 randomised controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported experiences (PREs) in home-based monitoring compared to those in hospital-based monitoring of ovulation for scheduling frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Women undergoing either home-based or hospital-based monitoring experience an increase in anxiety/sadness symptoms over time, but women undergoing home-based monitoring felt more empowered during the treatment and classified the monitoring as more discreet compared to hospital-based monitoring. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: FET is at the heart of modern IVF. The two types of FET cycles that are mainly are used are artificial cycle FET, using artificial preparation of the endometrium with exogenous progesterone and oestrogen, and natural cycle FET (NC-FET). During a natural cycle FET, women visit the hospital repeatedly and receive an ovulation trigger to time FET (i.e. modified NC-FET or hospital-based monitoring). The previously published Antarctica randomised controlled trial (NTR 1586) showed that modified NC-FET is more cost-effective compared to artificial cycle FET. From the women's point of view a more natural approach using home-based monitoring of ovulation with LH urine tests to time FET may be desired (true NC-FET or home-based monitoring). Currently, the multicentre Antarctica-2 randomised controlled trial (RCT) is comparing the cost-effectiveness of home-based monitoring of ovulation with that of hospital-based monitoring of ovulation. The Antarctica-2 RCT enables us to study PROs, defined as the view of participating women of their healthcare status, and PREs, defined as the perception of the received care of participating women, in both FET strategies. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: PROs and PREs were assessed alongside the Antarctica-2 RCT. PROs were assessed using the validated EuroQol-5D-5L questionnaire. Currently, there are no guidelines for assessing PREs in this population. Therefore, members of the Dutch Patient Organisation for Couples with Fertility Problems (FREYA) filled out an online survey and selected the following PREs to assess (i) anxiety about missing ovulation, (ii) perceived level of partner participation, (iii) level of discretion, (iv) feeling of empowerment and (v) satisfaction with treatment. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women participating in the RCT also participated in PRO and PRE assessment. We assessed PROs and PREs at three time points: (i) before randomisation, (ii) at the time of the FET and (iii) at the time of the pregnancy test. A sample size of 200 participants was needed to find a difference of 0.3 with a standard deviation in both groups of 0.7, an alpha of 5%, power of 80% and a drop-out rate of 10%. We performed mixed model analysis for between-group comparison of treatment and time effects. MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 260 women were randomised. Of these, 132 women were treated with home-based monitoring and 128 women were treated with hospital-based monitoring. Data before randomisation were available for 232 women (home-based monitoring n = 116, hospital-based monitoring n = 116). For the PROs, we found a significant increase in anxiety/sadness symptoms over time (P < 0.001) in both groups. We found no treatment effect of home-based versus hospital-based monitoring for the PROs (P = 0.8). Concerning the PRES, we found that women felt more empowered during home-based monitoring (P = 0.001) and classified the home-based monitoring as more discreet (P = 0.000) compared to the hospital-based monitoring. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The results are applicable only to women undergoing NC-FET and not to women undergoing artificial cycle FET. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Apart from clinical outcomes, PROs and PREs are also of importance in clinical decision-making and to support tailoring treatment even more specifically to the wishes of patients. Measurement of PROs and PREs should therefore be incorporated in future clinical research. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The Antarctica-2 RCT is supported by a grant of the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw 843002807). J.B. receives unconditional educational grants from Merck Serono and Ferring and is a member of the medical advisory board of Ferring. C.L. reports that his department receives unrestricted research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. E.G. receives personal fees from Titus Health Care outside submitted work. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Trial NL6414 (NTR6590). TRIAL REGISTER DATE: 23 July 2017. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 10 April 2018.

Required amount of rFSH, HP-hMG and HP-FSH to reach a live birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY QUESTION: In women undergoing IVF or ICSI cycles, do recombinant gonadotrophins differ from urinary-derived highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (HP-hMG) or highly purified follicle-stimulating hormone (HP-FSH) in the total amount of gonadotrophins required to reach a live birth? SUMMARY ANSWER: The difference between recombinant and urinary-derived HP-hMG or HP-FSH in the required amount to reach a live birth in IVF/ICSI cycles appears small. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: At present, gynecologists can choose between recombinant FSH (rFSH), urinary-derived HP-hMG and HP-FSH. These products are equally effective and safe, but it is unknown how these gonadotrophins compare in terms of IU required to reach a live birth. STUDY DESIGN SIZE AND DURATION: We conducted a search in Medline, Embase and CINAHL up to July 2018. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared rFSH with HP-hMG or HP-FSH for ovarian stimulation in couples scheduled for IVF or ICSI treatment. From each randomized trial, we extracted the outcome data and information on participants, methods, interventions and funding. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING AND METHODS: Women undergoing ovarian stimulation with rFSH, HP-hMG or HP-FSH were included. We extracted data for the mean amount of gonadotrophins with SD, clinical pregnancy rate, live birth rate and cumulative live birth rate per woman from the included RCTs. We summarized these outcomes by calculating the individual and pooled mean difference (MD) or relative risk (RR) with 95% CI. We used the Review Manager software to perform the meta-analyses. We applied a random effect model to pool the data. We estimated the total amount of gonadotrophins used per extra live birth by STATA 14.2 and R software. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 28 studies with 7553 women were included in this review, of which 24 studies provided information on the total amount of gonadotrophins per woman who started an IVF/ICSI cycle. The total amount of gonadotrophins varied significantly between studies. The MDs in total amount were -37 IU (seven studies; N = 3220; 95% CI, -115 to 41; I 2 = 68%) for rFSH versus HP-hMG and -31 IU (17 studies; N = 3629; 95% CI, -290 to 228; I 2 = 97%) for rFSH versus HP-FSH. For rFSH versus HP-hMG, the RR for clinical pregnancy, live birth and cumulative live birth were 0.90 (95% CI, 0.81-1.00), 0.88 (95% CI, 0.78-0.99) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.80-1.04), respectively. For rFSH versus HP-FSH, the RR for clinical pregnancy and live birth were 1.03 (95% CI, 0.94-1.13) and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.90-1.18), respectively; the data on cumulative live birth rate were lacking. The estimated difference in mean gonadotrophin amount per extra live birth was 789 IU (95% CI, -9.5 to 1570) for rFSH versus HP-hMG and -365 IU (95% CI, -2675 to 1945) for rFSH versus HP-FSH. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: There was severe heterogeneity in the total amount of gonadotrophins between studies. A small fraction of women did not start gonadotrophin treatment; this was usually not accounted for in the provided mean amount of gonadotrophins per study and might have affected the averaged total amount of gonadotrophins but is unlikely to have affected the differences in the amount between rFSH and HP-hMG or HP-FSH. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The differences in the required amount to reach a live birth between rFSH, HP-hMG and HP-FSH appear to be small. Decision-making should be based on convenience, availability, actual costs and patient preferences. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The authors declare no conflict of interest. No external funding was either sought or obtained for this study. REGISTRATION NUMBER: Prospero CRD42016038238.

Is IUI with ovarian stimulation effective in couples with unexplained subfertility?

STUDY QUESTION: Does starting IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) within 1.5 years after completion of the fertility workup increase ongoing pregnancy rates compared to expectant management in couples with unexplained subfertility? SUMMARY ANSWER: IUI-OS is associated with higher chances of ongoing pregnancy compared to expectant management in unexplained subfertile couples, specifically those with poor prognoses of natural conception, i.e. <15% over 6 months or <25% over 1 year. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IUI-OS is often the first-line treatment for couples with unexplained subfertility. Two randomized controlled trials compared IUI-OS to expectant management using different thresholds for the prognosis of natural conception as inclusion criteria and found conflicting results. A cohort of couples with unexplained subfertility exposed to expectant management and IUI-OS offers an opportunity to determine the chances of conception after both strategies and to evaluate whether the effect of IUI-OS depends on a couple's prognosis of natural conception. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A prospective cohort study on couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility who could start IUI-OS at any point after completion of the fertility workup, recruited in seven Dutch centres between January 2002 and February 2004. Decisions regarding treatment were subject to local protocols, the judgement of the clinician and the wishes of the couple. Couples with bilateral tubal occlusion, anovulation or a total motile sperm count <1 × 106 were excluded. Follow up was censored at the start of IVF, after the last IUI cycle or at last contact and truncated at a maximum of 1.5 years after the fertility workup. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The endpoint was time to conception leading to an ongoing pregnancy. We used the sequential Cox approach comparing in each month ongoing pregnancy rates over the next 6 months of couples who started IUI-OS to couples who did not. We calculated the prognosis of natural conception for individual couples, updated this over consecutive failed cycles and evaluated whether prognosis modified the effect of starting IUI-OS. We corrected for known predictors of conception using inverse probability weighting. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Data from 1896 couples were available. There were 800 couples whom had at least one IUI-OS cycle within 1.5 years post fertility workup of whom 142 couples conceived (rate: 0.50 per couple per year, median follow up 4 months). The median period between fertility workup completion and starting IUI-OS was 6.5 months. Out of 1096 untreated couples, 386 conceived naturally (rate: 0.31 per couple per year, median follow up 7 months). Starting IUI-OS was associated with a higher chance of ongoing pregnancy by a pooled, overall hazard ratio of 1.96 (95% CI: 1.47-2.62) compared to expectant management. The effect of treatment was modified by a couple's prognosis of achieving natural conception (P = 0.01), with poorer prognoses or additional failed natural cycles being associated with a stronger effect of treatment. The predicted 6-month ongoing pregnancy rate for a couple with a prognosis of 25% at completion of the fertility workup over the next six cycles (~40% over 1 year) was 25% (95% CI: 21-28%) for expectant management and 24% (95% CI: 9-36%) when starting IUI-OS directly. For a couple with a prognosis of 15% (25% over 1 year), these predicted rates were 17% (95% CI: 15-19%) for expectant management and 24% (95% CI: 15-32%) for starting IUI-OS. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The effect estimates are based on a prospective cohort followed up for 1.5 years after completion of the fertility workup. Although we balanced the known predictors of conception between treated and untreated couples using inverse probability weighting, observational data may be subject to residual confounding. The results need to be confirmed in external datasets. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: These results explain the discrepancies between previous trials that compared IUI-OS to expectant management, but further studies are required to establish the threshold at which IUI-OS is (cost-)effective. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was facilitated by (Grant 945/12/002) from ZonMW, The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, The Hague, The Netherlands. B.W.M. is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck and Guerbet. S.B. reports acting as Editor-in-Chief of HROpen. The other authors have no conflicts of interest.

Selective outcome reporting and sponsorship in randomized controlled trials in IVF and ICSI.

STUDY QUESTION: Are randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on IVF and ICSI subject to selective outcome reporting and is this related to sponsorship? SUMMARY ANSWER: There are inconsistencies, independent from sponsorship, in the reporting of primary outcome measures in the majority of IVF and ICSI trials, indicating selective outcome reporting. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: RCTs are subject to bias at various levels. Of these biases, selective outcome reporting is particularly relevant to IVF and ICSI trials since there is a wide variety of outcome measures to choose from. An established cause of reporting bias is sponsorship. It is, at present, unknown whether RCTs in IVF/ICSI are subject to selective outcome reporting and whether this is related with sponsorship. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We systematically searched RCTs on IVF and ICSI published between January 2009 and March 2016 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the publisher subset of PubMed. We analysed 415 RCTs. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Per included RCT, we extracted data on impact factor of the journal, sample size, power calculation, and trial registry and thereafter data on primary outcome measure, the direction of trial results and sponsorship. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 415 identified RCTs, 235 were excluded for our primary analysis, because the sponsorship was not reported. Of the 180 RCTs included in our analysis, 7 trials did not report on any primary outcome measure and 107 of the remaining 173 trials (62%) reported on surrogate primary outcome measures. Of the 114 registered trials, 21 trials (18%) provided primary outcomes in their manuscript that were different from those in the trial registry. This indicates selective outcome reporting. We found no association between selective outcome reporting and sponsorship. We ran additional analyses to include the trials that had not reported sponsorship and found no outcomes that differed from our primary analysis. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Since the majority of the trials did not report on sponsorship, there is a risk on sampling bias. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: IVF and ICSI trials are subject, to a large extent, to selective outcome reporting. Readers should be aware of this to avoid implementation of false or misleading results in clinical practice. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No funding received and there are no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Endometrial scratching in women with implantation failure after a first IVF/ICSI cycle; does it lead to a higher live birth rate? The SCRaTCH study: a randomized controlled trial (NTR 5342).

BACKGROUND: Success rates of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) are approximately 30%, with the most important limiting factor being embryo implantation. Mechanical endometrial injury, also called 'scratching', has been proposed to positively affect the chance of implantation after embryo transfer, but the currently available evidence is not yet conclusive. The primary aim of this study is to determine the effect of endometrial scratching prior to a second fresh in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) cycle on live birth rates in women with a failed first IVF/ICSI cycle. METHOD: Multicenter randomized controlled trial in Dutch academic and non-academic hospitals. A total of 900 women will be included of whom half will undergo an endometrial scratch in the luteal phase of the cycle prior to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation using an endometrial biopsy catheter. The primary endpoint is the live birth rate after the 2nd fresh IVF/ICSI cycle. Secondary endpoints are costs, cumulative live birth rate (after the full 2nd IVF/ICSI cycle and over 12 months of follow-up); clinical and ongoing pregnancy rate; multiple pregnancy rate; miscarriage rate and endometrial tissue parameters associated with implantation failure. DISCUSSION: Multiple studies have been performed to investigate the effect of endometrial scratching on live birth rates in women undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles. Due to heterogeneity in both the method and population being scratched, it remains unclear which group of women will benefit from the procedure. The SCRaTCH trial proposed here aims to investigate the effect of endometrial scratching prior to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in a large group of women undergoing a second IVF/ICSI cycle. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR 5342 , registered July 31st, 2015. PROTOCOL VERSION: Version 4.10, January 4th, 2017.

Equipoise and the RCT.

Clinical decisions in reproductive medicine are often made in uncertainty. To reduce uncertainty and to improve clinical decision-making, RCTs are increasingly called upon. A key concept underpinning the ethics of RCTs is equipoise. Here, we aimed to dissect the basic reasoning behind the concept of equipoise and we proposed a line of thinking delineating under which conditions it is ethical to design and execute an RCT. This might prevent a priori negative trials, reduce research waste and aid in the design of meaningful ones. It is these trials that will provide insight on how to safely and effectively assist subfertile couples.

A mother's gift of life: exploring the concerns and ethical aspects of fertility preservation for mother-to-daughter oocyte donation.

With the introduction of oocyte vitrification, a special form of intergenerational intrafamilial medically assisted reproduction (IMAR) has now become feasible: fertility preservation for mother-to-daughter oocyte donation (FPMDD). For girls diagnosed with premature ovarian insufficiency (POI), banking of their mothers' oocytes can preserve the option of having genetically related offspring. Since policy documents on IMAR do not discuss specific concerns raised by FPMDD, clinicians can feel at a loss for guidance with regard to handling these requests. Through a comparison of FPMDD with reproductive practices in which similar concerns were raised, proportionality of cryopreservation for self-use and pressure to use the oocytes in fertility preservation in minors, we argue that FPMDD can be acceptable under conditions. The paper ends with recommendations for handling FPMDD-requests, including different options for the legal construction of this form of oocyte donation.