Ketonuria is not associated with hyperemesis gravidarum disease severity.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between ketonuria and hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) disease severity. STUDY DESIGN: We included pregnant women hospitalised for HG who participated in the Maternal and Offspring outcomes after Treatment of HyperEmesis by Refeeding (MOTHER) trial and women who were eligible, chose not to be randomised and agreed to participate in the observational cohort. Between October 2013 and March 2016, in 19 hospitals in the Netherlands, women hospitalised for HG were approached for study participation. The presence of ketonuria was not required for study entry. Ketonuria was measured at hospital admission with a dipstick, which distinguishes 5 categories: negative and 1+ through 4 + . The outcome measures were multiple measures of HG disease severity at different time points: 1) At hospital admission (study entry): severity of nausea and vomiting, quality of life and weight change compared to pre-pregnancy weight, 2) One week after hospital admission: severity of nausea and vomiting, quality of life and weight change compared to admission, 3) Duration of index hospital admission and readmission for HG at any time point RESULTS: 215 women where included. Ketonuria was not associated with severity of nausea and vomiting, quality of life or weight loss at hospital admission, nor was the degree of ketonuria at admission associated with any of the outcomes 1 week after hospital admission. The degree of ketonuria was also not associated with the number of readmissions. However, women with a higher degree of ketonuria had a statistically significant longer duration of hospital stay (per 1+ ketonuria, difference: 0.27 days, 95 % CI: 0.05 to 0.48). CONCLUSIONS: There was no association between the degree of ketonuria at admission and severity of symptoms, quality of life, maternal weight loss, or number of readmissions, suggesting that ketonuria provides no information about disease severity or disease course. Despite this, women with a higher degree of ketonuria at admission were hospitalised for longer. This could suggest that health care professionals base length of hospital stay on the degree of ketonuria. Based on the lack of association between ketonuria and disease severity, we suggest it has no additional value in the clinical management of HG.

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.

Implementing targeted expectant management in fertility care using prognostic modelling: a cluster randomized trial with a multifaceted strategy.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the effectiveness of a multifaceted implementation strategy compared to usual care on improving the adherence to guideline recommendations on expectant management for couples with unexplained infertility? SUMMARY ANSWER: The multifaceted implementation strategy did not significantly increase adherence to guideline recommendations on expectant management compared to care as usual. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Intrauterine insemination (IUI) with or without ovarian hyperstimulation has no beneficial effect compared to no treatment for 6 months after the fertility work-up for couples with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis of natural conception. Therefore, various professionals and policy makers have advocated the use of prognostic profiles and expectant management in guideline recommendations. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A cluster randomized controlled trial in 25 clinics in the Netherlands was conducted between March 2013 and May 2014. Clinics were randomized between the implementation strategy (intervention, n = 13) and care as usual (control, n = 12). The effect of the implementation strategy was evaluated by comparing baseline and effect measurement data. Data collection was retrospective and obtained from medical record research and a patient questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: A total of 544 couples were included at baseline and 485 at the effect measurement (247 intervention group/238 control group). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Guideline adherence increased from 49 to 69% (OR 2.66; 95% CI 1.45-4.89) in the intervention group, and from 49 to 61% (OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.38-3.00) in the control group. Multilevel analysis with case-mix adjustment showed that the difference of 8% was not statistically significant (OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.67-2.59). The ongoing pregnancy rate within six months after fertility work-up did not significantly differ between intervention and control group (25% versus 27%: OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.40-1.27). LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: There is a possible selection bias, couples included in the study had a higher socio-economic status than non-responders. How this affects guideline adherence is unclear. Furthermore, when powering for this study we did not take into account the unexpected improvement of adherence in the control group. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Generalization of our results to other countries with recommendations on expectant management might be questionable because barriers for expectant management can be very different in other countries. Furthermore, due to a large variation in improved adherence rate in the intervention group it will be interesting to further analyse the process of implementation in each clinic with a process evaluation on professionals and couples' exposure to and experiences with the strategy. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Supported by Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW, project number 171203005). No competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch trial Register, www.trialregister.nl NTR3405. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 19 April 2012. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 10 July 2012.

The SUPER study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing follicle-stimulating hormone and clomiphene citrate for ovarian stimulation in intrauterine insemination.

OBJECTIVE: To study the effectiveness of four cycles of intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian stimulation (OS) by follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) or by clomiphene citrate (CC), and adherence to strict cancellation criteria. SETTING: Randomised controlled trial among 22 secondary and tertiary fertility clinics in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 732 women from couples diagnosed with unexplained or mild male subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis according to the model of Hunault of natural conception. INTERVENTIONS: Four cycles of IUI-OS within a time horizon of 6 months comparing FSH 75 IU with CC 100 mg. The primary outcome is ongoing pregnancy conceived within 6 months after randomisation, defined as a positive heartbeat at 12 weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes are cancellation rates, number of cycles with a monofollicular or with multifollicular growth, number of follicles >14 mm at the time of ovulation triggering, time to ongoing pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, live birth and multiple pregnancy. We will also assess if biomarkers such as female age, body mass index, smoking status, antral follicle count and endometrial aspect and thickness can be used as treatment selection markers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of the Academic Medical Centre and from the Dutch Central Committee on Research involving Human Subjects (CCMO NL 43131-018-13). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at international scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4057.

IVF or IUI as first-line treatment in unexplained subfertility: the conundrum of treatment selection markers.

STUDY QUESTION: Are there treatment selection markers that could aid in identifying couples, with unexplained or mild male subfertility, who would have better chances of a healthy child with IVF with single embryo transfer (IVF-SET) than with IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS)? SUMMARY ANSWER: We did not find any treatment selection markers that were associated with better chances of a healthy child with IVF-SET instead of IUI-OS in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A recent trial, comparing IVF-SET to IUI-OS, found no evidence of a difference between live birth rates and multiple pregnancy rates. It was suggested that IUI-OS should remain the first-line treatment instead of IVF-SET in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and female age between 18 and 38 years. The question remains whether there are some couples that may have higher pregnancy chances if treated with IVF-SET instead of IUI. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed our analyses on data from the INeS trial, where couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis for natural conception were randomly allocated to IVF-SET, IVF in a modified natural cycle or IUI-OS. In view of the aim of this study, we only used data of the comparison between IVF-SET (201 couples) and IUI-OS (207 couples). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We pre-defined the following baseline characteristics as potential treatment selection markers: female age, ethnicity, smoking status, type of subfertility (primary/secondary), duration of subfertility, BMI, pre-wash total motile count and Hunault prediction score. For each potential treatment selection marker, we explored the association with the chances of a healthy child after IVF-SET and IUI-OS and tested if there was an interaction with treatment. Given the exploratory nature of our analysis, we used a P-value of 0.1. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: None of the markers were associated with higher chances of a healthy child from IVF-SET compared to IUI-OS (P-value for interaction >0.10). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Since this is the first large study that looked at potential treatment selection markers for IVF-SET compared to IUI-OS, we had no data on which to base a power calculation. The sample size was limited, making it difficult to detect any smaller associations. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We could not identify couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility who would have had higher chances of a healthy child from immediate IVF-SET than from IUI-OS. As in the original trial IUI-OS had similar effectiveness and was less costly compared to IVF-SET, IUI-OS should remain the preferred first-line treatment in these couples. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, and a grant from the Netherlands' association of health care insurers. There are no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The trial was registered at the Dutch trial registry (NTR939).

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.

Effectiveness of indometacin to prevent ovulation in modified natural-cycle IVF: a randomized controlled trial.

Modified natural-cycle IVF has a lower pregnancy rate per started cycle as compared with IVF with ovarian stimulation due to, for example, premature ovulation. Indometacin administered before ovulation prevents follicle rupture. Therefore, addition of indometacin may improve the effectiveness of modified natural-cycle IVF. This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial with indometacin or placebo in 120 women aged 27-36 years compared the number of patients without premature ovulation as compared with the number of patients with one or more ovulations in a maximum of six cycles. Indometacin had no significant influence on the probability of a premature ovulation in patients during the six cycles (OR 2.38, 95% CI 0.94-6.04). A subgroup analysis showed a significant influence of indometacin in decreasing the probability of a premature ovulation in cycles without LH surge at the day of human chorionic gonadotrophin administration (OR 8.29, 95% CI 1.63-42.3, P=0.009). Although this study could not detect a significantly lower ovulation rate in the indometacin group versus the placebo group, the data suggest that a subgroup of patients without LH surge prior to oocyte retrieval might benefit from indometacin in modified natural-cycle IVF.

Is the birthweight of singletons born after IVF reduced by ovarian stimulation or by IVF laboratory procedures?

Singletons born after IVF are at risk of adverse pregnancy outcome, the cause of which is unknown. The present study investigated the influence of ovarian stimulation and IVF laboratory procedure on birthweight. Birthweight of singleton pregnancies resulting from IVF treatment with (n=161) and without ovarian stimulation (using a modified natural cycle (MNC) protocol; n=158), and spontaneous conceptions in subfertile patients (n=132) were compared. Mean+/-SD birthweight of singletons after conventional IVF with ovarian stimulation, MNC-IVF and natural conception were 3271+/-655, 3472+/-548 and 3527+/-582 g (P=0.001). After adjustment for biological and social confounders, the difference in birthweight between conventional IVF and MNC-IVF was reduced to 88 g and the differences between conventional IVF and MNC-IVF versus spontaneous conceptions to 123 and 23 g, respectively. The results lead to three conclusions. First, a major part of the crude differences in birthweight between the three groups is related to patient and pregnancy characteristics. Second, the IVF laboratory procedure has no influence on birthweight. Third, although a trend towards lower birthweight after ovarian stimulation was found, an adverse effect of ovarian stimulation on birthweight was not substantiated.

[Diagnostic image (389). A woman with a multicystic vulvar mass]. / Diagnose in beeld (389). Een vrouw met een multicysteuze vulvazwelling.

A 28-year-old woman presented with a multicystic vulvar mass due to epidermal inclusion cysts, probably caused by trauma to the left labium minus at her last parturition.

Cumulative pregnancy rates after sequential treatment with modified natural cycle IVF followed by IVF with controlled ovarian stimulation.

BACKGROUND: In modified natural cycle IVF (MNC-IVF), treatment is aimed at using the one follicle that spontaneously develops to dominance, using a GnRH-antagonist together with gonadotrophins in the late follicular phase only. The MNC-IVF is of interest because of its low-risk and patient-friendly profile. The effect of application of MNC-IVF preceding standard IVF with ovarian stimulation on overall results is unknown. METHODS: This single-center cohort study provides follow-up of an earlier study in which nine cycles of MNC-IVF were offered to 268 patients. Ongoing pregnancy rates and live birth rates, as well as time-to-pregnancy after controlled ovarian stimulation-IVF (COS-IVF) following MNC-IVF, were evaluated. RESULTS: Actual observed cumulative ongoing pregnancy rates and live birth rates after sequential treatment with MNC-IVF followed by COS-IVF were 51.5 (95% CI: 45.4-57.6) and 50.0% (95% CI: 43.9-56.1) per patient, of which 8.0 and 6.7% were twins. Median time to ongoing pregnancy was 28.8 weeks. Including treatment-independent pregnancies, cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate was 56.7% (95% CI: 50.7-62.8). CONCLUSIONS: Sequential treatment with MNC-IVF followed by COS-IVF does not appear to compromise overall success rates, while twin pregnancy rate is low. Because of its patient-friendly and low-risk profile, it seems appropriate to perform MNC-IVF preceding COS-IVF.

Cumulative pregnancy rates after a maximum of nine cycles of modified natural cycle IVF and analysis of patient drop-out: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In modified natural cycle IVF (MNV-IVF), treatment is aimed at using the one follicle that spontaneously develops to dominance, using a GnRH antagonist together with gonadotrophins in the late follicular phase only. METHODS: In this single-centre cohort study, nine cycles of MNV-IVF were offered to 268 patients. Cumulative pregnancy rates (CPRs) were calculated and drop-out was analysed. The present study is an extension of earlier studies in which three cycles of MNV-IVF were offered to the same patients. RESULTS: A total of 256 patients completed 1048 cycles (4.1 per patient). Embryo transfer rate was 36.5% per started cycle. Ongoing pregnancy rate was 7.9% per started cycle and 20.7% per embryo transfer. Including treatment-independent pregnancies, the observed CPR after up to nine cycles was 44.4% (95% confidence interval 38.3-50.5) per patient. Pregnancy rates per started cycle did not decline in higher cycle numbers (overall 9.9%). Drop-out rates were high (overall 47.8%). We found that cancellation of oocyte retrieval, fertilization failure and failure to reach embryo transfer are repeating phenomena in subsequent cycles and furthermore that these events predispose for drop-out. CONCLUSIONS: CPR after nine cycles of MNV-IVF in this study was 44.4%. Pregnancy rate per cycle did not decline in higher cycle numbers, possibly due to selective drop-out of poor prognosis patients. Due to the low-risk and patient-friendly nature of the MNC protocol, it seems a feasible treatment option for patients requiring IVF.

Cumulative pregnancy rates after three cycles of minimal stimulation IVF and results according to subfertility diagnosis: a multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In minimal stimulation IVF, treatment is aimed at using the single oocyte that spontaneously develops to dominance. To prevent untimely ovulation, a GnRH antagonist is administered in the late follicular phase of the natural cycle together with recombinant FSH for substitution. Owing to the lack of ovarian stimulation, minimal stimulation IVF is a low-risk and patient-friendly treatment. In this study, effectiveness of minimal stimulation IVF was studied. METHODS: In this prospective multicentre cohort study, minimal stimulation IVF was offered to 350 patients. All indications for conventional IVF were included. Main outcome measures were pregnancy rates per cycle and cumulative pregnancy rates after three cycles. RESULTS: A total of 336 patients completed 844 cycles (2.5 per patient). The overall ongoing pregnancy rate per started cycle was 8.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 6.4-10.2%]. The cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate after up to three cycles was 20.8% (95% CI 16.4-25.3%) per patient. No differences were found according to indication for IVF. CONCLUSIONS: Minimal stimulation IVF seems suitable for all indications studied. Pregnancy rates are encouraging. Owing to the low-risk and patient-friendly nature of this protocol, it seems a feasible treatment option for patients requiring IVF.

Minimal stimulation IVF with late follicular phase administration of the GnRH antagonist cetrorelix and concomitant substitution with recombinant FSH: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The use of the natural cycle for IVF offers the advantage of a patient-friendly and low-risk protocol. Its effectiveness is limited, but may be improved by using a GnRH antagonist to prevent untimely LH surges. METHODS: In this pilot study, minimal stimulation IVF with late follicular phase administration of the GnRH antagonist cetrorelix and simultaneous substitution with recombinant FSH was applied for a maximum of three cycles per patient. Main outcome measures were pregnancy rates per started cycle and cumulative pregnancy rates after three cycles. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients completed 119 cycles (2.4 per patient). Fifty-two embryo transfers resulted in 17 ongoing pregnancies [14.3% per started cycle; 32.7% per embryo transfer; 95% confidence interval (CI) 7.9-20.7% and 19.7-45.7%, respectively]. One dizygotic twin pregnancy occurred after transfer of two embryos, the other pregnancies were singletons. The cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate after three cycles was 34% (95% CI 20.6-47.4%). Live birth rate was 32% per patient (95% CI 18.8-45.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Pregnancy rates after IVF with minimal, late follicular phase stimulation are encouraging. Considering the low-risk and patient-friendly nature of this protocol, it may be a feasible alternative to IVF with ovarian hyperstimulation.

Efficacy of natural cycle IVF: a review of the literature.

Since the introduction of IVF treatments, natural cycle IVF has been largely replaced by IVF with ovarian stimulation. However, natural cycle IVF has several advantages. It is associated with a close to zero multiple pregnancy rate, and a zero risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Per cycle, natural cycle IVF is less time consuming, physically and emotionally less demanding for patients, and cheaper than stimulated IVF, but also less effective. This systematic literature review addresses the issue of effectiveness of natural cycle IVF. Herein, 20 studies describing natural cycle IVF are presented; 12 case series and eight in which a comparison was made between natural cycle IVF and IVF with ovarian stimulation. Good-quality randomized controlled trials and formal cost-effectiveness analyses are lacking. The 20 selected studies comprised a total of 1800 cycles of natural cycle IVF, resulting in 819 embryo transfers (45.5% per cycle) and 129 ongoing pregnancies (7.2% per cycle and 15.8% per embryo transfer). Efficacy of natural cycle IVF is hampered by high cancellation rates because of premature LH rise and premature ovulations. It is concluded that natural cycle IVF is a low-risk, low-cost and patient-friendly procedure. A randomized controlled trial comparing natural cycle IVF with current standard treatment strategies is warranted.

Embryos cultured in vitro with multinucleated blastomeres have poor implantation potential in human in-vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

The aim of the present study was to investigate pregnancy rates ensuing from transfer of embryos with multinucleated blastomeres. In our in-vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) programme, 1735 embryo transfers were performed from January 1, 1995 to August 31, 1996. In 136 of these transfers at least one embryo with one or more multinucleated blastomeres was present per transfer (study group). For each of these 136 transfers, two matched controls with transfer of exclusively mononucleated embryos were selected (control group). Matching was carried out according to age, method of fertilization (IVF or ICSI), number of transferred embryos and quality score of transferred embryos. In the study group, there were eight transfers of exclusively multinucleated embryos from which one pregnancy ensued and 128 transfers in which multinucleated and mononucleated embryos were transferred together leading to 23 pregnancies. The overall clinical pregnancy rate per transfer was 16.9% in the study group versus 28.7% in the control group (P = 0.01). The ongoing pregnancy rate per transfer was 13.2% in the study group versus 23.2% in the control group (P = 0.03). The implantation rate per transferred embryo was 6.0% in the study group versus 11.3% in the control group (P = 0.003). This study shows that embryos with one or more multinucleated blastomeres have a poorer implantation potential than embryos with mononucleated blastomeres. Transfer of embryos with multinucleated blastomeres should hence only be considered when insufficient numbers of embryos with only mononucleated blastomeres are present.

Analysis of the oocyte activating capacity and chromosomal complement of round-headed human spermatozoa by their injection into mouse oocytes.

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in the human is a very effective procedure which allows the fertilization of the majority of oocytes even in cases of extreme oligoasthenoteratozoospermia. Round-headed acrosomeless human spermatozoa, however, form an exception to this rule, because in about half of the couples with globozoospermia all oocytes remain unfertilized after injection. The incapacity of the spermatozoon to activate the oocyte following injection of round-headed spermatozoa could be the underlying mechanism. To investigate this hypothesis, activation rates of mouse oocytes injected with spermatozoa from a patient with globozoospermia were compared with those obtained after injection with normal spermatozoa. Of mouse oocytes surviving the injection with donor spermatozoa, 95% underwent activation, compared to none of the 88 mouse oocytes surviving the injection with round-headed spermatozoa. After fixation, prematurely condensed sperm chromosomes were found in these oocytes. Parthenogenetic activation of mouse oocytes (8% ethanol at 40 min after injection) injected with round-headed spermatozoa led to the activation of 96% of oocytes. These oocytes developed normally to the first mitosis and were fixed for analysis of the sperm karyotypes. The incidence of chromosomal abnormalities of round-headed spermatozoa (6%) was similar to that in spermatozoa from a fertile donor (9%). These data provide further information on the basic defect in cases of globozoospermia and demonstrate that globozoospermia is not associated with sperm karyotype abnormalities.