The web-based Pleasure&Pregnancy programme in the treatment of unexplained infertility: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does offering the Pleasure&Pregnancy (P&P) programme rather than expectant management improve naturally conceived ongoing pregnancy rates in couples diagnosed with unexplained infertility? SUMMARY ANSWER: The P&P programme had no effect on the ongoing pregnancy rates of couples with unexplained infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Underpowered studies suggested that face-to-face interventions targeting sexual health may increase pregnancy rates. The impact of an eHealth sexual health programme had yet to be evaluated by a large randomized controlled trial. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a nationwide multi-centre, unblinded, randomized controlled superiority trial (web-based randomization programme, 1:1 allocation ratio). This RCT intended to recruit 1164 couples within 3 years but was put on hold after having included 700 couples over 5 years (2016-2021). The web-based P&P programme contains psychosexual information and couple communication, mindfulness and sensate focus exercises aiming to help maintain or improve sexual health, mainly pleasure, and hence increase pregnancy rates. The P&P programme additionally offers information on the biology of conception and enables couples to interact online with peers and via email with coaches. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Heterosexual couples with unexplained infertility and a Hunault-prognosis of at least 30% chance of naturally conceiving a live-born child within 12 months were included, after their diagnostic work-up in 41 Dutch secondary and tertiary fertility centres. The primary outcome was an ongoing pregnancy, defined as a viable intrauterine pregnancy of at least 12 weeks duration confirmed by an ultrasound scan, conceived naturally within 6 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes were time to pregnancy, live birth, sexual health, and personal and relational well-being at baseline and after 3 and 6 months. The primary analyses were according to intention-to-treat principles. We calculated relative risks (RRs, pregnancy rates) and a risk difference (RD, pregnancy rates), Kaplan-Meier survival curves (live birth over time), and time, group, and interactive effects with mixed models analyses (sexual health and well-being). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Totals of 352 (one withdrawal) and 348 (three withdrawals) couples were allocated to, respectively the P&P group and the expectant management group. Web-based tracking of the intervention group showed a high attrition rate (57% of couples) and limited engagement (i.e. median of 16 visits and 33 min total visitation time per couple). Intention-to-treat analyses showed that 19.4% (n = 68/351) of the P&P group and 22.6% (n = 78/345) of the expectant management group achieved a naturally conceived ongoing pregnancy (RR = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.64-1.15, RD = -3.24%; 95% CI -9.28 to 2.81). The time to pregnancy did not differ between the groups (Log rank = 0.23). Live birth occurred in 18.8% (n = 66/351) of the couples of the P&P group and 22.3% (n = 77/345) of the couples of the expectant management group (RR = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.63-1.1). Intercourse frequency decreased equally over time in both groups. Sexual pleasure, orgasm, and satisfaction of women of the P&P group improved while these outcomes remained stable in the expectant management group. Male orgasm, intercourse satisfaction, and overall satisfaction decreased over time with no differences between groups. The intervention did not affect personal and relational well-being. Non-compliance by prematurely starting medically assisted reproduction, and clinical loss to follow-up were, respectively, 15.1% and 1.4% for the complete study population. Per protocol analysis for the primary outcome did not indicate a difference between the groups. Comparing the most engaged users with the expectant management group added that coital frequency decreased less, and that male sexual desire improved in the intervention group. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The intended sample size of 1164 was not reached because of a slow recruitment rate. The achieved sample size was, however, large enough to exclude an improvement of more than 8% of the P&P programme on our primary outcome. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The P&P programme should not be offered to increase natural pregnancy rates but may be considered to improve sexual health. The attrition from and limited engagement with the P&P programme is in line with research on other eHealth programmes and underlines the importance of a user experience study. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Funded by The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw, reference: 843001605) and Flanders Research Foundation. C.B.L. is editor-in-chief of Human Reproduction. H.W.L. received royalties or licences from Prometheus Publishers Springer Media Thieme Verlag. J.B. received support from MercK for attending the ESHRE course 'The ESHRE guideline on ovarian stimulation, do we have agreement?' J.v.D. reports consulting fees and lecture payments from Ferring, not related to the presented work, and support for attending ESHRE from Goodlife and for attending NFI Riga from Merck. A.H. reports consulting fees by Ferring Pharmaceutical company, The Netherlands, paid to institution UMCG, not related to the presented work. H.V. reports consulting fees from Ferring Pharmaceutical company, The Netherlands, and he is a member of the ESHRE guideline development group unexplained infertility and Chair of the Dutch guideline on unexplained infertility (unpaid). M.G. declares unrestricted research and educational grants from Ferring not related to the presented work, paid to their institution VU Medical Centre. The other authors have no conflicts to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR5709. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 4 February 2016. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 27 June 2016.

Anxiety, depression, and body image among infertile women with and without polycystic ovary syndrome.

STUDY QUESTION: In women undergoing fertility treatment, do those with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have a higher prevalence of symptoms of anxiety and depression and lower body appreciation than women without PCOS? SUMMARY ANSWER: Having PCOS was not associated with symptoms of anxiety and depression but was associated with somewhat lower body appreciation. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: PCOS has been associated with a higher chance to develop mental health problems, like anxiety, and body image concerns. The International Guidelines on PCOS recommend that all women with PCOS should routinely be screened for anxiety and depressive disorders. In most studies in this field, the comparison group included healthy women without fertility problems. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We conducted a cross-sectional survey study between May 2021 and July 2023, using an online questionnaire. We informed women about this study at fertility clinics in the Netherlands through posters and leaflets and on the websites of the Dutch patient organizations Freya and Stichting PCOS. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: This study included women with infertility, with and without PCOS, who were undergoing fertility treatment. Women completed two assessment tools: the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Body Appreciation Scale-2 (BAS-2). Primary outcomes were clinically relevant symptoms of anxiety (score ≥ 11) and depression (score ≥ 11), and BAS-2 scores. Secondary outcomes were mean anxiety and depression scores and anxiety and depression scores of 8 and higher. Dichotomous outcomes and continuous outcomes were analysed using logistic and linear regression analyses adjusted for age, BMI, and duration of infertility. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 1025 women currently undergoing infertility treatment participated, of whom 502 (49.0%) had PCOS and 523 (51.0%) had other infertility diagnoses. We found self-reported clinically relevant symptoms of anxiety in 33.1% of women with PCOS and in 31.0% of women with other infertility diagnoses (adjusted OR: 0.99, 95% CI 0.74-1.31). Clinically relevant symptoms of depression were reported in 15.5% of women with PCOS versus 14.5% of women with other infertility diagnoses (adjusted OR: 1.04, 95% CI 0.71-1.50). Women with PCOS reported slightly less body appreciation (adjusted mean difference: -1.34, 95% CI -2.32 to -0.36). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Results are based on self-report and may have been affected by sampling bias. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Although guidelines recommend screening women with PCOS, feelings of anxiety and depression can be present in any woman undergoing fertility treatments. We advise fertility clinics to be aware of women's mental health issues and to offer support accordingly, as a part of routine care. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study did not receive specific funding. All authors report no conflict of interest related to the current research. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study was pre-registered at OSF: https://osf.io/qbeav.

The effect of dietary interventions on pain and quality of life in women diagnosed with endometriosis: a prospective study with control group.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the influence of dietary interventions, namely the low fermentable oligo-, di-, mono-saccharides, and polyols (Low FODMAP) diet and endometriosis diet, on endometriosis-related pain and quality of life (QoL) compared to a control group? SUMMARY ANSWER: After adhering to a dietary intervention for 6 months, women with endometriosis reported less pain and an improved QoL compared to baseline whereas, compared to the control group, they reported less bloating and a better QoL in 3 of 11 domains. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Standard endometriosis treatment can be insufficient or may be accompanied by unacceptable side effects. This has resulted in an increasing interest in self-management strategies, including the appliance of the Low FODMAP diet and the endometriosis diet (an experience-based avoidance diet, developed by women with endometriosis). The Low FODMAP diet has previously been found effective in reducing endometriosis-related pain symptoms, whereas only limited studies are available on the efficacy of the endometriosis diet. A survey study recently found the endometriosis diet effective in improving QoL but currently no guidelines on use of the diet exist. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A prospective one-center pilot study was performed between April 2021 and December 2022. Participants could choose between adherence to a diet-the Low FODMAP diet or endometriosis diet-or no diet (control group). Women adhering to a diet received extensive guidance from a dietician in training. The follow-up period was 6 months for all three groups. For all outcomes, women adhering to the diets were compared to their baseline situation and to the control group. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We included women diagnosed with endometriosis (surgically and/or by radiologic imaging) who reported pain scores ≥3 cm on the visual analogue score (0-10 cm) for dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia, and/or chronic pelvic pain. The primary endpoint focused on pain reduction for all pain symptoms, including dysuria, bloating, and tiredness. Secondary endpoints, assessed via questionnaires, focused on QoL, gastro-intestinal health, and diet adherence. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 62 participants were included in the low FODMAP diet (n = 22), endometriosis diet (n = 21), and control group (n = 19). Compared to their baseline pain scores, participants adhering to a diet reported less pain in four of six symptoms (range P < 0.001 to P = 0.012) and better scores in 6 of 11 QoL domains (range P < 0.001 to P = 0.023) after 6 months. Compared to the control group, analyzed longitudinally over the 6-month follow-up period, participants applying a diet reported significant less bloating (P = 0.049), and better scores in 3 of 11 QoL domains (range P = 0.002 to P = 0.035). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: No sample size was calculated since efficacy data were lacking in the literature. In order to optimize dietary adherence, randomization was not applied, possibly resulting in selection bias. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our study suggests that women could benefit from adherence to a dietary intervention, since we found lower pain scores and better QoL after 6 months. However, caution is implied since this is a pilot study, no sample size was calculated, and data on long-term effects (>6 months) are lacking. The results of this pilot study underline the importance of further research and the drawing up of guidelines. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): A.v.H. reports receiving a travel grant from Merck outside the scope of this study. J.W., S.V., J.T., and B.D.B. have no conflicts of interest to report. A.d.V. reports having received KP-register points for internship guidance of J.W., performing paid consultations with endometriosis patients outside the study and receiving reimbursements for educational lectures at the local hospital (Albert Schweitzer Ziekenhuis, Dordrecht, the Netherlands). A.S. reports having received expenses for travel and hotel costs as an invited speaker from ESHRE. This was outside the scope of this study. M.v.W. reports that she is a Co-Ed of Cochrane Gynecology and Fertility. V.M. reports receiving travel and speaker's fees from Guerbet and research grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring. The department of reproductive medicine (V.M.) of the Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, has received several research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring not related to the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

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.

Clinical outcomes of uninterrupted embryo culture with or without time-lapse-based embryo selection versus interrupted standard culture (SelecTIMO): a three-armed, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Time-lapse monitoring is increasingly used in fertility laboratories to culture and select embryos for transfer. This method is offered to couples with the promise of improving pregnancy chances, even though there is currently insufficient evidence for superior clinical results. We aimed to evaluate whether a potential improvement by time-lapse monitoring is caused by the time-lapse-based embryo selection method itself or the uninterrupted culture environment that is part of the system. METHODS: In this three-armed, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, couples undergoing in-vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection were recruited from 15 fertility clinics in the Netherlands and randomly assigned using a web-based, computerised randomisation service to one of three groups. Couples and physicians were masked to treatment group, but embryologists and laboratory technicians could not be. The time-lapse early embryo viability assessment (EEVA; TLE) group received embryo selection based on the EEVA time-lapse selection method and uninterrupted culture. The time-lapse routine (TLR) group received routine embryo selection and uninterrupted culture. The control group received routine embryo selection and interrupted culture. The co-primary endpoints were the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate within 12 months in all women and the ongoing pregnancy rate after fresh single embryo transfer in a good prognosis population. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered on the ICTRP Search Portal, NTR5423, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: 1731 couples were randomly assigned between June 15, 2017, and March 31, 2020 (577 to the TLE group, 579 to the TLR group, and 575 to the control group). The 12-month cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate did not differ significantly between the three groups: 50·8% (293 of 577) in the TLE group, 50·9% (295 of 579) in the TLR group, and 49·4% (284 of 575) in the control group (p=0·85). The ongoing pregnancy rates after fresh single embryo transfer in a good prognosis population were 38·2% (125 of 327) in the TLE group, 36·8% (119 of 323) in the TLR group, and 37·8% (123 of 325) in the control group (p=0·90). Ten serious adverse events were reported (five TLE, four TLR, and one in the control group), which were not related to study procedures. INTERPRETATION: Neither time-lapse-based embryo selection using the EEVA test nor uninterrupted culture conditions in a time-lapse incubator improved clinical outcomes compared with routine methods. Widespread application of time-lapse monitoring for fertility treatments with the promise of improved results should be questioned. FUNDING: Health Care Efficiency Research programme from Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development and Merck.

Long-term outcomes of switching to gonadotrophins versus continuing with clomiphene citrate, with or without intrauterine insemination, in women with normogonadotropic anovulation and clomiphene failure: follow-up study of a factorial randomized clinical trial.

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

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).