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.

Pre-eclampsia in pregnancies resulting from oocyte donation, natural conception or IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the prevalence of pre-eclampsia (PE) in pregnancies after oocyte donation (OD) compared to natural conception (NC) and to IVF with autologous oocytes (AO)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Overall the prevalence of PE after OD was 4-5 times higher than after NC and 2-3 times higher than after IVF with AO. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The indication for OD is expanding to lesbian women requesting shared lesbian motherhood. Previous reviews have shown that the risk of PE is higher in pregnancies after OD than after NC and after IVF with AO. Classification on the severity of PE is lacking as is the relationship with known risk factors such as maternal age and multiple gestations. Furthermore the actual prevalence of PE in pregnancies resulting from OD is not known. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. A literature search was performed using the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL, OpenGrey and Greynet from January 1980 through July 2020. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We included retrospective and prospective cohort studies. The study population consisted of pregnancies after OD and NC or IVF and data had to be available about prevalence of PE. We compared the risk of (severe) PE in OD versus NC and IVF pregnancies, subgrouped by plurality and maternal age. We calculated individual and pooled odds ratios (OR) and prevalence estimates with 95% CI using a random effect model, while heterogeneity was assessed by the I2. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In total, 27 studies comprising of 7089 OD pregnancies, 1 139 540 NC pregnancies and 72 742 IVF pregnancies were available for analysis. The risks of PE and severe PE was increased in OD pregnancies compared to NC pregnancies (pooled OR of all subgroups: 5.09, 95% CI: 4.29-6.04; I2 = 19% and OR: 7.42, 95% CI: 4.64-11.88; I2 = 49%, respectively). This suggests that compared to a PE risk of 2.9% with NC, the risk with OD was between 11.5% and 15.4%. Compared to a severe PE risk of 0.5% with NC, the risk with OD was between 2.3% and 5.6%. The pooled adjusted OR for PE was 3.24 (95% 2.74-3.83) for OD versus NC pregnancies. The risks of PE and severe PE were also increased in OD pregnancies compared to IVF pregnancies (pooled OR of all subgroups: 2.97, 95% CI: 2.49-3.53; I2 = 51% and OR: 2.97, 95% CI: 2.15-4.11; I2 = 0%, respectively). This suggests that compared to a PE risk of 5.9% with IVF, the risk with OD was between 13.5% and 18.0%. Compared to a severe PE risk of 3.3% with IVF, the risk with OD was between 6.8% and 12.2%. The pooled adjusted OR for PE was 2.67 (95% 2.28-3.13) for OD versus IVF. The pooled prevalence of PE in singleton pregnancies after OD was 10.7% (95% CI 6.6-15.5) compared to 2.0% (95% CI 1.0-3.1) after NC and 4.1% (95% CI 2.7-5.6) after IVF. The prevalence in multiple pregnancies was 27.8% (95% CI 23.6-32.2) after OD, 7.5% (95% CI 7.2-7.8) after NC and 9.7% (95% CI 6.2-13.9) after IVF. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The precise definition of PE is still a matter of debate. The different criteria could have affected the prevalence estimate. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Nearly one in six women will suffer PE after OD. Although it is uncertain whether these risks are consistent for lesbian couples undergoing shared motherhood, we feel that women who can conceive naturally could be advised to reconsider. In women with primary ovarian insufficiency, we feel that factors that may increase risk of PE ever further, such as double embryo transfer, should be avoided whenever possible. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No funding or competing interests. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020166899.

Intracervical insemination versus intrauterine insemination with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Is intracervical insemination (ICI) non-inferior to IUI with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle in terms of live birth? SUMMARY ANSWER: ICI with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle was inferior to IUI in terms of live birth. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Both ICI and IUI in the natural cycle are performed as first-line treatments in women who are eligible for donor sperm treatment. High-quality data on the effectiveness of ICI versus IUI with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle in terms of live birth is lacking. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an open-label multicentre randomized non-inferiority trial in the Netherlands and Belgium. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We randomly allocated women who were eligible for donor sperm treatment with cryopreserved donor semen to six cycles of ICI in the natural cycle or six cycles of IUI in the natural cycle. The primary outcome was conception within 8 months after randomization leading to a live birth. Secondary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and time to conception leading to live birth. We calculated relative risks (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% CI. Non-inferiority would be shown if the lower limit of the 95% RD CI was <-12%. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between June 2014 and February 2019, we included 421 women, of whom 211 women were randomly allocated to ICI and 210 to IUI. Of the 211 women allocated to ICI, 2 women were excluded, 126 women completed treatment according to protocol and 75 women did not complete 6 treatment cycles. Of the 210 women allocated to IUI, 3 women were excluded, 140 women completed treatment according to protocol and 62 women did not complete 6 treatment cycles. Mean female age was 34 years (SD ±4) in both interventions. Conception leading to live birth occurred in 51 women (24%) allocated to ICI and in 81 women (39%) allocated to IUI (RR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.84). This corresponds to an absolute RD of -15%; 95% CI: -24% to -6.9%, suggesting inferiority of ICI. ICI also resulted in a lower live birth rate over time (hazard ratio 0.58, 95% CI: 0.41-0.82). Our per-protocol analysis showed that, within the 8 months treatment horizon, 48 women (38%) had live births after ICI and 79 women (56%) had live births after IUI (RR 0.68, 95% CI: 0.52-0.88; RD -18%, 95% CI: -30% to -6%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was non-blinded owing to the nature of the interventions. We consider it unlikely that this has introduced performance bias, since pregnancy outcomes are objective outcome measures. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since ICI in the natural cycle was inferior to IUI in the natural cycle with cryopreserved donor sperm in terms of live birth rate, IUI is the preferred treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This trial received funding from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw project number 837002407). B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437), reports consultancy for ObsEva and has received research funding from Guerbet, Ferring and Merck. The other authors do not declare a COI. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4462. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 11 March 2014. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 03 June 2014.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Age-related natural fertility outcomes in women over 35 years: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the rate of natural conception leading to ongoing pregnancy or livebirth over 6-12 months for infertile women of age ≥35 years? SUMMARY ANSWER: Natural conception rates were still clinically relevant in women aged 35 years and above and were significantly higher in women with unexplained infertility compared to those with other diagnoses. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In recent years, increasing numbers of women have attempted to conceive at a later age, resulting in a commensurate increase in the need for ART. However, there is a lack of data on natural fertility outcomes (i.e. no interventions) in women with increasing age. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A systematic review with individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis was carried out. PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov were searched until 1 July 2018 including search terms 'fertility service', 'waiting list', 'treatment-independent' and 'spontaneous conception'. Language restrictions were not imposed. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Inclusion criteria were studies (at least partly) reporting on infertile couples with female partner of age ≥35 years who attended fertility services, underwent fertility workup (e.g. history, semen analysis, tubal status and ovulation status) and were exposed to natural conception (e.g. independent of treatment such as IVF, ovulation induction and tubal surgery). Studies that exclusively studied only one infertility diagnosis, without including other women presenting to infertility services for other causes of infertility, were excluded. For studies that met the inclusion criteria, study authors were contacted to provide IPD, after which fertility outcomes for women of age ≥35 years were retrieved. Time to pregnancy or livebirth and the effect of increasing age on fertility outcomes after adjustment for other prognostic factors were analysed. Quality of studies was graded with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (non-randomised controlled trials (RCTs)) or the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (for RCTs). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We included nine studies (seven cohort studies and two RCTs) (n = 4379 women of at least age 35 years), with the observed composite primary outcome of ongoing pregnancy or livebirth occurring in 429 women (9.8%) over a median follow-up of 5 months (25th to 75th percentile: 2.5-8.5 months). Studies were of moderate to high quality. The probability of natural conception significantly decreased with any diagnosis of infertility, when compared with unexplained infertility. We found non-linear effects of female age and duration of infertility on ongoing pregnancy and tabulated the predicted probabilities for unexplained infertile women aged 35-42 years with either primary or secondary infertility and with a duration of infertility from 1 to 6 years. For a 35-year-old woman with 2 years of primary unexplained infertility, the predicted probability of natural conception leading to ongoing pregnancy or livebirth was 0.15 (95% CI 0.11-0.19) after 6 months and 0.24 (95% CI 0.17-0.30) after 12 months. For a 42-year-old woman, this decreased to 0.08 (95% CI 0.04-0.11) after 6 months and 0.13 (95% CI 0.07-0.18) after 12 months. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: In the studies selected, there were different study designs, recruitment strategies in different centres, protocols and countries and different methods of assessment of infertility. Data were limited for women above the age of 40 years. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Women attending fertility services should be encouraged to pursue natural conception while waiting for treatment to commence and after treatment if it is unsuccessful. Our results may aid in counselling women, and, in particular, for those with unexplained infertility. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): S.J.C. received funding from the University of Adelaide Summer Research Scholarship. B.W.M. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437), B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Merck KGaA, iGenomix and Guerbet. B.W.M. reports research support by Merck and Guerbet. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018096552.

Psychosocial counselling for intended parents who opt for donor sperm treatment: which topics do they find relevant?

Objective: This study aimed to explore which topics intended parents who opt for donor sperm treatment find relevant to discuss in psychosocial counselling. Background: The choice for donor sperm treatment has psychosocial implications for intended parents and therefore psychosocial counselling is advised as an integral part of DST. To date, little is known about which topics intended parents find relevant to discuss in psychosocial counselling. Methods: We conducted 25 semi-structured in-depth interviews between 2015 and 2017 with heterosexual men and women, lesbian women and single women who opted for donor sperm treatment and had a counselling session as part of their intake. They were recruited through three Dutch fertility centres, three network organisations and by snowball sampling. Results: Intended parents found it relevant to discuss the following seven topics in psychosocial counselling: the decision to opt for donor sperm treatment, choosing a sperm donor, coping with questions from family and friends, non-genetic parenthood, single motherhood, openness and disclosure, and future contact between the child and half-siblings. Conclusion: We recommend that counsellors take a more active role in bringing up the topics found in our study and that a clear distinction is made between counselling with the aim to screen intended parents and counselling with the aim to offer guidance.

Follicle stimulating hormone or clomiphene citrate in intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation for unexplained subfertility: a role for treatment selection markers?

RESEARCH QUESTION: Can women be identified, on the basis of baseline patient characteristics, as having better chances of an ongoing pregnancy with FSH instead of clomiphene citrate as stimulation agent in intrauterine insemination for unexplained subfertility? DESIGN: A secondary analysis of a multicentre randomized controlled superiority trial; the SUPER study. Between July 2013 and March 2016, couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing intrauterine inemination (IUI) were allocated to an FSH or clomiphene citrate group. Female age, body mass index, duration of subfertility, primary versus secondary subfertility, antral follicle count and total motile count were assessed. For each of these factors, a logistic regression model was developed to assess if different estimated effects of FSH versus clomiphene citrate on ongoing pregnancy occurred within strata of each factor. RESULTS: A total of 684 couples received 2259 IUI cycles; 338 couples were allocated to FSH, of which 84 conceived leading to ongoing pregnancy and 346 couples were allocated to clomiphene citrate, of which 71 conceived leading to ongoing pregnancy. None of the treatment selection markers was associated with better ongoing pregnancy chances after IUI with FSH compared with clomiphene citrate. CONCLUSION: In couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI, no baseline treatment selection markers could be identified to determine whether ovaries should be stimulated with FSH or clomiphene citrate.

Follicle stimulating hormone versus clomiphene citrate in intrauterine insemination for unexplained subfertility: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Is FSH or clomiphene citrate (CC) the most effective stimulation regimen in terms of ongoing pregnancies in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with adherence to strict cancellation criteria as a measure to reduce the number of multiple pregnancies? SUMMARY ANSWER: In IUI with adherence to strict cancellation criteria, ovarian stimulation with FSH is not superior to CC in terms of the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate, and yields a similar, low multiple pregnancy rate. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: FSH has been shown to result in higher pregnancy rates compared to CC, but at the cost of high multiple pregnancy rates. To reduce the risk of multiple pregnancy, new ovarian stimulation regimens have been suggested, these include strict cancellation criteria to limit the number of dominant follicles per cycle i.e. withholding insemination when more than three dominant follicles develop. With such a strategy, it is unclear whether the ovarian stimulation should be done with FSH or with CC. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an open-label multicenter randomized superiority controlled trial in the Netherlands (NTR 4057). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We randomized couples diagnosed with unexplained subfertility and scheduled for a maximum of four cycles of IUI with ovarian stimulation with 75 IU FSH or 100 mg CC. Cycles were cancelled when more then three dominant follicles developed. The primary outcome was cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate. Multiple pregnancy was a secondary outcome. We analysed the data on intention to treat basis. We calculated relative risks and absolute risk difference with 95% CI. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between July 2013 and March 2016, we allocated 369 women to ovarian stimulation with FSH and 369 women to ovarian stimulation with CC. A total of 113 women (31%) had an ongoing pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with FSH and 97 women (26%) had an ongoing pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with CC (RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.93-1.47, ARD = 0.04, 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.11). Five women (1.4%) had a multiple pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with FSH and eight women (2.2%) had a multiple pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with CC (RR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.21-1.89, ARD = -0.01, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.01). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We were not able to blind this study due to the nature of the interventions. We consider it unlikely that this has introduced performance bias, since pregnancy outcomes are objective outcome measures. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We revealed that adherence to strict cancellation criteria is a successful solution to reduce the number of multiple pregnancies in IUI. To decide whether ovarian stimulation with FSH or with CC should be the regimen of choice, costs and patients' preferences should be taken into account. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This trial received funding from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw). Prof. Dr B.W.J. Mol is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for Merck, ObsEva and Guerbet. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Nederlands Trial Register NTR4057. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 1 July 2013. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: The first patient was randomized at 27 August 2013.

A mild ovarian stimulation strategy in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF: a multicenter randomized non-inferiority trial.

STUDY QUESTION: In subfertile women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF does a mild ovarian stimulation strategy lead to comparable ongoing pregnancy rates in comparison to a conventional ovarian stimulation strategy? SUMMARY ANSWER: A mild ovarian stimulation strategy in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF leads to similar ongoing pregnancy rates as a conventional ovarian stimulation strategy. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Women diagnosed with poor ovarian reserve are treated with a conventional ovarian stimulation strategy consisting of high-dose gonadotropins and pituitary downregulation with a long mid-luteal start GnRH-agonist protocol. Previous studies comparing a conventional strategy with a mild ovarian stimulation strategy consisting of low-dose gonadotropins and pituitary downregulation with a GnRH-antagonist have been under powered and their effectiveness is inconclusive. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This open label multicenter randomized trial was designed to compare one cycle of a mild ovarian stimulation strategy consisting of low-dose gonadotropins (150 IU FSH) and pituitary downregulation with a GnRH-antagonist to one cycle of a conventional ovarian stimulation strategy consisting of high-dose gonadotropins (450 IU HMG) and pituitary downregulation with a long mid-luteal GnRH-agonist in women of advanced maternal age and/or women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF between May 2011 and April 2014. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Couples seeking infertility treatment were eligible if they fulfilled the following inclusion criteria: female age ≥35 years, a raised basal FSH level >10 IU/ml irrespective of age, a low antral follicular count of ≤5 follicles or poor ovarian response or cycle cancellation during a previous IVF cycle irrespective of age. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy rate per woman randomized. Analyses were on an intention-to-treat basis. We randomly assigned 195 women to the mild ovarian stimulation strategy and 199 women to the conventional ovarian stimulation strategy. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Ongoing pregnancy rate was 12.8% (25/195) for mild ovarian stimulation versus 13.6% (27/199) for conventional ovarian stimulation leading to a risk ratio of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.57-1.57), representing an absolute difference of -0.7% (95% CI: -7.4 to 5.9). This 95% CI does not extend below the predefined threshold of 10% for inferiority. The duration of ovarian stimulation was significantly lower in the mild ovarian stimulation strategy than in the conventional ovarian stimulation strategy (mean difference -1.2 days, 95% CI: -1.88 to -0.62). Also, a significantly lower amount of gonadotropins was used in the mild simulation strategy, with a mean difference of 3135 IU (95% CI: -3331 to -2940). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: A limitation of our study was the lack of data concerning the cryopreservation of surplus embryos, so we are not informed on cumulative pregnancy rates. Another limitation is that we were not able to follow up on the ongoing pregnancies in all centers, so we are not informed on live birth rates. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The results are directly applicable in daily clinical practice and may lead to considerable cost savings as high dosages of gonadotropins are not necessary in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF. A health economic analysis of our data planned to test the hypothesis that mild ovarian stimulation strategy is more cost-effective than the conventional ovarian stimulation strategy is underway. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was supported by NUFFIC scholarship (the Netherlands) and STDF short-term fellowship (Egypt). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR2788 (Trialregister.nl). TRIAL REGISTER DATE: 01 March 2011. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: May 2011.

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

STUDY QUESTION: Is pre-ovulatory endometrial thickness (EMT) in women with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with ovarian stimulation (OS) associated with pregnancy chances? SUMMARY ANSWER: We found no evidence for an association between EMT and pregnancy chances. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: It has been suggested that OS with clomiphene citrate (CC) results in a lower EMT than with gonadotrophins or aromatase inhibitors, but the clinical consequences in terms of pregnancy are unclear. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing CC, gonadotrophins or aromatase inhibitors in an IUI program reporting on EMT and pregnancy rates in women with unexplained subfertility. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the non-MEDLINE subset of PubMed from inception to 28th June 2016 and cross-checked references of relevant articles. Outcome measures were clinical pregnancy rate and mean pre-ovulatory EMT. We calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs with a fixed effect model, and in case of heterogeneity with an I2 > 50% a random effect model. We performed a meta-regression analysis to determine if stimulating drugs interacted with the estimated effect of EMT. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Our search retrieved 1563 articles of which 23 were included, totaling 3846 women. There were 17 RCTs and 6 cohort studies. The average study quality was low and there was considerable to substantial statistical heterogeneity. Seven studies provided data on EMT in relation to pregnancy. There was no evidence of a difference in EMT between women who conceived and women that did not conceive (1525 women, MDrandom: 0.51 mm, 95% CI: -0.05 to 1.07). Women treated with CC had a significantly thinner EMT than women treated with gonadotrophins (two studies, MD: -0.33, 95% CI: -0.64 to -0.01). There was no evidence of a difference in EMT when comparing CC with letrozole (five studies, MDrandom: -0.84, 95% CI: -1.97 to 0.28). The combination of CC plus gonadotrophins resulted in a slightly thinner endometrium than letrozole (nine studies, MDrandom: -0.79, 95% CI: -1.37 to -0.20). Letrozole resulted in a thinner EMT than gonadotrophins (two studies, MDrandom: -1.31, 95% CI: -2.08 to -0.53). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The overall quality of the included studies was low to moderate. We found considerable to substantial heterogeneity in the comparisons, hampering firm conclusions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We found no evidence for an association between EMT and pregnancy rates during IUI -OS. As a consequence, canceling IUI cycles because of a thin endometrial lining may negatively affect clinical care. Although we found some evidence for very small differences in EMT when comparing various drugs, we cannot make inferences on their effect on pregnancy chances since these differences may be coincidental. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): None. REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Couples with non-obstructive azoospermia are interested in future treatments with artificial gametes.

STUDY QUESTION: Would couples diagnosed with non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) consider two future treatments with artificial gametes (AGs) as alternatives for testicular sperm extraction followed by ICSI (TESE-ICSI)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Most couples with NOA (89%) would opt for treatment with AGs before attempting TESE-ICSI and/or after failed TESE-ICSI. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Couples with NOA who undergo TESE-ICSI have a 25% chance of conceiving a child. Two future treatments that are being developed are 'ICSI with artificial sperm formed from somatic cells' (ICSI with AGs) and 'natural conception after autotransplantation of in vitro proliferated spermatogonial stem cells' (natural conception with AGs). It is unknown what treatment preferences patients have. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A cross-sectional survey conducted in 2012-2013, addressing all 921 couples diagnosed with NOA and treated with TESE-ICSI in Dutch fertility clinics between 2007 and 2012. The coded questionnaires were sent by mail and followed up with two reminders. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We developed the questionnaire based on a literature review and previous qualitative interviews, and included treatment preference and the valuation of nine treatment characteristics. We assessed reliability of the questionnaires and calculated mean importance scores (MISs: 0-10) of each treatment characteristic. We assessed which patient and treatment characteristics were associated with a couple's hypothetical treatment preference using binominal regression. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The vast majority (89%) of the 494 responding couples (response rate: 54%) would potentially opt for AGs as a first and/or a last resort treatment option. More specifically, as a first treatment couples were likely (67%) to prefer natural conception with AGs over TESE-ICSI and less likely to prefer ICSI with AGs over TESE-ICSI (34%). After failed TESE-ICSI, the majority of couples (75%) would want to attempt ICSI with AGs as a last resort option. The most important characteristics of treatment were safety for children (MIS: 8.2), pregnancy rates (MIS: 7.7) and curing infertility (MIS: 6.8). Costs, burden, naturalness and technological sophistication were of about equal importance (MIS: 3.1-4.0). The majority of patients rated conception at home and moral acceptability as not important (MIS: 1.7 and 0.8, respectively), but the importance attributed to these variables did still affect patients' likeliness to opt for AGs. LIMITATIONS AND REASONS FOR CAUTION: Couples with NOA not opting for TESE-ICSI were not included and might have other perspectives. Couples' hypothetical choices for AGs might differ from their actual choices once data on the costs, safety and pregnancy rates become available from these new treatment options. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The interest of couples with NOA in potential future treatments with AGs encourages further pre-clinical research. Priority setting for research and future decision-making on clinical application of AGs should take all characteristics important to patients into account. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The authors report no financial or other conflict of interest relevant to the subject of this article.

Psychosocial counselling of identifiable sperm donors.

STUDY QUESTION: What do identifiable sperm donors feel about psychosocial counselling? SUMMARY ANSWER: Identifiable sperm donors found it important that psychosocial counselling focused on emotional consequences and on rules and regulations and they expected to have access to psychosocial counselling at the time that donor-offspring actually sought contact. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Most studies on sperm donors are on anonymous donors and focus on recruitment, financial compensation, anonymity and motivations. There is limited knowledge on the value that identifiable sperm donors place on psychosocial counselling and what their needs are in this respect. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION: We performed a qualitative study from March until June 2014 with 25 identifiable sperm donors, who were or had been a donor at the Centre for Reproductive Medicine of the Academic Medical Centre in Amsterdam any time between 1989 and 2014. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING AND METHODS: We held semi-structured in-depth interviews with identifiable sperm donors with an average age of 44 years. The interviews were fully transcribed and analysed using the constant comparative method of grounded theory. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANGE: Twelve out of 15 donors (former donors ITALIC! n = 8, active donors ITALIC! n = 7) who had received a counselling session during their intake procedure found it important that they had been able to talk about issues such as the emotional consequences of donation, disclosure to their own children, family and friends, future contact with donor-offspring and rules and regulations. Of the 10 former donors who had received no counselling session, 8 had regretted the lack of intensive counselling. In the years following their donation, most donors simply wanted to know how many offspring had been born using their sperm and had no need for further counselling. Nevertheless, they frequently mentioned that they were concerned about the well-being of 'their' offspring. In addition, they would value the availability of psychosocial counselling in the event that donor-offspring actually sought contact. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: A limitation of our study is its generalizability, since only a small number of identifiable donors at a single centre were studied. Variation in how donors are counselled upon intake may affect how donors value psychosocial counselling. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study reports on the issues that identifiable donors value being addressed during their intake procedure, as well as during counselling in the event that donor-offspring actually seek contact. These findings can be used to achieve a higher quality of care for identifiable sperm donors and may be the starting point for developing guidelines on psychosocial counselling for sperm donors. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No funding was obtained for this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Prediction model for live birth in ICSI using testicular extracted sperm.

STUDY QUESTION: Which parameters have a predictive value for live birth in couples undergoing ICSI after successful testicular sperm extraction (TESE-ICSI)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Female age, a first or subsequent started TESE-ICSI cycle, male LH, male testosterone, motility of the spermatozoa during the ICSI procedure and the initial male diagnosis before performing TESE were identified as relevant and independent parameters for live birth after TESE-ICSI. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In reproductive medicine prediction models are used frequently to predict treatment success, but no prediction model currently exists for live birth after TESE-ICSI. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A retrospective cohort study between 2007 and 2015 in two academic hospitals including 1559 TESE-ICSI cycles. The prediction model was developed using data from one centre and validation was performed with data from the second centre. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We included couples undergoing ICSI treatment with surgically retrieved sperm from the testis for the first time. In the development set we included 526 couples undergoing 1006 TESE-ICSI cycles. In the validation set we included 289 couples undergoing 553 TESE-ICSI cycles. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed in a stepwise fashion (P < 0.2 for entry). The external validation was based on discrimination and calibration. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We included 224 couples (22.3%) with a live birth in the development set. The occurrence of a live birth was associated with lower female age, first TESE-ICSI cycle, lower male LH, higher male testosterone, the use of motile spermatozoa for ICSI and having obstructive azoospermia as an initial suspected diagnosis. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.62. From validation data, the model had moderate discriminative capacity (c-statistic 0.67, 95% confidence interval: 0.62-0.72) but calibrated well, with a range from 0.06 to 0.56 in calculated probabilities. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We had a lack of data about the motility of spermatozoa during TESE, therefore, we used motility of the spermatozoa used for ICSI after freeze-thawing, information which is only available during treatment. We had to exclude data on paternal BMI in the model because too many missing values in the validation data hindered testing. We did not include a histologic diagnosis, which would have made our data set less heterogeneous and, finally, our model may not be applicable in centres which have a different policy for the indication for performing sperm extraction. The prognostic value of the model is limited because of a low 'area under the curve'. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This model enables the differentiation between couples with a low or high chance to reach a live birth using TESE-ICSI. As such it can aid in the counselling of patients and in clinical decision-making. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was partly supported by an unconditional grant from Merck Serono (to D.D.M.B. and K.F.) and by the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Den Bosch, The Netherlands, and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Merck Serono had no influence in concept, design, nor elaboration of this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Prediction model for obtaining spermatozoa with testicular sperm extraction in men with non-obstructive azoospermia.

STUDY QUESTION: Can an externally validated model, based on biological variables, be developed to predict successful sperm retrieval with testicular sperm extraction (TESE) in men with non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) using a large nationwide cohort? SUMMARY ANSWER: Our prediction model including six variables was able to make a good distinction between men with a good chance and men with a poor chance of obtaining spermatozoa with TESE. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Using ICSI in combination with TESE even men suffering from NOA are able to father their own biological child. Only in approximately half of the patients with NOA can testicular sperm be retrieved successfully. The few models that have been developed to predict the chance of obtaining spermatozoa with TESE were based on small datasets and none of them have been validated externally. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a retrospective nationwide cohort study. Data from 1371 TESE procedures were collected between June 2007 and June 2015 in the two fertility centres. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: All men with NOA undergoing their first TESE procedure as part of a fertility treatment were included. The primary end-point was the presence of one or more spermatozoa (regardless of their motility) in the testicular biopsies.We constructed a model for the prediction of successful sperm retrieval, using univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression analysis and the dataset from one centre. This model was then validated using the dataset from the other centre. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated and model calibration was assessed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There were 599 (43.7%) successful sperm retrievals after a first TESE procedure. The prediction model, built after multivariable logistic regression analysis, demonstrated that higher male age, higher levels of serum testosterone and lower levels of FSH and LH were predictive for successful sperm retrieval. Diagnosis of idiopathic NOA and the presence of an azoospermia factor c gene deletion were predictive for unsuccessful sperm retrieval. The AUC was 0.69 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.66-0.72). The difference between the mean observed chance and the mean predicted chance was <2.0% in all groups, indicating good calibration. In validation, the model had moderate discriminative capacity (AUC 0.65, 95% CI: 0.62-0.72) and moderate calibration: the predicted probability never differed by more than 9.2% of the mean observed probability. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The percentage of men with Klinefelter syndrome among men diagnosed with NOA is expected to be higher than in our study population, which is a potential selection bias. The ability of the sperm retrieved to fertilize an oocyte and produce a live birth was not tested. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This model can help in clinical decision-making in men with NOA by reliably predicting the chance of obtaining spermatozoa with TESE. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST: This study was partly supported by an unconditional grant from Merck Serono (to D.D.M.B. and K.F.) and by the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Den Bosch, The Netherlands, and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Merck Serono had no influence in concept, design nor elaboration of this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Patient preference for a long-acting recombinant FSH product in ovarian hyperstimulation in IVF: a discrete choice experiment.

STUDY QUESTION: What factors or attributes of a long-acting recombinant FSH (rFSH) or daily-administrated rFSH influence women's preferences IVF? SUMMARY ANSWER: Patients' preferences for rFSH products are primary influenced by the attribute 'number of injections', but a low 'number of injections' is exchanged for a high 'number of injections' at a 6.2% decrease in 'risk of cycle cancellation due to low response' and at a 4.5% decrease in 'chance of OHSS'. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Injections of long-acting rFSH have been claimed to be preferred over daily-administrated rFSH injections, but patient preference studies to underpin this assumption have not been performed. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was created to assess women's preference for long-acting or daily-administrated rFSH under varying attributes of efficiency, safety and burden. The selected attributes were the 'total number of injections', 'chance of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS)' and the 'risk of cycle cancellation due to low response'. Questionnaires were handed out during information gathering sessions in one academic hospital and two teaching hospitals in The Netherlands between April 2011 and April 2012. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women at the start of their first IVF treatment were asked to participate in this patient preference study. Participation was voluntary. We analysed the data by using mixed logit models to estimate the utility of each attribute. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Questionnaires (n = 125) were handed out with a response rate of 77% (97/125). Four respondents did not complete the questionnaire. Hence, there were 93 questionnaires available for analysis. All attributes significantly influenced women's preference. Overall, the lower 'number of injections' was preferred above the higher 'number of injections' (mean coefficient 1.25; P < 0.001), while an increase of 1% in 'chance of OHSS' or 5% 'risk of cycle cancellation due to low response' was non-preferred (mean coefficients -0.31 and -0.24, respectively, P < 0.01). The majority of respondents was willing to trade-off a lower 'number of injections' for a higher 'number of injections' when gaining a 6.2% reduction in 'cycle cancellation due to low response', or a 4.5% reduction in 'chance of OHSS'. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The generalizability of this DCE is limited in time-span. Women may choose differently when they have previous experience with long-acting rFSH, or when they have to pay for the medication, hospital visits and treatments themselves. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The results of this DCE helps us to understand the trade-off women make in their preference for a long-acting rFSH product or a daily-administrated rFSH product in IVF and may support doctors when counselling patients.

Intrauterine insemination or intracervical insemination with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle: a cohort study.

STUDY QUESTION: Does intrauterine insemination in the natural cycle lead to better pregnancy rates than intracervical insemination (ICI) in the natural cycle in women undergoing artificial insemination with cryopreserved donor sperm. SUMMARY ANSWER: In a large cohort of women undergoing artificial insemination with cryopreserved donor sperm, there was no substantial beneficial effect of IUI in the natural cycle over ICI in the natural cycle. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: At present, there are no studies comparing IUI in the natural cycle versus ICI in the natural cycle in women undergoing artificial insemination with cryopreserved donor sperm. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a retrospective cohort study among all eight sperm banks in the Netherlands. We included all women who underwent artificial insemination with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle between January 2009 and December 2010. We compared time to ongoing pregnancy in the first six cycles of IUI and ICI, after which controlled ovarian stimulation was commenced. Ongoing pregnancy rates (OPRs) over time were compared using life tables. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to compare the chances of reaching an ongoing pregnancy after IUI or ICI adjusted for female age and indication. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We included 1843 women; 1163 women underwent 4269 cycles of IUI and 680 women underwent 2345 cycles of ICI with cryopreserved donor sperm. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Baseline characteristics were equally distributed (mean age 34.0 years for the IUI group versus 33.8 years for the ICI group), while in the IUI group, there were more lesbian women than in the ICI group (40.6% for IUI compared with 31.8% for ICI). Cumulative OPRs up to six treatment cycles were 40.5% for IUI and 37.9% for ICI. This corresponds with a hazard rate ratio of 1.02 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84-1.23] after controlling for female age and indication. Increasing female age was associated with a lower OPR, in both the IUI and ICI groups with a hazard ratio for ongoing pregnancy of 0.94 per year (95% CI 0.93-0.97). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study is prone to selection bias due to its retrospective nature. As potential confounders such as parity and duration of subfertility were not registered, the effect of these potential confounders could not be evaluated. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: In women inseminated with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle, we found no substantial benefit of IUI over ICI. A randomized controlled trial with economic analysis alongside, it is needed to allow a more definitive conclusion on the cost-effectiveness of insemination with cryopreserved donor sperm. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No funding was used and no conflicts of interest are declared.

Perspectives of infertile men on future stem cell treatments for nonobstructive azoospermia.

Concerns have been expressed about the rapid introduction of new fertility treatments into clinical practice. Patients' perspectives on new treatments and their introduction into clinical practice are unexplored. Two alternative treatments for testicular sperm extraction followed by intracytoplasmic sperm injection in men with nonobstructive azoospermia (NOA), the formation of artificial sperm and autotransplantation of in vitro proliferated spermatogonial stem cells, are in a preclinical phase of development. This study aimed to explore, prior to future clinical introduction, which treatment aspects are valued by NOA patients and would be taken into account in deciding to undergo these future treatment options. In-depth telephone interviews were conducted with 14 men with NOA. Interviews were transcribed, analysed with content analysis and data saturation was reached. Besides the obvious factors, success rates and safety, patients valued 'the intensity of the procedure', 'the treatments' resemblance to natural conception' and 'feeling cured'. Patients supported the development of these treatments and were eager to take part if such treatments would become available in the future. The patient's perspective on innovative treatments can (co)direct reproductive research. More research into the patients' perspectives on innovations and minimal thresholds to be met prior to their introduction into clinical practice is required.