Home-based monitoring of ovulation to time frozen embryo transfers in the Netherlands (Antarctica-2): an open-label, nationwide, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The growing field of assisted reproductive techniques, including frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET), should lead the way to the best sustainable health care without compromising pregnancy chances. Correct timing of FET is crucial to allow implantation of the thawed embryo. Nowadays, timing based on hospital-controlled monitoring of ovulation in the natural cycle of a woman is the preferred strategy because of the assumption of favourable fertility prospects. However, home-based monitoring is a simple method to prevent patient travel and any associated environmental concerns. We compared ongoing pregnancy rates after home-based monitoring versus hospital-controlled monitoring with ovulation triggering. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial was undertaken in 23 hospitals and clinics in the Netherlands. Women aged between 18 and 44 years with a regular ovulatory menstrual cycle were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio via a web-based randomisation program to home-based monitoring or hospital-controlled monitoring. Those who analysed the data were masked to the groups; those collecting the data were not. All endpoints were analysed by intention to treat and per protocol. Non-inferiority was established when the lower limit of the 90% CI exceeded -4%. This study was registered at the Dutch Trial Register (Trial NL6414). FINDINGS: 1464 women were randomly assigned between April 10, 2018, and April 13, 2022, with 732 allocated to home-based monitoring and 732 to hospital-controlled monitoring. Ongoing pregnancy occurred in 152 (20·8%) of 732 in the home-based monitoring group and in 153 (20·9%) of 732 in the hospital-controlled monitoring group (risk ratio [RR] 0·99 [90% CI 0·81 to 1·22]; risk difference [RD] -0·14 [90% CI -3·63 to 3·36]). The per-protocol analysis confirmed non-inferiority (152 [21·0%] of 725 vs 153 [21·0%] of 727; RR 1·00 (90% CI 0·81 to 1·23); RD -0·08 [90% CI -3·60 to 3·44]). INTERPRETATION: Home-based monitoring of ovulation is non-inferior to hospital-controlled monitoring of ovulation to time FET. FUNDING: The Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development.

Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography versus hysterosalpingography during fertility work-up: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the costs and effects of tubal patency testing by hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) compared to hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile women during the fertility work-up? SUMMARY ANSWER: During the fertility work-up, clinical management based on the test results of HyFoSy leads to slightly lower, though not statistically significant, live birth rates, at lower costs, compared to management based on HSG results. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Traditionally, tubal patency testing during the fertility work-up is performed by HSG. The FOAM trial, formally a non-inferiority study, showed that management decisions based on the results of HyFoSy resulted in a comparable live birth rate at 12 months compared to HSG (46% versus 47%; difference -1.2%, 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%; P = 0.27). Compared to HSG, HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain, it lacks ionizing radiation and exposure to iodinated contrast medium. Moreover, HyFoSy can be performed by a gynaecologist during a one-stop fertility work-up. To our knowledge, the costs of both strategies have never been compared. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an economic evaluation alongside the FOAM trial, a randomized multicenter study conducted in the Netherlands. Participating infertile women underwent, both HyFoSy and HSG, in a randomized order. The results of both tests were compared and women with discordant test results were randomly allocated to management based on the results of one of the tests. The follow-up period was twelve months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied 1160 infertile women (18-41 years) scheduled for tubal patency testing. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth. The economic evaluation compared costs and effects of management based on either test within 12 months. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the difference in total costs and chance of live birth. Data were analyzed using the intention to treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 of the 1160 women underwent both tubal tests and had data available: 747 women with concordant results (48% live births), 136 with inconclusive results (40% live births), and 143 with discordant results (41% had a live birth after management based on HyFoSy results versus 49% with live birth after management based on HSG results). When comparing the two strategies-management based on HyfoSy results versus HSG results-the estimated chance of live birth was 46% after HyFoSy versus 47% after HSG (difference -1.2%; 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%). For the procedures itself, HyFoSy cost €136 and HSG €280. When costs of additional fertility treatments were incorporated, the mean total costs per couple were €3307 for the HyFoSy strategy and €3427 for the HSG strategy (mean difference €-119; 95% CI: €-125 to €-114). So, while HyFoSy led to lower costs per couple, live birth rates were also slightly lower. The ICER was €10 042, meaning that by using HyFoSy instead of HSG we would save €10 042 per each additional live birth lost. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: When interpreting the results of this study, it needs to be considered that there was a considerable uncertainty around the ICER, and that the direct fertility enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests was not incorporated as women underwent both tubal patency tests in this study. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS: Compared to clinical management based on HSG results, management guided by HyFoSy leads to slightly lower live birth rates (though not statistically significant) at lower costs, less pain, without ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast exposure. Further research on the comparison of the direct fertility-enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): FOAM trial was an investigator-initiated study, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm®-FOAM kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel-and speakers fees from Guerbet and her department received research grants from Guerbet outside the submitted work. H.R.V. received consulting-and travel fee from Ferring. A.M.v.P. reports received consulting fee from DEKRA and fee for an expert meeting from Ferring, both outside the submitted work. C.H.d.K. received travel fee from Merck. F.J.M.B. received a grant from Merck and speakers fee from Besins Healthcare. F.J.M.B. is a member of the advisory board of Merck and Ferring. J.v.D. reported speakers fee from Ferring. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda and consultancy for Sanofi on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford Press in the role of deputy editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a DSMB as independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. B.W.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC GNT1176437. B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Guerbet, iGenomix, and Merck KGaA and travel support from Merck KGaA. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck, and Ferring and travel and speakers fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746.

The risk of hypogonadism after testicular sperm extraction in men with various types of azoospermia: a prospective cohort study.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the risk of hypogonadism in men with obstructive azoospermia, non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) or Klinefelter syndrome after testicular sperm extraction (TESE)? DESIGN: This prospective longitudinal cohort study was carried out between 2007 and 2015. RESULTS: Around 36% of men with Klinefelter syndrome, 4% of men with obstructive azoospermia and 3% of men with NOA needed testosterone replacement therapy (TRT). Klinefelter syndrome was strongly associated with TRT while no association was found between obstructive azoospermia or NOA and TRT. Irrespective of the pre-operative diagnosis, a higher testosterone concentration before TESE was associated with a lower chance of needing TRT. CONCLUSIONS: Men with obstructive azoospermia or NOA have a similar moderate risk of clinical hypogonadism after TESE, while this risk is much larger for men with Klinefelter syndrome. The risk of clinical hypogonadism is lower when testosterone concentrations are high before TESE.

Childhood outcomes after induction of labor or expectant management for preterm prelabor rupture of membranes: a 10-year follow-up of the PPROMEXIL trials.

BACKGROUND: Management of late preterm prelabor rupture of membranes between 34+0 and 36+6 weeks' gestation balances the risks of preterm birth with the risks of infection for both the mother and the neonate. Expectant management to prolong pregnancy showed similar risks of neonatal sepsis, but children at 2 years of age showed more neurodevelopmental delay when compared with induction of labor. Long-term outcomes on child development after 2 years of age are unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the long-term outcomes of children born after singleton pregnancies complicated by late preterm prelabor rupture of membranes managed by induction of labor in comparison with expectant management. STUDY DESIGN: This was a follow-up study of the Preterm Prelabor Rupture of Membranes Expectant Management Versus Induction of Labor (PPROMEXIL) trials (randomized controlled trials between 2007 to 2011) evaluating children at 10 to 12 years of age (Netherlands Trial Register 6953). The primary outcomes were cognition, motor function, and behavior as assessed by the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-V-NL, Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2, and Child Behavior Checklist, respectively. The secondary outcomes were sensory processing, respiratory problems, educational attainment, and general health. Mild delay was defined as -1 standard deviation or corresponding percentile. The relative risk and confidence intervals were calculated using standard methods. RESULTS: This follow-up study invited 711 surviving children of the 714 singleton pregnancies randomized in the original trials. In total, 248 (35%) children participated (127 induction of labor, 121 expectant management). Children born after induction of labor had no significant differences in the primary outcomes when compared with those born after expectant management. Mild cognitive delay was observed in 7 of 122 (5.7%) children born after induction of labor in comparison with in 12 of 120 (10.0%) children born after expectant management (relative risk, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.41). A mild delay in motor function was observed in 42 of 122 (34.4%) children born after induction of labor vs in 55 of 120 (45.8%) children born after expectant management (relative risk, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-1.03). Mild abnormal behavior was observed in 37 of 125 (29.6%) children born after induction of labor compared with in 33 of 118 (28.0%) children born after expectant management (relative risk, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.57). Secondary outcomes were also comparable between the induction of labor and the expectant management groups except that more children born after expectant management had a hospital admission (relative risk, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.89) or a surgery (relative risk, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.82). CONCLUSION: In children born after pregnancies with late preterm prelabor rupture of membranes, expectant management did not improve long-term outcomes at 10 to 12 years when compared with induction of labor.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues for endometriosis.

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition affecting 6 to 11% of reproductive-age women and may cause dyspareunia, dysmenorrhoea, and infertility. One treatment strategy is medical therapy with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) to reduce pain due to endometriosis. One of the adverse effects of GnRHas is a decreased bone mineral density. In addition to assessing the effect on pain, quality of life, most troublesome symptom and patients' satisfaction, the current review also evaluated the effect on bone mineral density and risk of adverse effects in women with endometriosis who use GnRHas versus other treatment options. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of GnRH analogues (GnRHas) in the treatment of painful symptoms associated with endometriosis and to determine the effects of GnRHas on bone mineral density of women with endometriosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the trial registries in May 2022 together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared GnRHas with other hormonal treatment options, including analgesics, danazol, intra-uterine progestogens, oral or injectable progestogens, gestrinone and also GnRHas compared with no treatment or placebo. Trials comparing GnRHas versus GnRHas in conjunction with add-back therapy (hormonal or non-hormonal) or calcium-regulation agents were also included in this review.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodology as recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes are relief of overall pain and the objective measurement of bone mineral density. Secondary outcomes include adverse effects, quality of life, improvement in the most troublesome symptoms and patient satisfaction.  Due to high risk of bias associated with some of the studies, primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at low risk of selection bias. Sensitivity analysis including all studies was then performed. MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-two studies involving 7355 patients were included. The evidence was very low to low quality: the main limitations of all studies were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision.  Trials comparing GnRHas versus no treatment  We did not identify any studies. Trials comparing GnRHas versus placebo There may be a decrease in overall pain, reported as pelvic pain scores (RR 2.14; 95% CI 1.41 to 3.24, 1 RCT, n = 87, low-certainty evidence), dysmenorrhoea scores (RR 2.25; 95% CI 1.59 to 3.16, 1 RCT, n = 85, low-certainty evidence), dyspareunia scores (RR 2.21; 95% CI 1.39 to 3.54, 1 RCT, n = 59, low-certainty evidence), and pelvic tenderness scores (RR 2.28; 95% CI 1.48 to 3.50, 1 RCT, n = 85, low-certainty evidence) after three months of treatment. We are uncertain of the effect for pelvic induration, based on the results found after three months of treatment (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.79, 1 RCT, n = 81, low-certainty evidence). Besides, treatment with GnRHas may be associated with a greater incidence of hot flushes at three months of treatment (RR 3.08; 95% CI 1.89 to 5.01, 1 RCT, n = 100, low-certainty evidence). Trials comparing GnRHas versus danazol For overall pain, for women treated with either GnRHas or danazol, a subdivision was made between pelvic tenderness, partly resolved and completely resolved. We are uncertain about the effect on relief of overall pain, when a subdivision was made for overall pain (MD -0.30; 95% CI -1.66 to 1.06, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), pelvic pain (MD 0.20; 95% CI -0.26 to 0.66, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), dysmenorrhoea (MD 0.10; 95% CI -0.49 to 0.69, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), dyspareunia (MD -0.20; 95% CI -0.77 to 0.37, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), pelvic induration (MD -0.10; 95% CI -0.59 to 0.39, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), and pelvic tenderness (MD -0.20; 95% CI -0.78 to 0.38, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) after three months of treatment. For pelvic pain (MD 0.50; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.90, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) and pelvic induration (MD 0.70; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence), the complaints may decrease slightly after treatment with GnRHas, compared to danazol, for six months of treatment. Trials comparing GnRHas versus analgesics  We did not identify any studies. Trials comparing GnRHas versus intra-uterine progestogens We did not identify any low risk of bias studies. Trials comparing GnRHas versus GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents There may be a slight decrease in bone mineral density (BMD) after 12 months treatment with GnRHas, compared to GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents for anterior-posterior spine (MD -7.00; 95% CI -7.53 to -6.47, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence) and lateral spine (MD -12.40; 95% CI -13.31 to -11.49, 1 RCT, n = 41, very low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For relief of overall pain, there may be a slight decrease in favour of treatment with GnRHas compared to placebo or oral or injectable progestogens. We are uncertain about the effect when comparing GnRHas with danazol, intra-uterine progestogens or gestrinone. For BMD, there may be a slight decrease when women are treated with GnRHas, compared to gestrinone. There was a bigger decrease of BMD in favour of GnRHas, compared to GnRHas in conjunction with calcium-regulating agents. However, there may be a slight increase in adverse effects when women are treated with GnRHas, compared to placebo or gestrinone. Due to a very low to low certainty of the evidence, a wide range of outcome measures and a wide range of outcome measurement instruments, the results should be interpreted with caution.

Methotrexate vs expectant management for treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Ectopic pregnancy is an important health condition which affects up to 1 in 100 women. Women who present with mild symptoms and low serum human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) are often treated with methotrexate (MTX), but expectant management with close monitoring is a feasible alternative. Studies comparing the two treatments have not shown a statistically significant difference in uneventful resolution of ectopic pregnancy, but these studies were too small to define whether certain subgroups could benefit more from either treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) of randomized controlled trials comparing systemic MTX and expectant management in women with tubal ectopic pregnancy and low hCG (<2000 IU/L). A one-stage IPD-MA was performed to assess overall treatment effects of MTX and expectant management to generate a pooled intervention effect. Subgroup analyses and exploratory multivariable analyses were undertaken according to baseline serum hCG and progesterone levels. Primary outcome was treatment success, defined as resolution of clinical symptoms and decline in level of serum hCG to <20 IU/L, or a negative urine pregnancy test by the initial intervention strategy, without any additional treatment. Secondary outcomes were need for blood transfusion, surgical intervention, additional MTX side-effects and hCG resolution times. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO: CRD42021214093. RESULTS: 1547 studies reviewed and 821 remained after duplicates removed. Five studies screened for eligibility and three IPD requested. Two randomized controlled trials supplied IPD, leading to 153 participants for analysis. Treatment success rate was 65/82 (79.3%) after MTX and 48/70 (68.6%) after expectant management (IPD risk ratio [RR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-1.40). Surgical intervention rates were not significantly different: 8/82 (9.8%) vs 13/70 (18.6%) (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.23-1.14). Mean time to success was 19.7 days (95% CI 17.4-22.3) after MTX and 21.2 days (95% CI 17.8-25.2) after expectant management (P = 0.25). MTX specific side-effects were reported in 33 MTX compared to four in the expectant group. CONCLUSIONS: Our IPD-MA showed no statistically significant difference in treatment efficacy between MTX and expectant management in women with tubal ectopic pregnancy with low hCG. Initial expectant management could be the preferred strategy due to fewer side-effects.

Concerns about Data Integrity of 22 Randomized Controlled Trials in Women's Health.

OBJECTIVE: During a review on postpartum hemorrhage, we identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of one author conducted at the same time and place for the same condition, with large differences in baseline characteristics. We assessed the data integrity of the RCTs of this author. STUDY DESIGN: We undertook a focused analysis of the data integrity of all RCTs published by Dr. Ahmed M. Maged. We examined the studies for clinical logic and made pairwise comparisons of baseline characteristics and outcomes between trials. We used mathematical methods to assess whether the distribution of baseline characteristics was compatible with chance. RESULTS: Between March 2015 and December 2019, Dr. Maged published 22 RCTs (n = 3,722). The median number of participants randomized per center per month was 32 (range = 1-89). Fifteen studies were either not or retrospectively registered, with one study registered 1 year after publication. One study was submitted for publication prior to the completion of the described study period. There were many unusual findings in the studies, including biologically implausible occurrences such as the absence of an association between gestational age and birthweight in seven studies and very different body mass index between three trials, which ran at the same time in the same hospital on the same topic as well as unlikely occurrences such as limited participant drop outs. One paper contained considerable text duplication and identical data to that in a paper published by a different author group from a different hospital, with both papers submitted at the same time. Mathematical analysis of the baseline characteristics of all 22 trials indicated that at least some of the reported baseline characteristics were unlikely to be the result of proper randomization. CONCLUSION: Our analyses of the 22 RCTs of Dr. Maged suggest potential data integrity issues in at least some of them. We suggest that journals investigate according to the Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines. The procedures demonstrated in this paper may help to assess data integrity in future attempts to verify the authenticity of published RCTs. KEY POINTS: · We identified a number of findings biologically implausible in RCTs by Maged.. · Monte Carlo simulation found pooled data of Maged RCTs were unlikely result of proper randomization.. · Textual overlap and almost identical data were found between a Maged paper and another paper.. · The methods we described may be useful for future efforts in validating scientific data integrity..

Fertility preservation for women with breast cancer: a multicentre randomized controlled trial on various ovarian stimulation protocols.

STUDY QUESTION: Does ovarian stimulation with the addition of tamoxifen or letrozole affect the number of cumulus-oocyte complexes (COCs) retrieved compared to standard ovarian stimulation in women with breast cancer who undergo fertility preservation? SUMMARY ANSWER: Alternative ovarian stimulation protocols with tamoxifen or letrozole did not affect the number of COCs retrieved at follicle aspiration in women with breast cancer. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Alternative ovarian stimulation protocols have been introduced for women with breast cancer who opt for fertility preservation by means of banking of oocytes or embryos. How these ovarian stimulation protocols compare to standard ovarian stimulation in terms of COC yield is unknown. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This multicentre, open-label randomized controlled superiority trial was carried out in 10 hospitals in the Netherlands and 1 hospital in Belgium between January 2014 and December 2018. We randomly assigned women with breast cancer, aged 18-43 years, who opted for banking of oocytes or embryos to one of three study arms; ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen, ovarian stimulation plus letrozole or standard ovarian stimulation. Standard ovarian stimulation included GnRH antagonist, recombinant FSH and GnRH agonist trigger. Randomization was performed with a web-based system in a 1:1:1 ratio, stratified for oral contraception usage at start of ovarian stimulation, positive estrogen receptor (ER) status and positive lymph nodes. Patients and caregivers were not blinded to the assigned treatment. The primary outcome was number of COCs retrieved at follicle aspiration. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: During the study period, 162 women were randomly assigned to one of three interventions. Fifty-four underwent ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen, 53 ovarian stimulation plus letrozole and 55 standard ovarian stimulation. Analysis was according to intention-to-treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: No differences among groups were observed in the mean (±SD) number of COCs retrieved: 12.5 (10.4) after ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen, 14.2 (9.4) after ovarian stimulation plus letrozole and 13.6 (11.6) after standard ovarian stimulation (mean difference -1.13, 95% CI -5.70 to 3.43 for tamoxifen versus standard ovarian stimulation and 0.58, 95% CI -4.03 to 5.20 for letrozole versus standard ovarian stimulation). After adjusting for oral contraception usage at the start of ovarian stimulation, positive ER status and positive lymph nodes, the mean difference was -1.11 (95% CI -5.58 to 3.35) after ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen versus standard ovarian stimulation and 0.30 (95% CI -4.19 to 4.78) after ovarian stimulation plus letrozole versus standard ovarian stimulation. There were also no differences in the number of oocytes or embryos banked. There was one serious adverse event after standard ovarian stimulation: one woman was admitted to the hospital because of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The available literature on which we based our hypothesis, power analysis and sample size calculation was scarce and studies were of low quality. Our study did not have sufficient power to perform subgroup analysis on follicular, luteal or random start of ovarian stimulation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our study showed that adding tamoxifen or letrozole to a standard ovarian stimulation protocol in women with breast cancer does not impact the effectiveness of fertility preservation and paves the way for high-quality long-term follow-up on breast cancer treatment outcomes and women's future pregnancy outcomes. Our study also highlights the need for high-quality studies for all women opting for fertility preservation, as alternative ovarian stimulation protocols have been introduced to clinical practice without proper evidence. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was supported by a grant (2011.WO23.C129) of 'Stichting Pink Ribbon', a breast cancer fundraising charity organization in the Netherlands. M.G., C.B.L. and R.S. declared that the Center for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC (location VUMC) has received unconditional research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring, not related to the presented work. C.B.L. declared a speakers fee for Inmed and Yingming. S.C.L. reports grants and non-financial support from Agendia, grants, non-financial support and other from AstraZeneca, grants from Eurocept-pharmaceuticals, grants and non-financial support from Genentech/Roche and Novartis, grants from Pfizer, grants and non-financial support from Tesaro and Immunomedics, other from Cergentis, IBM, Bayer, and Daiichi-Sankyo, outside the submitted work; In addition, S.C.L. has a patent UN23A01/P-EP pending that is unrelated to the present work. J.M.J.S. reported payments and travel grants from Merck and Ferring. C.C.M.B. reports her role as unpaid president of the National guideline committee on Fertility Preservation in women with cancer. K.F. received unrestricted grants from Merck Serono, Good Life and Ferring not related to present work. K.F. declared paid lectures for Ferring. D.S. declared former employment from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD). K.F. declared paid lectures for Ferring. D.S. reports grants from MSD, Gedeon Richter and Ferring paid to his institution; consulting fee payments from MSD and Merck Serono paid to his institution; speaker honoraria from MSD, Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck Serono paid to his institution. D.S. has also received travel and meeting support from MSD, Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck Serono. No payments are related to present work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4108. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 6 August 2013. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 30 January 2014.

Can hysterosalpingo-foam sonography replace hysterosalpingography as first-choice tubal patency test? A randomized non-inferiority trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) lead to similar pregnancy outcomes, compared with hysterosalpingography (HSG), as first-choice tubal patency test in infertile couples? SUMMARY ANSWER: HyFoSy and HSG produce similar findings in a majority of patients and clinical management based on the results of either HyFoSy or HSG, leads to comparable pregnancy outcomes. HyFoSy is experienced as significantly less painful. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Traditionally, tubal patency testing during fertility work-up is performed by HSG. HyFoSy is an alternative imaging technique lacking ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast medium exposure which is less expensive than HSG. Globally, there is a shift towards the use of office-based diagnostic methods, such as HyFoSy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This multicentre, prospective, comparative study with a randomized design was conducted in 26 hospitals in The Netherlands. Participating women underwent both HyFoSy and HSG in randomized order. In case of discordant results, women were randomly allocated to either a management strategy based on HyFoSy or one based on HSG. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We included infertile women between 18 and 41 years old who were scheduled for tubal patency testing during their fertility work-up. Women with anovulatory cycles not responding to ovulation induction, endometriosis, severe male infertility or a known iodine contrast allergy were excluded. The primary outcome for the comparison of the HyFoSy- and HSG-based strategies was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth within 12 months after inclusion in an intention-to-treat analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 women underwent HyFoSy and HSG. HyFoSy was inconclusive in 97 of them (9.5%), HSG was inconclusive in 30 (2.9%) and both were inconclusive in 9 (0.9%). In 747 women (73%) conclusive tests results were concordant. Of the 143/1026 (14%) with discordant results, 105 were randomized to clinical management based on the results of either HyFoSy or HSG. In this group, 22 of the 54 women (41%) allocated to management based on HyFoSy and 25 of 51 women (49%) allocated to management based on HSG had an ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth (Difference -8%; 95% CI: -27% to 10%). In total, clinical management based on the results of HyFoSy was estimated to lead to a live birth in 474 of 1026 women (46%) versus 486 of 1026 (47%) for management based on HSG (Difference -1.2%; 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%). Given the pre-defined margin of -2%, statistically significant non-inferiority of HyFoSy relative to HSG could not be demonstrated (P = 0.27). The mean pain score for HyFoSy on the 1-10 Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was 3.1 (SD 2.2) and the mean VAS pain score for HSG was 5.4 (SD 2.5; P for difference < 0.001). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Since all women underwent both tubal patency tests, no conclusions on a direct therapeutic effect of tubal flushing could be drawn. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: HyFoSy or HSG produce similar tubal pathology findings in a majority of infertile couples and, where they differ, a difference in findings does not lead to substantial difference in pregnancy outcome, while HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The FOAM study was an investigator-initiated study funded by ZonMw, The Netherlands organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). ZonMw funded the whole project. IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm-foam® kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel and speaker fees from Guerbet. F.J.M.B. reports personal fees as a member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, The Netherlands, and a research support grant from Merck Serono, outside the submitted work. C.B.L. reports speakers' fee from Ferring in the past, and his department receives research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.V.W. reports leading The Netherlands Satellite of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for Guerbet and research funding from Merck and Guerbet. V.M. reports non-financial support from IQ medicals ventures, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4746/NL4587 (https://www.trialregister.nl). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 19 August 2014. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 7 May 2015.

In-vitro maturation versus IVF: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

RESEARCH QUESTION: How do costs and effects of in-vitro maturation (IVM) compare to IVF in women with a high antral follicle count (AFC)? DESIGN: This cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was based on data of a previous retrospective cohort study at IVFMD, My Duc Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Between July 2015 and December 2017, 608 women underwent IVM and 311 women IVF. The effectiveness measure for the CEA was cumulative live birth rate (LBR) after one completed cycle including subsequent cryo-cycles within 12 months of inclusion. Data were collected on resource use related to treatment, medication and pregnancy from the case report forms. The mean costs and effects, average cost differences and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated using non-parametric bootstrap resampling to assess the effect of uncertainty in the estimates. RESULTS: Cumulative LBR after one completed cycle were 239/608 (39.3%) in the IVM group versus 155/311 (49.8%) in the IVF group (adjusted odds ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30-0.89). Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) did not occur in the IVM group versus 11/311 (3.5%) in the IVF group. The mean costs per couple were €4300 (95% CI €1371-18,798) for IVM and €6493 (95% CI €2204-20,136) for IVF. The ICER per additional live birth with IVF was €20,144 (95% CI €9116-50,418). Results were robust over a wide range of assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: IVM is less expensive than IVF in women with a high AFC undergoing treatment with assisted reproductive technology, while leading to a slightly lower effectiveness in terms of cumulative LBR.

Increased obstetric and neonatal risks in artificial cycles for frozen embryo transfers?

RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the obstetric and neonatal risks for women conceiving via frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) during a modified natural cycle compared with an artificial cycle method. DESIGN: A follow-up study to the ANTARCTICA randomized controlled trial (RCT) (NTR 1586) conducted in the Netherlands, which showed that modified natural cycle FET (NC-FET) was non-inferior to artificial cycle FET (AC-FET) in terms of live birth rates. The current study collected data on obstetric and neonatal outcomes of 98 women who had a singleton live birth. The main outcome was birthweight; additional outcomes included hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, premature birth, gestational diabetes, obstetric haemorrhage and neonatal outcomes including Apgar scores and admission to the neonatal ward or the neonatal intensive care unit and congenital anomalies. RESULTS: Data from 82 out of 98 women were analysed according to the per protocol principle. There was no significant difference in the birthweights of children born between groups (mean difference -124 g [-363 g to 114 g]; P = 0.30). Women who conceived by modified NC-FET have a decreased risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy compared with AC-FET (relative risk 0.27; 95% CI 0.08-0.94; P = 0.031). Other outcomes, such as rates of premature birth, gestational diabetes or obstetric haemorrhage and neonatal outcomes, were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The interpretation is that modified NC-FET is the preferred treatment in women with ovulatory cycles undergoing FET when the increased risk of obstetrical complications and potential neonatal complications in AC-FET are considered.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on infertility patients and endometriosis patients in the Netherlands.

RESEARCH QUESTION: How do infertility patients, endometriosis patients and health-care providers rate virtual care as an alternative to physical consultations during the first lockdown of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the Netherlands, and how does this influence quality of life and quality of care? DESIGN: Infertility patients and endometriosis patients from a university hospital and members of national patient organizations, as well as healthcare providers in infertility and endometriosis care, were asked to participate between May and October 2020. The distributed online questionnaires consisted of an appraisal of virtual care and an assessment of fertility-related quality of life (FertiQol) and patient-centredness of endometriosis care (ENDOCARE). RESULTS: Questionnaires were returned by 330 infertility patients, 181 endometriosis patients and 101 healthcare providers. Of these, 75.9% of infertility patients, 64.8% of endometriosis patients and 80% of healthcare providers rated telephone consultations as a good alternative to physical consultations during the COVID-19-pandemic. Only 21.3%, 14.8% and 19.2% of the three groups rated telephone consultations as a good replacement for physical consultations in the future. A total of 76.6% and 35.9% of the infertility and endometriosis patients reported increased levels of stress during the pandemic. Infertility patients scored lower on the FertiQol, while the ENDOCARE results care seem comparable to the reference population. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual care seems to be a good alternative for infertility and endometriosis patients in circumstances where physical consultations are not possible. Self-reported stress is especially high in infertility patients during the COVID-19-pandemic. Healthcare providers should aim to improve their patients' ability to cope.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies for obese women with subfertility.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians primarily recommend weight loss for obese women seeking pregnancy. The effectiveness of interventions aimed at weight loss in obese women with subfertility is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies compared with each other, placebo, or no treatment for achieving weight loss in obese women with subfertility. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CGF Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and AMED from inception to 18 August 2020. We also checked reference lists and contacted experts in the field for additional relevant papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published and unpublished randomised controlled trials in which weight loss was the main goal of the intervention. Our primary effectiveness outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy and primary safety outcomes were miscarriage and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy, weight change, quality of life, and mental health outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors followed standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 10 trials. Evidence was of very low to low quality: the main limitations were due to lack of studies and poor reporting of study methods. The main reasons for downgrading evidence were lack of details by which to judge risk of bias (randomisation and allocation concealment), lack of blinding, and imprecision. Non-pharmacological intervention versus no intervention or placebo Evidence is insufficient to determine whether a diet or lifestyle intervention compared to no intervention affects live birth (odds ratio (OR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.11; 918 women, 3 studies; I² = 78%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following no intervention is assumed to be 43%, the chance following diet or lifestyle changes would be 33% to 46%. We are uncertain if lifestyle change compared with no intervention affects miscarriage rate (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.39; 917 women, 3 studies; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Evidence is insufficient to determine whether lifestyle change compared with no intervention affects clinical pregnancy (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.40; 917 women, 3 studies; I² = 73%; low-quality evidence). Lifestyle intervention resulted in a decrease in body mass index (BMI), but data were not pooled due to heterogeneity in effect (mean difference (MD) -3.70, 95% CI -4.10 to -3.30; 305 women, 1 study; low-quality evidence; and MD -1.80, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.93; 43 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). Non-pharmacological versus non-pharmacological intervention We are uncertain whether intensive weight loss interventions compared to standard care nutrition counselling affects live birth (OR 11.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 284; 11 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy (OR 11.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 284; 11 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), BMI (MD -3.00, 95% CI -5.37 to -0.63; 11 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), weight change (MD -9.00, 95% CI -15.50 to -2.50; 11 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), quality of life (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.15; 11 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), or mental health (MD -7.00, 95% CI -13.92 to -0.08; 11 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). No study reported on adverse events . Pharmacological versus pharmacological intervention For metformin plus liraglutide compared to metformin we are uncertain of an effect on the adverse events nausea (OR 7.22, 95% CI 0.72 to 72.7; 28 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), diarrhoea (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.3; 28 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), and headache (OR 5.80, 95% CI 0.25 to 133; 28 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if a combination of metformin plus liraglutide vs metformin affects BMI (MD 2.1, 95% CI -0.42 to 2.62; 28 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence) and total body fat (MD -0.50, 95% CI -4.65 to 3.65; 28 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). For metformin, clomiphene, and L-carnitine versus metformin, clomiphene, and placebo, we are uncertain of an effect on miscarriage (OR 3.58, 95% CI 0.73 to 17.55; 274 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy (OR 5.56, 95% CI 2.57 to 12.02; 274 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence) or BMI (MD -0.3, 95% CI 1.17 to 0.57, 274 women, 1 study, very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if dexfenfluramine versus placebo affects weight loss in kilograms (MD -0.10, 95% CI -2.77 to 2.57; 21 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). No study reported on live birth, quality of life, or mental health outcomes. Pharmacological intervention versus no intervention or placebo We are uncertain if metformin compared with placebo affects live birth (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.44 to 5.57; 65 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following placebo is assumed to be 15%, the chance following metformin would be 7% to 50%. We are uncertain if metformin compared with placebo affects gastrointestinal adverse events (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.57; 65 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence) or miscarriage (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.80; 65 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy (OR 2.67, 95% CI 0.90 to 7.93; 96 women, 2 studies; I² = 48%; very low-quality evidence). We are also uncertain if diet combined with metformin versus diet and placebo affects BMI (MD -0.30, 95% CI -2.16 to 1.56; 143 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence) or waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) (MD 2.00, 95% CI -2.21 to 6.21; 143 women, 1 study; very low-quality evidence). Pharmacological versus non-pharmacological intervention No study undertook this comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is insufficient to support the use of pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies for obese women with subfertility. No data are available for the comparison of pharmacological versus non-pharmacological strategies. We are uncertain whether pharmacological or non-pharmacological strategies effect live birth, ongoing pregnancy, adverse events, clinical pregnancy, quality of life, or mental heath outcomes. However, for obese women with subfertility, a lifestyle intervention may reduce BMI. Future studies should compare a combination of pharmacological and lifestyle interventions for obese women with subfertility.

Fresh versus frozen embryo transfers in assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: In vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatments conventionally consist of a fresh embryo transfer, possibly followed by one or more cryopreserved embryo transfers in subsequent cycles. An alternative option is to freeze all suitable embryos and transfer cryopreserved embryos in subsequent cycles only, which is known as the 'freeze all' strategy. This is the first update of the Cochrane Review on this comparison. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the freeze all strategy compared to the conventional IVF/ICSI strategy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and two registers of ongoing trials from inception until 23 September 2020 for relevant studies, checked references of publications found, and contacted study authors to obtain additional data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors (TZ and MZ) independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted study data. We included randomised controlled trials comparing a 'freeze all' strategy with a conventional IVF/ICSI strategy including a fresh embryo transfer in women undergoing IVF or ICSI treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcomes were cumulative live birth rate and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Secondary outcomes included effectiveness outcomes (including ongoing pregnancy rate and clinical pregnancy rate), time to pregnancy and obstetric, perinatal and neonatal outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 studies in the systematic review and eight studies with a total of 4712 women in the meta-analysis. The overall evidence was of moderate to low quality. We graded all the outcomes and downgraded due to serious risk of bias, serious imprecision and serious unexplained heterogeneity. Risk of bias was associated with unclear blinding of investigators for preliminary outcomes of the study during the interim analysis, unit of analysis error, and absence of adequate study termination rules. There was an absence of high-quality evidence according to GRADE assessments for our primary outcomes, which is reflected in the cautious language below. There is probably little or no difference in cumulative live birth rate between the 'freeze all' strategy and the conventional IVF/ICSI strategy (odds ratio (OR) 1.08, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.22; I2 = 0%; 8 RCTs, 4712 women; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a cumulative live birth rate of 58% following the conventional strategy, the cumulative live birth rate following the 'freeze all' strategy would be between 57% and 63%. Women might develop less OHSS after the 'freeze all' strategy compared to the conventional IVF/ICSI strategy (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.39; I2 = 0%; 6 RCTs, 4478 women; low-quality evidence). These data suggest that for an OHSS rate of 3% following the conventional strategy, the rate following the 'freeze all' strategy would be 1%. There is probably little or no difference between the two strategies in the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.19; I2 = 31%; 4 RCTs, 1245 women; moderate-quality evidence).  We could not analyse time to pregnancy; by design, time to pregnancy is shorter in the conventional strategy than in the 'freeze all' strategy when the cumulative live birth rate is comparable, as embryo transfer is delayed in a 'freeze all' strategy. We are uncertain whether the two strategies differ in cumulative miscarriage rate because the evidence is very low quality (Peto OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.55; I2 = 55%; 2 RCTs, 986 women; very low-quality evidence) and cumulative multiple-pregnancy rate (Peto OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.25; I2 = 63%; 2 RCTs, 986 women; very low-quality evidence). The risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (Peto OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.42 to 3.25; I2 = 29%; 3 RCTs, 3940 women; low-quality evidence), having a large-for-gestational-age baby (Peto OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.55; I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 3940 women; low-quality evidence) and a higher birth weight of the children born (mean difference (MD) 127 g, 95% CI 77.1 to 177.8; I2 = 0%; 5 RCTs, 1607 singletons; moderate-quality evidence) may be increased following the 'freeze all' strategy. We are uncertain whether the two strategies differ in the risk of having a small-for-gestational-age baby because the evidence is low quality (Peto OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.05; I2 = 64%; 3 RCTs, 3940 women; low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate-quality evidence showing that one strategy is probably not superior to the other in terms of cumulative live birth rate and ongoing pregnancy rate. The risk of OHSS may be decreased in the 'freeze all' strategy. Based on the results of the included studies, we could not analyse time to pregnancy. It is likely to be shorter using a conventional IVF/ICSI strategy with fresh embryo transfer in the case of similar cumulative live birth rate, as embryo transfer is delayed in a 'freeze all' strategy. The risk of maternal hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, of having a large-for-gestational-age baby and a higher birth weight of the children born may be increased following the 'freeze all' strategy. We are uncertain if 'freeze all' strategy reduces the risk of miscarriage, multiple pregnancy rate or having a small-for-gestational-age baby compared to conventional IVF/ICSI.

Network meta-analyses in reproductive medicine: challenges and opportunities.

Network meta-analysis allows researchers to synthesise both direct and indirect evidence, thus enabling simultaneous comparisons of multiple treatments. A relatively recent addition to evidence synthesis in reproductive medicine, this approach has become increasingly popular. Yet, the underlying assumptions of network meta-analyses, which drive the validity of their findings, have been frequently ignored. In this article, we discuss the strengths and limitations of network meta-analyses. In addition, we present an overview of published network meta-analyses in reproductive medicine, summarize their challenges and provide insights into future research opportunities.

Cytogenetic testing of pregnancy loss tissue: a meta-analysis.

Many clinics offer routine genetic testing of pregnancy loss tissue. This review presents a comprehensive literature search and meta-analysis on chromosomal abnormality rates of pregnancy loss tissue from women with a single or recurrent pregnancy loss. A total of 55 studies published since 2000 were included, analysed on the prevalence of test failure rates, abnormality detection rates and percentages of trisomy, monosomy X, structural abnormalities and other clinically (ir)relevant abnormalities detected by conventional karyotyping, array-comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH), single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array, fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA). The detected prevalence of chromosomal abnormalities was 48% (95% confidence interval [CI] 39-57) using aCGH, 38% (95% CI 28-49) with FISH, 25% (95% CI 12-42) using MLPA, 60% (95% CI 58-63) using SNP array and 47% (95% CI 43-51) with conventional karyotyping. The percentage of detected abnormalities did not differ between women that suffered sporadic (46%; 95% CI 39-53) or recurrent (46%; 95% CI 39-52) pregnancy loss. In view of the high prevalence of chromosomal abnormalities in pregnancy loss tissue, and the low chance of recurrence of the same chromosomal aberration, it was concluded that detection of specific chromosomal abnormalities in pregnancy loss tissue has no clinical benefit. Therefore, routine testing of pregnancy loss tissue for chromosomal abnormalities is not recommended.

Gonadotrophins or clomiphene citrate in couples with unexplained infertility undergoing intrauterine insemination: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the cost-effectiveness of gonadotrophins compared with clomiphene citrate in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian stimulation under strict cancellation criteria? DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Between July 2013 and March 2016, 738 couples were randomized to gonadotrophins (369) or clomiphene citrate (369) in a multicentre RCT in the Netherlands. The direct medical costs of both strategies were compared. Direct medical costs included costs of medication, cycle monitoring, insemination and, if applicable, pregnancy monitoring. Non-parametric bootstrap resampling was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in estimates. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed according to intention-to-treat. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between gonadotrophins and clomiphene citrate for ongoing pregnancy and live birth was assessed. RESULTS: The mean costs per couple were €1534 for gonadotrophins and €1067 for clomiphene citrate (mean difference of €468; 95% confidence interval [CI] €464-472). As ongoing pregnancy rates were 31% in women allocated to gonadotrophins and 26% in women allocated to clomiphene citrate (relative risk 1.16, 95% CI 0.93-1.47), the ICER was €21,804 (95% CI €11,628-31,980) per additional ongoing pregnancy with gonadotrophins and €17,044 (95% CI €8998-25,090) per additional live birth with gonadotrophins. CONCLUSIONS: Gonadotrophins are more expensive compared with clomiphene citrate in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with adherence to strict cancellation criteria, without being significantly more effective.

Micronized vaginal progesterone to prevent miscarriage: a critical evaluation of randomized evidence.

Progesterone is essential for the maintenance of pregnancy. Several small trials have suggested that progesterone supplementation may reduce the risk of miscarriage in women with recurrent or threatened miscarriage. Cochrane Reviews summarized the evidence and found that the trials were small with substantial methodologic weaknesses. Since then, the effects of first-trimester use of vaginal micronized progesterone have been evaluated in 2 large, high-quality, multicenter placebo-controlled trials, one targeting women with unexplained recurrent miscarriages (the PROMISE [PROgesterone in recurrent MIScarriagE] trial) and the other targeting women with early pregnancy bleeding (the PRISM [PRogesterone In Spontaneous Miscarriage] trial). The PROMISE trial studied 836 women from 45 hospitals in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands and found a 3% greater live birth rate with progesterone but with substantial statistical uncertainty. The PRISM trial studied 4153 women from 48 hospitals in the United Kingdom and found a 3% greater live birth rate with progesterone, but with a P value of .08. A key finding, first observed in the PROMISE trial, and then replicated in the PRISM trial, was that treatment with vaginal micronized progesterone 400 mg twice daily was associated with increasing live birth rates according to the number of previous miscarriages. Prespecified PRISM trial subgroup analysis in women with the dual risk factors of previous miscarriage(s) and current pregnancy bleeding fulfilled all 11 conditions for credible subgroup analysis. For the subgroup of women with a history of 1 or more miscarriage(s) and current pregnancy bleeding, the live birth rate was 75% (689/914) with progesterone vs 70% (619/886) with placebo (rate difference 5%; risk ratio, 1.09, 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.15; P=.003). The benefit was greater for the subgroup of women with 3 or more previous miscarriages and current pregnancy bleeding; live birth rate was 72% (98/137) with progesterone vs 57% (85/148) with placebo (rate difference 15%; risk ratio, 1.28, 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.51; P=.004). No short-term safety concerns were identified from the PROMISE and PRISM trials. Therefore, women with a history of miscarriage who present with bleeding in early pregnancy may benefit from the use of vaginal micronized progesterone 400 mg twice daily. Women and their care providers should use the findings for shared decision-making.

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (abnormal number of chromosomes) in in vitro fertilisation.

BACKGROUND: In in vitro fertilisation (IVF) with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), selection of the most competent embryo(s) for transfer is based on morphological criteria. However, many women do not achieve a pregnancy even after 'good quality' embryo transfer. One of the presumed causes is that such morphologically normal embryos have an abnormal number of chromosomes (aneuploidies). Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A), formerly known as preimplantation genetic screening (PGS), was therefore developed as an alternative method to select embryos for transfer in IVF. In PGT-A, the polar body or one or a few cells of the embryo are obtained by biopsy and tested. Only polar bodies and embryos that show a normal number of chromosomes are transferred. The first generation of PGT-A, using cleavage-stage biopsy and fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) for the genetic analysis, was demonstrated to be ineffective in improving live birth rates. Since then, new PGT-A methodologies have been developed that perform the biopsy procedure at other stages of development and use different methods for genetic analysis. Whether or not PGT-A improves IVF outcomes and is beneficial to patients has remained controversial. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PGT-A in women undergoing an IVF treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and two trials registers in September 2019 and checked the references of appropriate papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting data on clinical outcomes in participants undergoing IVF with PGT-A versus IVF without PGT-A were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted study data. The primary outcome was the cumulative live birth rate (cLBR). Secondary outcomes were live birth rate (LBR) after the first embryo transfer, miscarriage rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, proportion of women reaching an embryo transfer, and mean number of embryos per transfer. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 trials involving 2794 women. The quality of the evidence ranged from low to moderate. The main limitations were imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of publication bias. IVF with PGT-A versus IVF without PGT-A with the use of genome-wide analyses Polar body biopsy One trial used polar body biopsy with array comparative genomic hybridisation (aCGH). It is uncertain whether the addition of PGT-A by polar body biopsy increases the cLBR compared to IVF without PGT-A (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.66, 1 RCT, N = 396, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that for the observed cLBR of 24% in the control group, the chance of live birth following the results of one IVF cycle with PGT-A is between 17% and 34%. It is uncertain whether the LBR after the first embryo transfer improves with PGT-A by polar body biopsy (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.79, 1 RCT, N = 396, low-quality evidence). PGT-A with polar body biopsy may reduce miscarriage rate (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.88, 1 RCT, N = 396, low-quality evidence). No data on ongoing pregnancy rate were available. The effect of PGT-A by polar body biopsy on improving clinical pregnancy rate is uncertain (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.16, 1 RCT, N = 396, low-quality evidence). Blastocyst stage biopsy One trial used blastocyst stage biopsy with next-generation sequencing. It is uncertain whether IVF with the addition of PGT-A by blastocyst stage biopsy increases cLBR compared to IVF without PGT-A, since no data were available. It is uncertain if LBR after the first embryo transfer improves with PGT-A with blastocyst stage biopsy (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.27, 1 RCT, N = 661, low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether PGT-A with blastocyst stage biopsy reduces miscarriage rate (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54, 1 RCT, N = 661, low-quality evidence). No data on ongoing pregnancy rate or clinical pregnancy rate were available. IVF with PGT-A versus IVF without PGT-A with the use of FISH for the genetic analysis Eleven trials were included in this comparison. It is uncertain whether IVF with addition of PGT-A increases cLBR (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.01, 1 RCT, N = 408, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that for the observed average cLBR of 29% in the control group, the chance of live birth following the results of one IVF cycle with PGT-A is between 12% and 29%. PGT-A performed with FISH probably reduces live births after the first transfer compared to the control group (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.91, 10 RCTs, N = 1680, I² = 54%, moderate-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that for the observed average LBR per first transfer of 31% in the control group, the chance of live birth after the first embryo transfer with PGT-A is between 16% and 29%. There is probably little or no difference in miscarriage rate between PGT-A and the control group (OR 1.03, 95%, CI 0.75 to 1.41; 10 RCTs, N = 1680, I² = 16%; moderate-quality evidence). The addition of PGT-A may reduce ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.90, 5 RCTs, N = 1121, I² = 60%, low-quality evidence) and probably reduces clinical pregnancies (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.81, 5 RCTs, N = 1131; I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient good-quality evidence of a difference in cumulative live birth rate, live birth rate after the first embryo transfer, or miscarriage rate between IVF with and IVF without PGT-A as currently performed. No data were available on ongoing pregnancy rates. The effect of PGT-A on clinical pregnancy rate is uncertain. Women need to be aware that it is uncertain whether PGT-A with the use of genome-wide analyses is an effective addition to IVF, especially in view of the invasiveness and costs involved in PGT-A. PGT-A using FISH for the genetic analysis is probably harmful. The currently available evidence is insufficient to support PGT-A in routine clinical practice.

Laparoscopic ovarian drilling for ovulation induction in women with anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common condition affecting 8% to 13% of reproductive-aged women. In the past clomiphene citrate (CC) used to be the first-line treatment in women with PCOS. Ovulation induction with letrozole should be the first-line treatment according to new guidelines, but the use of letrozole is off-label. Consequently, CC is still commonly used. Approximately 20% of women on CC do not ovulate. Women who are CC-resistant can be treated with gonadotrophins or other medical ovulation-induction agents. These medications are not always successful, can be time-consuming and can cause adverse events like multiple pregnancies and cycle cancellation due to an excessive response. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) is a surgical alternative to medical treatment. There are risks associated with surgery, such as complications from anaesthesia, infection, and adhesions. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of LOD with or without medical ovulation induction compared with medical ovulation induction alone for women with anovulatory polycystic PCOS and CC-resistance. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and two trials registers up to 8 October 2019, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with anovulatory PCOS and CC resistance who underwent LOD with or without medical ovulation induction versus medical ovulation induction alone, LOD with assisted reproductive technologies (ART) versus ART, LOD with second-look laparoscopy versus expectant management, or different techniques of LOD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias, extracted data and evaluated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE method. The primary effectiveness outcome was live birth and the primary safety outcome was multiple pregnancy. Pregnancy, miscarriage, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), ovulation, costs, and quality of life were secondary outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: This updated review includes 38 trials (3326 women). The evidence was very low- to moderate-quality; the main limitations were due to poor reporting of study methods, with downgrading for risks of bias (randomisation and allocation concealment) and lack of blinding. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling with or without medical ovulation induction versus medical ovulation induction alone Pooled results suggest LOD may decrease live birth slightly when compared with medical ovulation induction alone (odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.92; 9 studies, 1015 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). The evidence suggest that if the chance of live birth following medical ovulation induction alone is 42%, the chance following LOD would be between 28% and 40%. The sensitivity analysis restricted to only RCTs with low risk of selection bias suggested there is uncertainty whether there is a difference between the treatments (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.36; 4 studies, 415 women; I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). LOD probably reduces multiple pregnancy rates (Peto OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.66; 14 studies, 1161 women; I2 = 2%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if we assume the risk of multiple pregnancy following medical ovulation induction is 5.0%, the risk following LOD would be between 0.9% and 3.4%. Restricting to RCTs that followed women for six months after LOD and six cycles of ovulation induction only, the results for live birth were consistent with the main analysis. There may be little or no difference between the treatments for the likelihood of a clinical pregnancy (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.03; 21 studies, 2016 women; I2 = 19%; low-quality evidence). There is uncertainty about the effect of LOD compared with ovulation induction alone on miscarriage (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.59; 19 studies, 1909 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). OHSS was a very rare event. LOD may reduce OHSS (Peto OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.91; 8 studies, 722 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Unilateral LOD versus bilateral LOD Due to the small sample size, the quality of evidence is insufficient to justify a conclusion on live birth (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.78; 1 study, 44 women; very low-quality evidence). There were no data available on multiple pregnancy. The likelihood of a clinical pregnancy is uncertain between the treatments, due to the quality of the evidence and the large heterogeneity between the studies (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.84; 7 studies, 470 women; I2 = 60%, very low-quality evidence). Due to the small sample size, the quality of evidence is not sufficient to justify a conclusion on miscarriage (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.33; 2 studies, 131 women; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Other comparisons Due to lack of evidence and very low-quality data there is uncertainty whether there is a difference for any of the following comparisons: LOD with IVF versus IVF, LOD with second-look laparoscopy versus expectant management, monopolar versus bipolar LOD, and adjusted thermal dose versus fixed thermal dose. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic ovarian drilling with and without medical ovulation induction may decrease the live birth rate in women with anovulatory PCOS and CC resistance compared with medical ovulation induction alone. But the sensitivity analysis restricted to only RCTs at low risk of selection bias suggests there is uncertainty whether there is a difference between the treatments, due to uncertainty around the estimate. Moderate-quality evidence shows that LOD probably reduces the number of multiple pregnancy. Low-quality evidence suggests that there may be little or no difference between the treatments for the likelihood of a clinical pregnancy, and there is uncertainty about the effect of LOD compared with ovulation induction alone on miscarriage. LOD may result in less OHSS. The quality of evidence is insufficient to justify a conclusion on live birth, clinical pregnancy or miscarriage rate for the analysis of unilateral LOD versus bilateral LOD. There were no data available on multiple pregnancy.