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.

BEYOND: a randomized controlled trial comparing efficacy and safety of individualized follitropin delta dosing in a GnRH agonist versus antagonist protocol during the first ovarian stimulation cycle.

STUDY QUESTION: How does a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist versus a GnRH antagonist protocol affect ovarian response when using an individualized fixed daily dose of follitropin delta for ovarian stimulation? SUMMARY ANSWER: The BEYOND trial data demonstrate thatindividualized fixed-dose follitropin delta is effective when used in a GnRH agonist protocol, compared with a GnRH antagonist protocol, in women with anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) ≤35 pmol/l and no increased risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The efficacy and safety of an individualized fixed daily dose of follitropin delta (based on body weight and AMH) have been established in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using a GnRH antagonist protocol. Preliminary study data indicate that individualized follitropin delta is also efficacious in a GnRH agonist protocol (RAINBOW trial, NCT03564509). There are no prospective comparative data using individualized follitropin delta for ovarian stimulation in a GnRH agonist versus a GnRH antagonist protocol. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is the first randomized, controlled, open-label, multi-centre trial exploring efficacy and safety of individualized follitropin delta dosing in a GnRH agonist versus a GnRH antagonist protocol in participants undergoing their first ovarian stimulation cycle for IVF/ICSI. A total of 437 participants were randomized centrally and stratified by centre and age. The primary endpoint was the number of oocytes retrieved. Secondary endpoints included ongoing pregnancy rates, adverse drug reactions (including OHSS), live births, and neonatal outcomes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants (18-40 years; AMH ≤35 pmol/l) were enrolled at specialist reproductive health clinics in Austria, Denmark, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland. The mean number of oocytes retrieved was compared between the GnRH agonist and antagonist protocols using a negative binomial regression model with age and AMH at screening as factors. Analyses were based on all randomized subjects, using a multiple imputation method for randomized subjects withdrawing before the start of stimulation. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 437 randomized subjects, 221 were randomized to the GnRH agonist, and 216 were randomized to the GnRH antagonist protocol. The participants had a mean age of 32.3 ± 4.3 years and a mean serum AMH of 16.6 ± 7.8 pmol/l. A total of 202 and 204 participants started ovarian stimulation with follitropin delta in the GnRH agonist and antagonist groups, respectively. The mean number of oocytes retrieved was statistically significantly higher in the agonist group (11.1 ± 5.9) versus the antagonist group (9.6 ± 5.5), with an estimated mean difference of 1.31 oocytes (95% CI: 0.22; 2.40, P = 0.0185). The difference in number of oocytes retrieved was influenced by the patients' age and ovarian reserve, with a greater difference observed in patients aged <35 years and in patients with high ovarian reserve (AMH >15 pmol/l). Both the GnRH agonist and antagonist groups had a similar proportion of cycle cancellations (2.0% [4/202] versus 3.4% [7/204]) and fresh blastocyst transfer cancellations (13.4% [27/202] versus 14.7% [30/204]). The estimated ongoing pregnancy rate per started cycle was numerically higher in the GnRH agonist group (36.9% versus 29.1%; difference: 7.74% [95% CI: -1.49; 16.97, P = 0.1002]). The most commonly reported adverse events (≥1% in either group; headache, OHSS, nausea, pelvic pain, or discomfort and abdominal pain) were similar in both groups. The incidence of early moderate/severe OHSS was low (1.5% for the agonist group versus 2.5% for antagonist groups). Estimated live birth rates per started cycle were 35.8% and 28.7% in the GnRH agonist and antagonist groups, respectively (treatment difference 7.15%; 95% CI: -2.02; 16.31; P = 0.1265). The two treatment groups were comparable with respect to neonatal health data for singletons and twins and for incidence of congenital malformations (2.7% and 3.3% for the GnRH agonist versus antagonist groups, respectively). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: All participants had AMH ≤35 pmol/l and were ≤40 years old. Clinicians should remain cautious when using a GnRH agonist protocol in patients with AMH >35 pmol/l (i.e. those with an increased OHSS risk). The incidence of OHSS in the GnRH antagonist group may have been lower if a GnRH agonist trigger had been allowed. Outcomes of transfers with cryopreserved blastocysts were not followed up, therefore the cumulative live birth rates and neonatal outcomes after cryotransfer are unknown. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: In women with AMH ≤35 pmol/l, an individualized fixed daily dose of follitropin delta resulted in a significantly higher number of oocytes retrieved when used in a GnRH agonist protocol compared with a GnRH antagonist protocol, with no additional safety signals observed and no additional risk of OHSS. Live birth rates following ovarian stimulation with individualized follitropin delta were not statistically different between the GnRH protocols; however, the trial was not powered to assess this endpoint. There were no safety concerns with respect to neonatal health after ovarian stimulation with follitropin delta in either protocol. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The trial was funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals. EE, EP, and MS have no competing interests. AP has received research support from Ferring, and Gedeon Richter, and honoraria or consultation fees from Preglem, Novo Nordisk, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Cryos, Merck A/S. BC has received consulting fees from Ferring and Merck, and his department received fees from Ferring to cover the costs of patient enrolment. MBS has received support to attend meetings and/or travel from Ferring, and was a board member for FertiPROTEKT e.V. until 2023. JS has received honoraria or consultation fees from Ferring and Merck, and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Ferring, Merck, and GoodLife. TS has received support/travel expenses from Ferring for attending a congress meeting, and participated in an advisory board for Merck. YS has received grants/research support from Ferring and support to attend a professional society congress meeting from Merck. RL and PP are employees of Ferring Pharmaceuticals. PP is a BOD member of PharmaBiome and owns stocks of Takeda Pharmaceuticals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03809429; EudraCT Number 2017-002783-40. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 7 April 2019. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 2 May 2019.

ART in Europe, 2019: results generated from European registries by ESHRE†.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the data and trends on ART and IUI cycle numbers and their outcomes, and on fertility preservation (FP) interventions, reported in 2019 as compared to previous years? SUMMARY ANSWER: The 23rd ESHRE report highlights the rising ART treatment cycles and children born, alongside a decline in twin deliveries owing to decreasing multiple embryo transfers; fresh IVF or ICSI cycles exhibited higher delivery rates, whereas frozen embryo transfers (FET) showed higher pregnancy rates (PRs), and reported IUI cycles decreased while maintaining stable outcomes. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: ART aggregated data generated by national registries, clinics, or professional societies have been gathered and analyzed by the European IVF-Monitoring (EIM) Consortium since 1997 and reported in a total of 22 manuscripts published in Human Reproduction and Human Reproduction Open. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Data on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) from European countries are collected by EIM for ESHRE each year. The data on treatment cycles performed between 1 January and 31 December 2019 were provided by either national registries or registries based on initiatives of medical associations and scientific organizations or committed persons in one of the 44 countries that are members of the EIM Consortium. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Overall, 1487 clinics offering ART services in 40 countries reported, for the second time, a total of more than 1 million (1 077 813) treatment cycles, including 160 782 with IVF, 427 980 with ICSI, 335 744 with FET, 64 089 with preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), 82 373 with egg donation (ED), 546 with IVM of oocytes, and 6299 cycles with frozen oocyte replacement (FOR). A total of 1169 institutions reported data on IUI cycles using either husband/partner's semen (IUI-H; n = 147 711) or donor semen (IUI-D; n = 51 651) in 33 and 24 countries, respectively. Eighteen countries reported 24 139 interventions in pre- and post-pubertal patients for FP, including oocyte, ovarian tissue, semen, and testicular tissue banking. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In 21 countries (21 in 2018) in which all ART clinics reported to the registry 476 760 treatment cycles were registered for a total population of approximately 300 million inhabitants, allowing the best estimate of a mean of 1581 cycles performed per million inhabitants (range: 437-3621). Among the reporting countries, for IVF the clinical PRs per aspiration slightly decreased while they remained similar per transfer compared to 2018 (21.8% and 34.6% versus 25.5% and 34.1%, respectively). In ICSI, the corresponding PRs showed similar trends compared to 2018 (20.2% and 33.5%, versus 22.5% and 32.1%) When freeze-all cycles were not considered for the calculations, the clinical PRs per aspiration were 28.5% (28.8% in 2018) and 26.2% (27.3% in 2018) for IVF and ICSI, respectively. After FET with embryos originating from own eggs, the PR per thawing was at 35.1% (versus 33.4% in 2018), and with embryos originating from donated eggs at 43.0% (41.8% in 2018). After ED, the PR per fresh embryo transfer was 50.5% (49.6% in 2018) and per FOR 44.8% (44.9% in 2018). In IVF and ICSI together, the trend toward the transfer of fewer embryos continues with the transfer of 1, 2, 3, and ≥4 embryos in 55.4%, 39.9%, 2.6%, and 0.2% of all treatments, respectively (corresponding to 50.7%, 45.1%, 3.9%, and 0.3% in 2018). This resulted in a reduced proportion of twin delivery rates (DRs) of 11.9% (12.4% in 2018) and a similar triplet DR of 0.3%. Treatments with FET in 2019 resulted in twin and triplet DR of 8.9% and 0.1%, respectively (versus 9.4% and 0.1% in 2018). After IUI, the DRs remained similar at 8.7% after IUI-H (8.8% in 2018) and at 12.1% after IUI-D (12.6% in 2018). Twin and triplet DRs after IUI-H were 8.7% and 0.4% (in 2018: 8.4% and 0.3%) and 6.2% and 0.2% after IUI-D (in 2018: 6.4% and 0.2%), respectively. Eighteen countries (16 in 2018) provided data on FP in a total number of 24 139 interventions (20 994 in 2018). Cryopreservation of ejaculated sperm (n = 11 592 versus n = 10 503 in 2018) and cryopreservation of oocytes (n = 10 784 versus n = 9123 in 2018) were most frequently reported. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Caution with the interpretation of results should remain as data collection systems and completeness of reporting vary among European countries. Some countries were unable to deliver data about the number of initiated cycles and/or deliveries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The 23rd ESHRE data collection on ART, IUI, and FP interventions shows a continuous increase of reported treatment numbers and MAR-derived livebirths in Europe. Although it is the largest data collection on MAR in Europe, further efforts toward optimization of both the collection and the reporting, from the perspective of improving surveillance and vigilance in the field of reproductive medicine, are awaited. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study has received no external funding and all costs are covered by ESHRE. There are no competing interests.

A multicentre double-blinded randomized controlled trial on the efficacy of laser-assisted hatching in patients with repeated implantation failure undergoing IVF or ICSI.

STUDY QUESTION: Does assisted hatching increase the cumulative live birth rate in subfertile couples with repeated implantation failure? SUMMARY ANSWER: This study showed no evidence of effect for assisted hatching as an add-on in subfertile couples with repeated implantation failure. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The efficacy of assisted hatching, with regard to the live birth rate has not been convincingly demonstrated in randomized trials nor meta-analyses. It is suggested though that especially poor prognosis women, e.g. women with repeated implantation failure, might benefit most from assisted hatching. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The study was designed as a double-blinded, multicentre randomized controlled superiority trial. In order to demonstrate a statistically significant absolute increase in live birth rate of 10% after assisted hatching, 294 participants needed to be included per treatment arm, being a total of 588 subfertile couples. Participants were included and randomized from November 2012 until November 2017, 297 were allocated to the assisted hatching arm of the study and 295 to the control arm. Block randomization in blocks of 20 participants was applied and randomization was concealed from participants, treating physicians, and laboratory staff involved in the embryo transfer procedure. Ovarian hyperstimulation, oocyte retrieval, laboratory procedures, embryo selection for transfer and cryopreservation, the transfer itself, and luteal support were performed according to local protocols and were identical in both the intervention and control arm of the study with the exception of the assisted hatching procedure which was only performed in the intervention group. The laboratory staff performing the assisted hatching procedure was not involved in the embryo transfer itself. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants were eligible for inclusion in the study after having had either at least two consecutive fresh IVF or ICSI embryo transfers, including the transfer of frozen and thawed embryos originating from those fresh cycles, and which did not result in a pregnancy or as having had at least one fresh IVF or ICSI transfer and at least two frozen embryo transfers with embryos originating from that fresh cycle which did not result in a pregnancy. The study was performed at the laboratory sites of three tertiary referral hospitals and two university medical centres in the Netherlands. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The cumulative live birth rate per started cycle, including the transfer of fresh and subsequent frozen/thawed embryos if applicable, resulted in 77 live births in the assisted hatching group (n = 297, 25.9%) and 68 live births in the control group (n = 295, 23.1%). This proved to be statistically not significantly different (relative risk: 1.125, 95% CI: 0.847 to 1.494, P = 0.416). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: There was a small cohort of subfertile couples that after not achieving an ongoing pregnancy, still had cryopreserved embryos in storage at the endpoint of the trial, i.e. 1 year after the last randomization. It cannot be excluded that the future transfer of these frozen/thawed embryos increases the cumulative live birth rate in either or both study arms. Next, at the start of this study, there was no international consensus on the definition of repeated implantation failure. Therefore, it cannot be excluded that assisted hatching might be effective in higher order repeated implantation failures. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study demonstrated no evidence of a statistically significant effect for assisted hatching by increasing live birth rates in subfertile couples with repeated implantation failure, i.e. the couples which, based on meta-analyses, are suggested to benefit most from assisted hatching. It is therefore suggested that assisted hatching should only be offered if information on the absence of evidence of effect is provided, at no extra costs and preferably only in the setting of a clinical trial taking cost-effectiveness into account. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): None. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register (NTR 3387, NL 3235, https://www.clinicaltrialregister.nl/nl/trial/26138). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 6 April 2012. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 28 November 2012.

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.

The long-term costs and effects of tubal flushing with oil-based versus water-based contrast during hysterosalpingography.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the long-term costs and effects of oil- versus water-based contrast in infertile women undergoing hysterosalpingography (HSG)? DESIGN: This economic evaluation of a long-term follow-up of a multicentre randomized controlled trial involved 1119 infertile women randomized to HSG with oil- (n = 557) or water-based contrast (n = 562) in the Netherlands. RESULTS: In the oil-based contrast group, 39.8% of women needed no other treatment, 34.6% underwent intrauterine insemination (IUI) and 25.6% had IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in the 5 years following HSG. In the water-based contrast group, 35.0% of women had no other treatment, 34.2% had IUI and 30.8% had IVF/ICSI in the 5 years following HSG (P = 0.113). After 5 years of follow-up, HSG using oil-based contrast resulted in equivalent costs (mean cost difference -€144; 95% confidence interval [CI] -€579 to +€290; P = 0.515) for a 5% increase in the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate compared with HSG using water-based contrast (80% compared with 75%, Relative Risk (RR) 1.07; 95% CI 1.00-1.14). Similarly, HSG with oil-based contrast resulted in equivalent costs (mean cost difference -€50; 95% CI -€576 to +€475; P = 0.850) for a 7.5% increase in the cumulative live birth rate compared with HSG with water-based contrast (74.8% compared with 67.3%, RR 1.11; 95% CI 1.03-1.20), making it the dominant strategy. Scenario analyses suggest that the oil-based contrast medium is the dominant strategy up to a price difference of €300. CONCLUSION: Over a 5-year follow-up, HSG with an oil-based contrast was associated with a 5% increase in ongoing pregnancy rate, a 7.5% increase in live birth rate and similar costs to HSG with water-based contrast.

Oil-Based or Water-Based Contrast for Hysterosalpingography in Infertile Women.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy rates among infertile women have been reported to increase after hysterosalpingography, but it is unclear whether the type of contrast medium used (oil-based or water-soluble contrast) influences this potential therapeutic effect. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, randomized trial in 27 hospitals in the Netherlands in which infertile women who were undergoing hysterosalpingography were randomly assigned to undergo this procedure with the use of oil-based or water-based contrast. Subsequently, couples received expectant management or the women underwent intrauterine insemination. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy within 6 months after randomization. Outcomes were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: A total of 1119 women were randomly assigned to hysterosalpingography with oil contrast (557 women) or water contrast (562 women). A total of 220 of 554 women in the oil group (39.7%) and 161 of 554 women in the water group (29.1%) had an ongoing pregnancy (rate ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16 to 1.61; P<0.001), and 214 of 552 women in the oil group (38.8%) and 155 of 552 women in the water group (28.1%) had live births (rate ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.64; P<0.001). Rates of adverse events were low and similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of ongoing pregnancy and live births were higher among women who underwent hysterosalpingography with oil contrast than among women who underwent this procedure with water contrast. (Netherlands Trial Register number, NTR3270 .).

Gonadotrophins versus clomifene citrate with or without intrauterine insemination in women with normogonadotropic anovulation and clomifene failure (M-OVIN): a randomised, two-by-two factorial trial.

BACKGROUND: In many countries, clomifene citrate is the treatment of first choice in women with normogonadotropic anovulation (ie, absent or irregular ovulation). If these women ovulate but do not conceive after several cycles with clomifene citrate, medication is usually switched to gonadotrophins, with or without intrauterine insemination. We aimed to assess whether switching to gonadotrophins is more effective than continuing clomifene citrate, and whether intrauterine insemination is more effective than intercourse. METHODS: In this two-by-two factorial multicentre randomised clinical trial, we recruited women aged 18 years and older with normogonadotropic anovulation not pregnant after six ovulatory cycles of clomifene citrate (maximum of 150 mg daily for 5 days) from 48 Dutch hospitals. Women were randomly assigned using a central password-protected internet-based randomisation programme to receive six cycles with gonadotrophins plus intrauterine insemination, six cycles with gonadotrophins plus intercourse, six cycles with clomifene citrate plus intrauterine insemination, or six cycles with clomifene citrate plus intercourse. Clomifene citrate dosages varied from 50 to 150 mg daily orally and gonadotrophin starting dose was 50 or 75 IU daily subcutaneously. The primary outcome was conception leading to livebirth within 8 months after randomisation defined as any baby born alive after a gestational age beyond 24 weeks. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. We made two comparisons, one in which gonadotrophins were compared with clomifene citrate and one in which intrauterine insemination was compared with intercourse. This completed study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR1449. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2008, and Dec 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 666 women to gonadotrophins and intrauterine insemination (n=166), gonadotrophins and intercourse (n=165), clomifene citrate and intrauterine insemination (n=163), or clomifene citrate and intercourse (n=172). Women allocated to gonadotrophins had more livebirths than those allocated to clomifene citrate (167 [52%] of 327 women vs 138 [41%] of 334 women, relative risk [RR] 1·24 [95% CI 1·05-1·46]; p=0·0124). Addition of intrauterine insemination did not increase livebirths compared with intercourse (161 [49%] vs 144 [43%], RR 1·14 [95% CI 0·97-1·35]; p=0·1152). Multiple pregnancy rates for the two comparisons were low and not different. There were three adverse events: one child with congenital abnormalities and one stillbirth in two women treated with clomifene citrate, and one immature delivery due to cervical insufficiency in a woman treated with gonadotrophins. INTERPRETATION: In women with normogonadotropic anovulation and clomifene citrate failure, a switch of treatment to gonadotrophins increased the chance of livebirth over treatment with clomifene citrate; there was no evidence that addition of intrauterine insemination does so. FUNDING: The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.

Individualized versus standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF/ICSI: an RCT. Part 2: The predicted hyper responder.

STUDY QUESTION: Does a reduced FSH dose in women with a predicted hyper response, apparent from a high antral follicle count (AFC), who are scheduled for IVF/ICSI lead to a different outcome with respect to cumulative live birth rate and safety? SUMMARY ANSWER: Although in women with a predicted hyper response (AFC > 15) undergoing IVF/ICSI a reduced FSH dose (100 IU per day) results in similar cumulative live birth rates and a lower occurrence of any grade of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) as compared to a standard dose (150 IU/day), a higher first cycle cancellation rate and similar severe OHSS rate were observed. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Excessive ovarian response to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for IVF/ICSI may result in increased rates of cycle cancellation, the occurrence of OHSS and suboptimal live birth rates. In women scheduled for IVF/ICSI, an ovarian reserve test (ORT) can be used to predict response to COS. No consensus has been reached on whether ORT-based FSH dosing improves effectiveness and safety in women with a predicted hyper response. STUDY DESIGN SIZE, DURATION: Between May 2011 and May 2014, we performed an open-label, multicentre RCT in women with regular menstrual cycles and an AFC > 15. Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (Rotterdam criteria) were excluded. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy achieved within 18 months after randomization and resulting in a live birth. Secondary outcomes included the occurrence of OHSS and cost-effectiveness. Since this RCT was embedded in a cohort study assessing over 1500 women, we expected to randomize 300 predicted hyper responders. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women with an AFC > 15 were randomized to an FSH dose of 100 IU or 150 IU/day. In both groups, dose adjustment was allowed in subsequent cycles (maximum 25 IU in the reduced and 50 IU in the standard group) based on pre-specified criteria. Both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness were evaluated from an intention-to-treat perspective. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We randomized 255 women to a daily FSH dose of 100 IU and 266 women to a daily FSH dose of 150 IU. The cumulative live birth rate was 66.3% (169/255) in the reduced versus 69.5% (185/266) in the standard group (relative risk (RR) 0.95 [95%CI, 0.85-1.07], P = 0.423). The occurrence of any grade of OHSS was lower after a lower FSH dose (5.2% versus 11.8%, RR 0.44 [95%CI, 0.28-0.71], P = 0.001), but the occurrence of severe OHSS did not differ (1.3% versus 1.1%, RR 1.25 [95%CI, 0.38-4.07], P = 0.728). As dose reduction was not less expensive (€4.622 versus €4.714, delta costs/woman €92 [95%CI, -479-325]), there was no dominant strategy in the economic analysis. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Despite our training programme, the AFC might have suffered from inter-observer variation. Although strict cancellation criteria were provided, selective cancelling in the reduced dose group (for poor response in particular) cannot be excluded as observers were not blinded for the FSH dose and small dose adjustments were allowed in subsequent cycles. However, as first cycle live birth rates did not differ from the cumulative results, the open design probably did not mask a potential benefit for the reduced dosing group. As this RCT was embedded in a larger cohort study, the power in this study was unavoidably lower than it should be. Participants had a relatively low BMI from an international perspective, which may limit generalization of the findings. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: In women with a predicted hyper response scheduled for IVF/ICSI, a reduced FSH dose does not affect live birth rates. A lower FSH dose did reduce the incidence of mild and moderate OHSS, but had no impact on severe OHSS. Future research into ORT-based dosing in women with a predicted hyper response should compare various safety management strategies and should be powered on a clinically relevant safety outcome while assessing non-inferiority towards live birth rates. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This trial was funded by The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMW, Project Number 171102020). SCO, TCvT and HLT received an unrestricted research grant from Merck Serono (the Netherlands). CBL receives grants from Merck, Ferring and Guerbet. BWJM is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for OvsEva, Merck and Guerbet. FJMB receives monetary compensation as a member of the external advisory board for Ferring pharmaceutics BV and Merck Serono for consultancy work for Gedeon Richter (Belgium) and Roche Diagnostics (Switzerland) and for a research cooperation with Ansh Labs (USA). All other authors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registered at the ICMJE-recognized Dutch Trial Registry (www.trialregister.nl). Registration number: NTR2657. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 20 December 2010. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 12 May 2011.

Women's adjustment trajectories during IVF and impact on mental health 11-17 years later.

STUDY QUESTION: Do patients present different adjustment trajectories during and after IVF treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER: Most women show resilient trajectories during and after IVF treatment but 37% show temporary or chronic maladjustment during IVF and 10% are maladjusted 11-17 years after treatment. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Research on patient psychosocial adjustment during treatment has contributed to identifying the most distressful stages of IVF treatment and profiling patients at risk for emotional maladjustment at these specific stages. This knowledge is currently driving the deliverance of psychosocial care at fertility clinics by tailoring it to patients' risk profiles and specific treatment stages. However, current care does not take into consideration how individuals adjust across the entire treatment pathway. This can be assessed by profiling individual adjustment trajectories. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A longitudinal cohort study with five assessment moments that combines data from two different studies, the STRESSIVF and OMEGA projects. Participants enrolled in the STRESSIVF study (started IVF in 1998-2000) were assessed before and after the first IVF treatment cycle and 6 months and 2.5 years after the last IVF cycle. A subset participated in the OMEGA project (started IVF in 1995-2000) and reported on their mental health 11-17 years after treatment. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Three hundred and forty-eight women participated in the STRESSIVF project and 108 of these in the OMEGA. Anxiety was measured with the State and Trait Anxiety Inventory, depression with the Beck Depression Inventory and mental health with the Mental Health Inventory. Latent class growth mixed modelling was carried out to identify distinct anxiety and depression trajectories over the four STRESSIVF study assessment moments. Multinominal logistic regressions were conducted to investigate predictors of trajectory membership, and stepwise linear regressions were performed to investigate if adjustment trajectories predicted mental health 11-17 years after IVF treatment. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 67 and 86% of women showed normal levels of anxiety and depression, respectively, throughout treatment (resilient trajectories), 24 and 33% experienced anxiety and depression only during treatment (recovery trajectories), 4.6 and 4.9% experienced anxiety and depression only after treatment (delayed trajectories), and 4.3% showed chronic anxiety (chronic trajectory, not identified for depression). Non-resilient trajectories were associated with unsuccessful treatment, marital dissatisfaction, lack of social support and negative infertility cognitions. One in 10 women had a delayed or chronic trajectory and these trajectories predicted serious mental health impairment 11-17 years after treatment. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study only focuses on women. In the OMEGA project adjustment was assessed using a mental health measure. Although we could investigate how trajectories predicted mental health, it would have been preferable to map anxiety and depression trajectories up to 11-17 years after treatment. Missing analysis showed selective dropout from the study but this was accounted for by using mixed models and imputation procedures. Finally, data on other life stressors were not collected; therefore any contribution from these events cannot be assessed. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Fertility health-care providers have been called upon considering their responsibility in supporting patients in the aftermath of treatment. Results show it is possible to profile different groups of at-risk women at the start of the treatment and tailor psychosocial support to risk profile to promote health adjustment during treatment and thereafter. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was supported by a grant from the Dutch Cancer Society (2006-3631) and the Praeventiefonds (28-3012). No competing interests exist.

Ovarian Stimulation for In Vitro Fertilization and Long-term Risk of Breast Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: Previous studies of breast cancer risk after in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment were inconclusive due to limited follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To assess long-term risk of breast cancer after ovarian stimulation for IVF. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Historical cohort (OMEGA study) with complete follow-up through December 2013 for 96% of the cohort. The cohort included 19,158 women who started IVF treatment between 1983 and 1995 (IVF group) and 5950 women starting other fertility treatments between 1980 and 1995 (non-IVF group) from all 12 IVF clinics in the Netherlands. The median age at end of follow-up was 53.8 years for the IVF group and 55.3 years for the non-IVF group. EXPOSURES: Information on ovarian stimulation for IVF, other fertility treatments, and potential confounders was collected from medical records and through mailed questionnaires. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Incidence of invasive and in situ breast cancers in women who underwent fertility treatments was obtained through linkage with the Netherlands Cancer Registry (1989-2013). Breast cancer risk in the IVF group was compared with risks in the general population (standardized incidence ratios [SIRs]) and the non-IVF group (hazard ratios [HRs]). RESULTS: Among 25,108 women (mean age at baseline, 32.8 years; mean number of IVF cycles, 3.6), 839 cases of invasive breast cancer and 109 cases of in situ breast cancer occurred after a median follow-up of 21.1 years. Breast cancer risk in IVF-treated women was not significantly different from that in the general population (SIR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.93-1.09]) and from the risk in the non-IVF group (HR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.86-1.19]). The cumulative incidences of breast cancer at age 55 were 3.0% for the IVF group and 2.9% for the non-IVF group (P = .85). The SIR did not increase with longer time since treatment (≥20 years) in the IVF group (0.92 [95% CI, 0.73-1.15]) or in the non-IVF group (1.03 [95% CI, 0.82-1.29]). Risk was significantly lower for those who underwent 7 or more IVF cycles (HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.39-0.77]) vs 1 to 2 IVF cycles and after poor response to the first IVF cycle (HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.61-0.96] for <4 vs ≥4 collected oocytes). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among women undergoing fertility treatment in the Netherlands between 1980 and 1995, IVF treatment compared with non-IVF treatment was not associated with increased risk of breast cancer after a median follow-up of 21 years. Breast cancer risk among IVF-treated women was also not significantly different from that in the general population. These findings are consistent with absence of a significant increase in long-term risk of breast cancer among IVF-treated women.

Immunohistochemical expression of MMP-14 and MMP-2, and MMP-2 activity during human ovarian follicular development.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate the presence of MMP-14 and MMP-2 during human ovarian follicular development using immunohistochemistry, and the activity of MMP-2 in follicular fluid using zymography. METHODS: Ovarian tissue collected from the archives of the Department of Pathology was examined and medical records and histopathology were reviewed. Follicular fluids were collected at the IVF-department and analyzed using zymography. RESULTS: MMP-14 and MMP-2 were increasingly found in the growing follicles and MMP-2 was highly expressed in the corpus luteum. Pro-MMP-2 was present in follicular fluid of IVF-patients. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of MMP-14 and MMP-2 during human ovarian follicular development from the primordial follicle to the tertiary follicle and corpus luteum is confirmed, as was indicated by earlier animal studies following stimulation with gonadotrophins.

The M-OVIN study: does switching treatment to FSH and / or IUI lead to higher pregnancy rates in a subset of women with world health organization type II anovulation not conceiving after six ovulatory cycles with clomiphene citrate - a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Clomiphene citrate (CC) is first line treatment in women with World Health Organization (WHO) type II anovulation and polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Whereas 60% to 85% of these women will ovulate on CC, only about one half will have conceived after six cycles. If women do not conceive, treatment can be continued with gonadotropins or intra-uterine insemination (IUI). At present, it is unclear for how many cycles ovulation induction with CC should be repeated, and when to switch to ovulation induction with gonadotropins and/or IUI. METHODS/DESIGN: We started a multicenter randomised controlled trial in the Netherlands comparing six cycles of CC plus intercourse or six cycles of gonadotrophins plus intercourse or six cycles of CC plus IUI or six cycles of gonadotrophins plus IUI.Women with WHO type II anovulation who ovulate but did not conceive after six ovulatory cycles of CC with a maximum of 150 mg daily for five days will be included.Our primary outcome is birth of a healthy child resulting from a pregnancy that was established in the first eight months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, multiple pregnancy and treatment costs. The analysis will be performed according to the intention to treat principle. Two comparisons will be made, one in which CC is compared to gonadotrophins and one in which the addition of IUI is compared to ovulation induction only. Assuming a live birth rate of 40% after CC, 55% after addition of IUI and 55% after ovulation induction with gonadotrophins, with an alpha of 5% and a power of 80%, we need to recruit 200 women per arm (800 women in total).An independent Data and Safety Monitoring Committee has criticized the data of the first 150 women and concluded that a sample size re-estimation should be performed after including 320 patients (i.e. 80 per arm). DISCUSSION: The trial will provide evidence on the most effective, safest and most cost effective treatment in women with WHO type II anovulation who do not conceive after six ovulatory cycles with CC with a maximum of 150 mg daily for five days. This evidence could imply the need for changing our guidelines, which may cause a shift in large practice variation to evidence based primary treatment for these women. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial register NTR1449.

EuMAR: a roadmap towards a prospective, cycle-by-cycle registry of medically assisted reproduction in Europe.

More than 20 years ago, the survey of activities in medically assisted reproduction (MAR) was initiated in Europe and resulted in cross-sectional annual reports, as issued by the European IVF Monitoring (EIM) consortium of ESHRE. Over time, these reports mirror the continuous development of the technologies and contribute to increased transparency and surveillance of reproductive care. Meanwhile, progressive changes of existing treatment modalities and the introduction of new technologies resulted in the need of a cumulative approach in the assessment of treatment outcomes, which warrants a prospective cycle-by-cycle data registry on MAR activities, including fertility preservation. This change in the paradigm of data collection in Europe towards the construction of cumulative outcome results is expected to generate additional insights into cross-institutional but also cross-border movements of patients and reproductive material. This is essential to improve vigilance and surveillance. The European monitoring of Medically Assisted Reproduction (EuMAR) project, co-funded by the European Union, will establish a registry for the transnational collection of prospective cycle-by-cycle MAR and fertility preservation data on the basis of an individual reproductive care code (IRCC). The rationale for the project and the objectives are presented here.

The OPTIMIST study: optimisation of cost effectiveness through individualised FSH stimulation dosages for IVF treatment. A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Costs of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) are high, which is partly due to the use of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH). FSH is usually administered in a standard dose. However, due to differences in ovarian reserve between women, ovarian response also differs with potential negative consequences on pregnancy rates. A Markov decision-analytic model showed that FSH dose individualisation according to ovarian reserve is likely to be cost-effective in women who are eligible for IVF. However, this has never been confirmed in a large randomised controlled trial (RCT). The aim of the present study is to assess whether an individualised FSH dose regime based on an ovarian reserve test (ORT) is more cost-effective than a standard dose regime. METHODS/DESIGN: Multicentre RCT in subfertile women indicated for a first IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle, who are aged < 44 years, have a regular menstrual cycle and no major abnormalities at transvaginal sonography. Women with polycystic ovary syndrome, endocrine or metabolic abnormalities and women undergoing IVF with oocyte donation, will not be included. Ovarian reserve will be assessed by measuring the antral follicle count. Women with a predicted poor response or hyperresponse will be randomised for a standard versus an individualised FSH regime (150 IU/day, 225-450 IU/day and 100 IU/day, respectively). Participants will undergo a maximum of three stimulation cycles during maximally 18 months. The primary study outcome is the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate resulting in live birth achieved within 18 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are parameters for ovarian response, multiple pregnancies, number of cycles needed per live birth, total IU of FSH per stimulation cycle, and costs. All data will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed to assess whether the health and associated economic benefits of individualised treatment of subfertile women outweigh the additional costs of an ORT. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will be integrated into a decision model that compares cost-effectiveness of the three dose-adjustment strategies to a standard dose strategy. The study outcomes will provide scientific foundation for national and international guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR2657.

Pain scores during oocyte retrieval for IVF/ICSI: A retrospective cohort study comparing three different analgesia protocols.

OBJECTIVE: Oocyte retrieval is a painful, but essential element of IVF/ICSI. Evidence for the best method of analgesia is lacking. In the Netherlands, the three most common analgesia protocols entail administration of oral analgesics, intravenous opioids, and intramuscular opioids. The aim of this study was to compare these methods. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at three clinics. Clinic one provided oral analgesics (1000 mg paracetamol and 500 mg naproxen). The main component of analgesia at clinic two was opioids intravenously (50-100 µg fentanyl), and at clinic three, this was opioids intramuscularly (0.01 mg/kg alfentanil). Intraprocedural pain was registered on an 11-point scale. Univariate analyses were performed to identify factors significantly associated with pain scores. A mixed linear model was used to uncover mean pain scores per clinic. RESULTS: In total, 2,127 oocyte retrievals were included. Pain scores were lower in older women; scores decreased 0.06 points per year (95%-confidence interval (CI): 0.04-0.08). Per extra follicle, scores were 0.05 points higher (95%-CI: 0.03-0.06). Endometriosis resulted in 0.45-point higher scores (95%-CI: 0.01-0.88). Primary subfertility resulted in a 0.36-point increase in scores (95%-CI: 0.15-0.56). Nulliparous women had a 0.41-point higher score than multiparous women (95%-CI: 0.19-0.63). These effects were mostly similar in all clinics. Mean pain scores were 5.6 at clinic number 1 (95%-CI: 5.3-5.8), 5.1 at clinic number 2 (95%-CI: 4.9-5.3), and 3.9 at clinic number 3 (95%-CI: 3.8-4.1). CONCLUSION: The lowest pain scores were achieved in the clinic that used intramuscular administration of alfentanil, followed by intravenous fentanyl and, finally, non-sedative oral analgesics. Significant correlations between patient characteristics and pain scores were identified.

Supporting Women Undergoing IVF Treatment With Timely Patient Information Through an App: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of assisted reproductive technologies in 1978, over 2 million in vitro fertilization (IVF) babies have been born worldwide. Patients play a vital role in the success of this treatment. They are required to take fertility medication (hormone injections) to activate the ovaries to produce a sufficient number of oocytes. Later, they need to take medication to increase the chance of the embryo surviving inside the uterus. Patients are educated during an intake consultation at the start of the treatment to minimize the emotional burden and reduce noncompliance. The consultation lasts about 30 to 45 minutes and covers all essential subjects. Even though ample time and energy is spent on patient education, patients still feel anxious, unknowledgeable, and unsupported. As such, electronic health utilizing a smartphone or tablet app can offer additional support, as it allows health care professionals to provide their patients with the correct information at the right time by using push notifications. OBJECTIVE: This randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate the capacity of an app to support IVF patients throughout the different phases of their treatment and assess its effectiveness. The study's primary outcome was to determine the patients' level of satisfaction with the information provided. The secondary outcomes included their level of knowledge, ability to administer the medication, overall experienced quality of the treatment, health care consumption, and app usage. METHODS: This study was performed at a specialized fertility clinic of the nonacademic teaching hospital Elisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis in Tilburg, the Netherlands. Patients who were scheduled for IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatments between April 2018 and August 2019 were invited to participate in a physician-blinded, randomized controlled trial. RESULTS: In total, 54 patients participated (intervention group: n=29). Patients in the intervention group demonstrated a higher level of satisfaction on a 0 to 10 scale (mean 8.43, SD 1.03 vs mean 7.70, SD 0.66; P=.004). In addition, they were more knowledgeable about the different elements of the treatment on a 7 to 35 scale (mean 27.29, SD 2.94 vs mean 23.05, SD 2.76; P<.001). However, the difference disappeared over time. There were no differences between the two patient groups on the other outcomes. In total, 25 patients in the intervention group used the app 1425 times, an average of 57 times per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that, in comparison with standard patient education, using an app to provide patients with timely information increases their level of satisfaction. Furthermore, using the app leads to a higher level of knowledge about the steps and procedures of IVF treatment. Finally, the app's usage statistics demonstrate patients' informational needs and their willingness to use an electronic health application as part of their treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register (NTR) 6959; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/6959.

Long-Term Risk of Ovarian Cancer and Borderline Tumors After Assisted Reproductive Technology.

BACKGROUND: Long-term effects of assisted reproductive technology (ART) on ovarian tumor risk are unknown. METHODS: This nationwide cohort study comprises 30 625 women who received ovarian stimulation for ART in 1983-2000 and 9988 subfertile women not treated with ART. Incident invasive and borderline ovarian tumors were ascertained through linkage with the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Pathology Registry until July 2018. Ovarian tumor risk in ART-treated women was compared with risks in the general population and the subfertile non-ART group. Statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 24 years, 158 invasive and 100 borderline ovarian tumors were observed. Ovarian cancer risk in the ART group was increased compared with the general population (standardized incidence ratio [SIR] = 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.18 to 1.71) but not when compared with the non-ART group (age- and parity-adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.70 to 1.50). Risk decreased with higher parity and with a larger number of successful ART cycles (resulting in childbirth, Ptrend = .001) but was not associated with the number of unsuccessful ART cycles. Borderline ovarian tumor risk was increased in ART-treated women compared with the general population (SIR = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.66 to 2.86) and with non-ART women (HR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.08 to 3.14). Risk did not increase with more ART cycles or longer follow-up time. CONCLUSIONS: Increased ovarian cancer risk in ART-treated women compared with the general population is likely explained by nulliparity rather than ART treatment. The increased risk of borderline ovarian tumors after ART must be interpreted with caution because no dose-response relationship was observed.

Pre-Conception Interventions for Subfertile Couples Undergoing Assisted Reproductive Technology Treatment: Modeling Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 1 in 7 couples experience subfertility, many of whom have lifestyles that negatively affect fertility, such as poor nutrition, low physical activity, obesity, smoking, or alcohol consumption. Reducing lifestyle risk factors prior to pregnancy or assisted reproductive technology treatment contributes to the improvement of reproductive health, but cost-implications are unknown. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to evaluate reproductive, maternal pregnancy, and birth outcomes, as well as the costs of pre-conception lifestyle intervention programs in subfertile couples and obese women undergoing assisted reproductive technology. METHODS: Using a hypothetical model based on quantitative parameters from published literature and expert opinion, we evaluated the following lifestyle intervention programs: (1) Smarter Pregnancy, an online tool; (2) LIFEstyle, which provides outpatient support for obese women; (3) concurrent use of both Smarter Pregnancy and LIFEstyle for obese women; (4) smoking cessation in men; and (5) a mindfulness mental health support program using group therapy sessions. The model population was based on data from the Netherlands. RESULTS: All model-based analyses of the lifestyle interventions showed a reduction in the number of in vitro fertilization, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, or intrauterine insemination treatments required to achieve pregnancy and successful birth for couples in the Netherlands. Smarter Pregnancy was modeled to have the largest increase in spontaneous pregnancy rate (13.0%) and the largest absolute reduction in potential assisted reproductive technology treatments. Among obese subfertile women, LIFEstyle was modeled to show a reduction in the occurrence of gestational diabetes, maternal hypertensive pregnancy complications, and preterm births by 4.4%, 3.8%, and 3.0%, respectively, per couple. Modeled cost savings per couple per year were €41 (US $48.66), €360 (US $427.23), €513 (US $608.80), €586 (US $695.43), and €1163 (US $1380.18) for smoking cessation, mindfulness, Smarter Pregnancy, combined Smarter Pregnancy AND LIFEstyle, and LIFEstyle interventions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although we modeled the potential impact on reproductive outcomes and costs of fertility treatment rather than collecting real-world data, our model suggests that of the lifestyle interventions for encouraging healthier behaviors, all are likely to be cost effective and appear to have positive effects on reproductive, maternal pregnancy, and birth outcomes. Further real-world data are required to determine the cost-effectiveness of pre-conception lifestyle interventions, including mobile apps and web-based tools that help improve lifestyle, and their effects on reproductive health. We believe that further implementation of the lifestyle app Smarter Pregnancy designed for subfertile couples seeking assistance to become pregnant is likely to be cost-effective and would allow reproductive health outcomes to be collected.

In Vitro Maturation of Oocytes in Women at Risk of Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome-A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: In vitro maturation (IVM) is an artificial reproductive technology in which immature oocytes are harvested from the ovaries and subsequently will be matured in vitro. IVM does not require ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) and thus the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is avoided. In this study, we assessed the live birth rate per initiated IVM cycle in women eligible for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ ICSI) and at risk for OHSS. Furthermore, we followed women who were not pregnant after IVM and committed to a conventional IVF/ICSI procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multicenter prospective cohort study, we started 76 IVM cycles using recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) priming in 68 patients. There were 66 oocyte retrievals, in which a total of 628 oocytes were collected. We incubated the immature oocytes for 24-48 hours and fertilized those that reached metaphase II by ICSI. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty six (61% oocytes) achieved metaphase II. The fertilization rate was 55%. We performed 59 embryo transfers (1.9 embryos per transfer) in 56 women, including 3 frozen embryo transfers. There were four ongoing pregnancies (5.3% per initiated cycle) leading to the birth of a healthy child at term. None of the patients developed OHSS. The ongoing pregnancy rate of the first conventional IVF/ICSI cycle after an unsuccessful IVM cycle was 44%, which was unexpectedly high. CONCLUSION: We concluded that IVM led to live births but with low effectiveness in our study. Earlier reported IVM success rates are higher which can be caused by a more extended experience in these centers with the intricate laboratory process. However, a possible selection bias in these studies cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, IVM might have a beneficial effect on further IVF/ICSI treatments due to its "ovarian drilling" effect.