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.

Cost-effectiveness of single versus double embryo transfer in IVF in relation to female age.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of single embryo transfer followed by an additional frozen-thawed single embryo transfer, if more embryos are available, as compared to double embryo transfer in relation to female age. STUDY DESIGN: We used a decision tree model to evaluate the costs from a healthcare provider perspective and the pregnancy rates of two embryo transfer policies: one fresh single embryo transfer followed by an additional frozen-thawed single embryo transfer, if more embryos are available (strategy I), and double embryo transfer (strategy II). The analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Sensitivity analyses were carried out to evaluate the robustness of our model and to identify which model parameters had the strongest impact on the results. RESULTS: SET followed by an additional frozen-thawed single embryo transfer if available was dominant, less costly and more effective, over DET in women under 32 years. In women aged 32 or older DET was more effective than SET followed by an additional frozen-thawed single embryo transfer if available but also more costly. CONCLUSION: SET followed by an additional frozen-thawed single embryo transfer should be the preferred strategy in women under 32 undergoing IVF. The choice for SET followed by an additional frozen-thawed single embryo transfer or DET in women aged 32 or older depends on individual patient preferences and on how much society is willing to pay for an extra child. There is a strong need for a randomized clinical trial comparing the cost and effects of SET followed by an additional frozen-thawed single embryo transfer and DET in the latter category of women.