Cost-effectiveness of testosterone treatment utilising individual patient data from randomised controlled trials in men with low testosterone levels.

BACKGROUND: Testosterone is safe and highly effective in men with organic hypogonadism, but worldwide testosterone prescribing has recently shifted towards middle-aged and older men, mostly with low testosterone related to age, diabetes and obesity, for whom there is less established evidence of clinical safety and benefit. The value of testosterone treatment in middle-aged and older men with low testosterone is yet to be determined. We therefore evaluated the cost-effectiveness of testosterone treatment in such men with low testosterone compared with no treatment. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis comparing testosterone with no treatment was conducted following best practices in decision modelling. A cohort Markov model incorporating relevant care pathways for individuals with hypogonadism was developed for a 10-year-time horizon. Clinical outcomes were obtained from an individual patient meta-analysis of placebo-controlled, double-blind randomised studies. Three starting age categories were defined: 40, 60 and 75 years. Cost utility (quality-adjusted life years) accrued and costs of testosterone treatment, monitoring and cardiovascular complications were compared to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for selected scenarios. RESULTS: Ten-year excess treatment costs for testosterone compared with non-treatment ranged between £2306 and £3269 per patient. Quality-adjusted life years results depended on the instruments used to measure health utilities. Using Beck depression index-derived quality-adjusted life years data, testosterone was cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <£20,000) for men aged <75 years, regardless of morbidity and mortality sensitivity analyses. Testosterone was not cost-effective in men aged >75 years in models assuming increased morbidity and/or mortality. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH: Our data suggest that testosterone is cost-effective in men <75 years when Beck depression index-derived quality-adjusted life years data are considered; cost-effectiveness in men >75 years is dependent on cardiovascular safety. However, more robust and longer-term cost-utility data are needed to verify our conclusion.

Symptomatic benefits of testosterone treatment in patient subgroups: a systematic review, individual participant data meta-analysis, and aggregate data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Testosterone replacement therapy is known to improve sexual function in men younger than 40 years with pathological hypogonadism. However, the extent to which testosterone alleviates sexual dysfunction in older men and men with obesity is unclear, despite the fact that testosterone is being increasingly prescribed to these patient populations. We aimed to evaluate whether subgroups of men with low testosterone derive any symptomatic benefit from testosterone treatment. METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate characteristics associated with symptomatic benefit of testosterone treatment versus placebo in men aged 18 years and older with a baseline serum total testosterone concentration of less than 12 nmol/L. We searched major electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and clinical trial registries for reports published in English between Jan 1, 1992, and Aug 27, 2018. Anonymised individual participant data were requested from the investigators of all identified trials. Primary (cardiovascular) outcomes from this analysis have been published previously. In this report, we present the secondary outcomes of sexual function, quality of life, and psychological outcomes at 12 months. We did a one-stage individual participant data meta-analysis with a random-effects linear regression model, and a two-stage meta-analysis integrating individual participant data with aggregated data from studies that did not provide individual participant data. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018111005. FINDINGS: 9871 citations were identified through database searches. After exclusion of duplicates and publications not meeting inclusion criteria, 225 full texts were assessed for inclusion, of which 109 publications reporting 35 primary studies (with a total 5601 participants) were included. Of these, 17 trials provided individual participant data (3431 participants; median age 67 years [IQR 60-72]; 3281 [97%] of 3380 aged ≥40 years) Compared with placebo, testosterone treatment increased 15-item International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-15) total score (mean difference 5·52 [95% CI 3·95-7·10]; τ2=1·17; n=1412) and IIEF-15 erectile function subscore (2·14 [1·40-2·89]; τ2=0·64; n=1436), reaching the minimal clinically important difference for mild erectile dysfunction. These effects were not found to be dependent on participant age, obesity, presence of diabetes, or baseline serum total testosterone. However, absolute IIEF-15 scores reached during testosterone treatment were subject to thresholds in patient age and baseline serum total testosterone. Testosterone significantly improved Aging Males' Symptoms score, and some 12-item or 36-item Short Form Survey quality of life subscores compared with placebo, but it did not significantly improve psychological symptoms (measured by Beck Depression Inventory). INTERPRETATION: In men aged 40 years or older with baseline serum testosterone of less than 12 nmol/L, short-to-medium-term testosterone treatment could provide clinically meaningful treatment for mild erectile dysfunction, irrespective of patient age, obesity, or degree of low testosterone. However, due to more severe baseline symptoms, the absolute level of sexual function reached during testosterone treatment might be lower in older men and men with obesity. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Adverse cardiovascular events and mortality in men during testosterone treatment: an individual patient and aggregate data meta-analysis.

Background: Testosterone is the standard treatment for male hypogonadism, but there is uncertainty about its cardiovascular safety due to inconsistent findings. We aimed to provide the most extensive individual participant dataset (IPD) of testosterone trials available, to analyse subtypes of all cardiovascular events observed during treatment, and to investigate the effect of incorporating data from trials that did not provide IPD. Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials including IPD. We searched MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, Embase, Science Citation Index, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Database of Abstracts of Review of Effects for literature from 1992 onwards (date of search, Aug 27, 2018). The following inclusion criteria were applied: (1) men aged 18 years and older with a screening testosterone concentration of 12 nmol/L (350 ng/dL) or less; (2) the intervention of interest was treatment with any testosterone formulation, dose frequency, and route of administration, for a minimum duration of 3 months; (3) a comparator of placebo treatment; and (4) studies assessing the pre-specified primary or secondary outcomes of interest. Details of study design, interventions, participants, and outcome measures were extracted from published articles and anonymised IPD was requested from investigators of all identified trials. Primary outcomes were mortality, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular events at any time during follow-up. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We did a one-stage meta-analysis using IPD, and a two-stage meta-analysis integrating IPD with data from studies not providing IPD. The study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018111005. Findings: 9871 citations were identified through database searches and after exclusion of duplicates and of irrelevant citations, 225 study reports were retrieved for full-text screening. 116 studies were subsequently excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria in terms of study design and characteristics of intervention, and 35 primary studies (5601 participants, mean age 65 years, [SD 11]) reported in 109 peer-reviewed publications were deemed suitable for inclusion. Of these, 17 studies (49%) provided IPD (3431 participants, mean duration 9·5 months) from nine different countries while 18 did not provide IPD data. Risk of bias was judged to be low in most IPD studies (71%). Fewer deaths occurred with testosterone treatment (six [0·4%] of 1621) than placebo (12 [0·8%] of 1537) without significant differences between groups (odds ratio [OR] 0·46 [95% CI 0·17-1·24]; p=0·13). Cardiovascular risk was similar during testosterone treatment (120 [7·5%] of 1601 events) and placebo treatment (110 [7·2%] of 1519 events; OR 1·07 [95% CI 0·81-1·42]; p=0·62). Frequently occurring cardiovascular events included arrhythmia (52 of 166 vs 47 of 176), coronary heart disease (33 of 166 vs 33 of 176), heart failure (22 of 166 vs 28 of 176), and myocardial infarction (10 of 166 vs 16 of 176). Overall, patient age (interaction 0·97 [99% CI 0·92-1·03]; p=0·17), baseline testosterone (interaction 0·97 [0·82-1·15]; p=0·69), smoking status (interaction 1·68 [0·41-6·88]; p=0.35), or diabetes status (interaction 2·08 [0·89-4·82; p=0·025) were not associated with cardiovascular risk. Interpretation: We found no evidence that testosterone increased short-term to medium-term cardiovascular risks in men with hypogonadism, but there is a paucity of data evaluating its long-term safety. Long-term data are needed to fully evaluate the safety of testosterone. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Transfer of thawed frozen embryo versus fresh embryo to improve the healthy baby rate in women undergoing IVF: the E-Freeze RCT.

BACKGROUND: Freezing all embryos, followed by thawing and transferring them into the uterine cavity at a later stage (freeze-all), instead of fresh-embryo transfer may lead to improved pregnancy rates and fewer complications during in vitro fertilisation and pregnancies resulting from it. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate if a policy of freeze-all results in a higher healthy baby rate than the current policy of transferring fresh embryos. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, non-blinded, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Eighteen in vitro fertilisation clinics across the UK participated from February 2016 to April 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of in vitro fertilisation treatment in which the female partner was aged < 42 years. INTERVENTIONS: If at least three good-quality embryos were present on day 3 of embryo development, couples were randomly allocated to either freeze-all (intervention) or fresh-embryo transfer (control). OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was a healthy baby, defined as a live, singleton baby born at term, with an appropriate weight for their gestation. Secondary outcomes included ovarian hyperstimulation, live birth and clinical pregnancy rates, complications of pregnancy and childbirth, health economic outcome, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory scores. RESULTS: A total of 1578 couples were consented and 619 couples were randomised. Most non-randomisations were because of the non-availability of at least three good-quality embryos (n = 476). Of the couples randomised, 117 (19%) did not adhere to the allocated intervention. The rate of non-adherence was higher in the freeze-all arm, with the leading reason being patient choice. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a healthy baby rate of 20.3% in the freeze-all arm and 24.4% in the fresh-embryo transfer arm (risk ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 1.15). Similar results were obtained using complier-average causal effect analysis (risk ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.10), per-protocol analysis (risk ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.26) and as-treated analysis (risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 1.29). The risk of ovarian hyperstimulation was 3.6% in the freeze-all arm and 8.1% in the fresh-embryo transfer arm (risk ratio 0.44, 99% confidence interval 0.15 to 1.30). There were no statistically significant differences between the freeze-all and the fresh-embryo transfer arms in the live birth rates (28.3% vs. 34.3%; risk ratio 0.83, 99% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.06) and clinical pregnancy rates (33.9% vs. 40.1%; risk ratio 0.85, 99% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.11). There was no statistically significant difference in anxiety scores for male participants (mean difference 0.1, 99% confidence interval -2.4 to 2.6) and female participants (mean difference 0.0, 99% confidence interval -2.2 to 2.2) between the arms. The economic analysis showed that freeze-all had a low probability of being cost-effective in terms of the incremental cost per healthy baby and incremental cost per live birth. LIMITATIONS: We were unable to reach the original planned sample size of 1086 and the rate of non-adherence to the allocated intervention was much higher than expected. CONCLUSION: When efficacy, safety and costs are considered, freeze-all is not better than fresh-embryo transfer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN61225414. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

During in vitro fertilisation, eggs and sperm are mixed in a laboratory to create embryos. An embryo is placed in the womb 2­5 days later (fresh-embryo transfer) and the remaining embryos are frozen for future use. Initial research suggested that freezing all embryos followed by thawing and replacing them a few weeks later could improve treatment safety and success. Although these data were promising, the data came from small studies and were not enough to change practice and policy. We conducted a large, multicentre, clinical trial to evaluate the two strategies: fresh-embryo transfer compared with later transfer of frozen embryos. We also compared the costs of both strategies during in vitro fertilisation treatment, pregnancy and delivery. This study was conducted across 18 clinics in the UK from 2016 to 2019, and 619 couples participated. Couples were allocated to one of two strategies: immediate fresh-embryo transfer or freezing of all embryos followed later by transfer of frozen embryo. The study's aim was to find out which type of embryo transfer gave participants a higher chance of having a healthy baby. We found that freezing all embryos followed by frozen-embryo transfer did not lead to a higher chance of having a healthy baby. There were no differences between strategies in the number of live births, the miscarriage rate or the number of pregnancy complications. Fresh-embryo transfer was less costly from both a health-care and a patient perspective. A routine strategy of freezing all embryos is not justified given that there was no increase in success rates but there were extra costs and delays to embryo transfer.

Elective freezing of embryos versus fresh embryo transfer in IVF: a multicentre randomized controlled trial in the UK (E-Freeze).

STUDY QUESTION: Does a policy of elective freezing of embryos, followed by frozen embryo transfer result in a higher healthy baby rate, after first embryo transfer, when compared with the current policy of transferring fresh embryos? SUMMARY ANSWER: This study, although limited by sample size, provides no evidence to support the adoption of a routine policy of elective freeze in preference to fresh embryo transfer in order to improve IVF effectiveness in obtaining a healthy baby. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The policy of freezing all embryos followed by frozen embryo transfer is associated with a higher live birth rate for high responders but a similar/lower live birth after first embryo transfer and cumulative live birth rate for normal responders. Frozen embryo transfer is associated with a lower risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), preterm delivery and low birthweight babies but a higher risk of large babies and pre-eclampsia. There is also uncertainty about long-term outcomes, hence shifting to a policy of elective freezing for all remains controversial given the delay in treatment and extra costs involved in freezing all embryos. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A pragmatic two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial (E-Freeze) was conducted across 18 clinics in the UK from 2016 to 2019. A total of 619 couples were randomized (309 to elective freeze/310 to fresh). The primary outcome was a healthy baby after first embryo transfer (term, singleton live birth with appropriate weight for gestation); secondary outcomes included OHSS, live birth, clinical pregnancy, pregnancy complications and cost-effectiveness. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of IVF/ICSI treatment, with at least three good quality embryos on Day 3 where the female partner was ≥18 and <42 years of age were eligible. Those using donor gametes, undergoing preimplantation genetic testing or planning to freeze all their embryos were excluded. IVF/ICSI treatment was carried out according to local protocols. Women were followed up for pregnancy outcome after first embryo transfer following randomization. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 619 couples randomized, 307 and 309 couples in the elective freeze and fresh transfer arms, respectively, were included in the primary analysis. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in outcomes in the elective freeze group compared to the fresh embryo transfer group: healthy baby rate {20.3% (62/307) versus 24.4% (75/309); risk ratio (RR), 95% CI: 0.84, 0.62 to 1.15}; OHSS (3.6% versus 8.1%; RR, 99% CI: 0.44, 0.15 to 1.30); live birth rate (28.3% versus 34.3%; RR, 99% CI 0.83, 0.65 to 1.06); and miscarriage (14.3% versus 12.9%; RR, 99% CI: 1.09, 0.72 to 1.66). Adherence to allocation was poor in the elective freeze group. The elective freeze approach was more costly and was unlikely to be cost-effective in a UK National Health Service context. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We have only reported on first embryo transfer after randomization; data on the cumulative live birth rate requires further follow-up. Planned target sample size was not obtained and the non-adherence to allocation rate was high among couples in the elective freeze arm owing to patient preference for fresh embryo transfer, but an analysis which took non-adherence into account showed similar results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Results from the E-Freeze trial do not lend support to the policy of electively freezing all for everyone, taking both efficacy, safety and costs considerations into account. This method should only be adopted if there is a definite clinical indication. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (13/115/82). This research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (NIHR unique award identifier) using UK aid from the UK Government to support global health research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. J.L.B., C.C., E.J., P.H., J.J.K., L.L. and G.S. report receipt of funding from NIHR, during the conduct of the study. J.L.B., E.J., P.H., K.S. and L.L. report receipt of funding from NIHR, during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. A.M. reports grants from NIHR personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees for lectures from Merck Serono, Ferring and Cooks outside the submitted work; travel/meeting support from Ferring and Pharmasure and participation in a Ferring advisory board. S.B. reports receipt of royalties and licenses from Cambridge University Press, a board membership role for NHS Grampian and other financial or non-financial interests related to his roles as Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and Editor and Contributing Author of Reproductive Medicine for the MRCOG, Cambridge University Press. D.B. reports grants from NIHR, during the conduct of the study; grants from European Commission, grants from Diabetes UK, grants from NIHR, grants from ESHRE, grants from MRC, outside the submitted work. Y.C. reports speaker fees from Merck Serono, and advisory board role for Merck Serono and shares in Complete Fertility. P.H. reports membership of the HTA Commissioning Committee. E.J. reports membership of the NHS England and NIHR Partnership Programme, membership of five Data Monitoring Committees (Chair of two), membership of six Trial Steering Committees (Chair of four), membership of the Northern Ireland Clinical Trials Unit Advisory Group and Chair of the board of Oxford Brain Health Clinical Trials Unit. R.M. reports consulting fees from Gedeon Richter, honorarium from Merck, support fees for attendance at educational events and conferences for Merck, Ferring, Bessins and Gedeon Richter, payments for participation on a Merck Safety or Advisory Board, Chair of the British Fertility Society and payments for an advisory role to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. G.S. reports travel and accommodation fees for attendance at a health economic advisory board from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. N.R.-F. reports shares in Nurture Fertility. Other authors' competing interests: none declared. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN: 61225414. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 29 December 2015. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 16 February 2016.

Monitoring of stimulated cycles in assisted reproduction (IVF and ICSI).

BACKGROUND: Monitoring of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is necessary to detect as well as reduce the incidence and severity of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) whilst achieving the optimal ovarian response needed for assisted reproduction treatment. Traditional monitoring of ovarian hyperstimulation during in vitro fertilisation IVF and ICSI treatment has included transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS) plus serum estradiol levels. The need for combined monitoring (using TVUS and serum estradiol) during ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction is controversial. It has been suggested that combined monitoring is time consuming, expensive and inconvenient for women and that simplification of IVF and ICSI therapy by using TVUS only should be considered.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of monitoring controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in IVF and ICSI cycles in subfertile couples with TVUS only versus TVUS plus serum estradiol concentration, with respect to rates of live birth, pregnancy and OHSS. SEARCH METHODS: In this update conducted in March 2020, two review authors searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the National Research Register, and web-based trial registers. There was no language restriction applied. All references in the identified trials and background papers were checked and authors were contacted to identify relevant published and unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials that compared monitoring with TVUS only versus TVUS plus serum estradiol concentrations in women undergoing COH for IVF and ICSI treatment were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (IK, AW) independently selected the studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Outcomes data were pooled and summary statistics were presented when appropriate. The quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any new eligible studies in this update in 2020. The evidence based on the six trials identified in 2014 remained unchanged. They included 781 women undergoing monitoring of COH with either TVUS alone or a combination of TVUS and serum estradiol concentration during IVF or ICSI treatment. None of the six studies reported our primary outcome of live birth rate. Two studies presented pregnancy rate per initiated cycle and per embryo transfer, respectively. Four studies reported pregnancy rate per woman with pooled data; we are uncertain of the effect of monitoring with TVUS only versus combined monitoring on clinical pregnancy rate per woman (odds ratio (OR) 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.54; four studies; N = 617; I² = 5%; low quality evidence). This suggests in women with a 36% chance of clinical pregnancy using monitoring with TVUS plus serum estradiol, the clinical pregnancy rate using TVUS only would be between 31% and 46%. We are uncertain of any effect in the mean number of oocytes retrieved per woman (mean difference (MD) 0.32; 95% CI -0.60 to 1.24; five studies; N = 596; I² = 17%; low quality evidence).  We are uncertain whether monitoring with TVUS only versus combined monitoring affected the incidence of OHSS (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.48 to 2.20; six studies; N = 781; I² = 0%; low quality evidence), suggesting that in women with a 4% chance of OHSS using monitoring with TVUS plus serum estradiol, the OHSS rate monitored by TVUS only would be between 2% and 8%. The cycle cancellation rate was similar in both arms of two studies (0/34 versus 1/31, 1/25 versus 1/25; OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.07 to 4.39; N = 115; I² = 0%; low quality evidence).  The evidence was low quality for all comparisons. Limitations included imprecision and potential bias due to unclear randomisation methods, allocation concealment and blinding, as well as differences in treatment protocols. Quality assessment was hampered by the lack of methodological descriptions in several studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review update found no new randomised trials. Evidence from the six studies previously identified did not suggest that combined monitoring by TVUS and serum estradiol is more efficacious than monitoring by TVUS alone with regard to clinical pregnancy rates and the incidence of OHSS. The number of oocytes retrieved appeared similar for both monitoring protocols. The data suggest that both these monitoring methods are safe and reliable. However, these results should be interpreted with caution because the overall quality of the evidence was low. Results were compromised by imprecision and poor reporting of study methodology. The choice of one or the other method may depend upon the convenience of its use, and the associated costs. An economic evaluation of the costs involved with the two methods and the views of the women undergoing cycle monitoring would be welcome.

E-Freeze - a randomised controlled trial evaluating the clinical and cost effectiveness of a policy of freezing embryos followed by thawed frozen embryo transfer compared with a policy of fresh embryo transfer, in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation: a statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: The E-Freeze trial is a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of fresh versus frozen embryo transfer for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation. This paper describes the statistical analysis plan for the E-Freeze trial. METHODS AND DESIGN: E-Freeze is a two-arm parallel-group, multi-centre, individually randomised controlled trial to determine if a policy of freezing embryos, followed by thawed frozen embryo transfer, results in a higher healthy baby rate when compared with the current policy of transferring fresh embryos. Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of in vitro fertilisation at fertility centres in the UK were randomised to either fresh or frozen embryo transfer. The primary outcome is a healthy baby, defined as a live singleton baby born at term with an appropriate weight for gestation. This paper describes the statistical analysis plan for the trial, including the analysis principles, definitions of outcomes, methods for primary analysis, pre-specified subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis. This plan was finalised prior to completion of recruitment to the trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN61225414 . Registered on 29 December 2015.

Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy compared with second-generation endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding: the HEALTH RCT.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem that affects many British women. When initial medical treatment is unsuccessful, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends surgical options such as endometrial ablation (EA) or hysterectomy. Although clinically and economically more effective than EA, total hysterectomy necessitates a longer hospital stay and is associated with slower recovery and a higher risk of complications. Improvements in endoscopic equipment and training have made laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) accessible to most gynaecologists. This operation could preserve the advantages of total hysterectomy and reduce the risk of complications. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LASH with second-generation EA in women with HMB. DESIGN: A parallel-group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Allocation was by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1 ratio). Surgeons and participants were not blinded to the allocated procedure. SETTING: Thirty-one UK secondary and tertiary hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged < 50 years with HMB. Exclusion criteria included plans to conceive; endometrial atypia; abnormal cytology; uterine cavity size > 11 cm; any fibroids > 3 cm; contraindications to laparoscopic surgery; previous EA; and inability to give informed consent or complete trial paperwork. INTERVENTIONS: LASH compared with second-generation EA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Co-primary clinical outcome measures were (1) patient satisfaction and (2) Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Quality-of-Life Scale (MMAS) score at 15 months post randomisation. The primary economic outcome was incremental cost (NHS perspective) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: A total of 330 participants were randomised to each group (total n = 660). Women randomised to LASH were more likely to be satisfied with their treatment than those randomised to EA (97.1% vs. 87.1%) [adjusted difference in proportions 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.15; adjusted odds ratio (OR) from ordinal logistic regression (OLR) 2.53, 95% CI 1.83 to 3.48; p < 0.001]. Women randomised to LASH were also more likely to have the best possible MMAS score of 100 (68.7% vs. 54.5%) (adjusted difference in proportions 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.23; adjusted OR from OLR 1.87, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.67; p = 0.001). Serious adverse event rates were low and similar in both groups (4.5% vs. 3.6%). There was a significant difference in adjusted mean costs between LASH (£2886) and EA (£1282) at 15 months, but no significant difference in QALYs. Based on an extrapolation of expected differences in cost and QALYs out to 10 years, LASH cost an additional £1362 for an average QALY gain of 0.11, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £12,314 per QALY. Probabilities of cost-effectiveness were 53%, 71% and 80% at cost-effectiveness thresholds of £13,000, £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY gained, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Follow-up data beyond 15 months post randomisation are not available to inform cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: LASH is superior to EA in terms of clinical effectiveness. EA is less costly in the short term, but expected higher retreatment rates mean that LASH could be considered cost-effective by 10 years post procedure. FUTURE WORK: Retreatment rates, satisfaction and quality-of-life scores at 10-year follow-up will help to inform long-term cost-effectiveness. TRIAI REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49013893. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 53. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Almost 1.5 million women in England and Wales suffer from heavy periods. Initial treatment involves tablets or a medicated coil inserted within the womb. Sometimes these treatments do not work and many women need an operation, either endometrial ablation (EA) (removing the lining of the womb) or a full hysterectomy (complete removal of the womb). Previous studies have shown that a full hysterectomy is better at relieving symptoms, but the risk of complications during surgery is higher and patients take longer to recover fully. A newer operation, laparoscopic (keyhole) supracervical hysterectomy, or 'LASH', removes only the part of the womb that causes periods and preserves the cervix or neck of the womb. Women who have LASH can expect fewer complications, earlier discharge from hospital and quicker recovery time. In this study, we compared EA with LASH by asking women who had either procedure how they felt about it 1 year after their operation. Regardless of which operation they had, most women were very satisfied and felt that their symptoms were better. However, the results were much better for those who had the LASH operation, although these women stayed in hospital for longer and took more time to recover. There was no difference in complications from either surgery, although nearly 1 in 20 women who had an EA returned within 1 year to have their wombs removed in a second operation. Although LASH led to a greater improvement in symptoms and levels of satisfaction, it was more expensive in terms of costs incurred by both the health service and society. Given that some women who had an EA are likely to need a second operation in the future, LASH surgery may provide better value for money in the long term.

Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy versus endometrial ablation for women with heavy menstrual bleeding (HEALTH): a parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding affects 25% of women in the UK, many of whom require surgery to treat it. Hysterectomy is effective but has more complications than endometrial ablation, which is less invasive but ultimately leads to hysterectomy in 20% of women. We compared laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with endometrial ablation in women seeking surgical treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding. METHODS: In this parallel-group, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial in 31 hospitals in the UK, women younger than 50 years who were referred to a gynaecologist for surgical treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding and who were eligible for endometrial ablation were randomly allocated (1:1) to either laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy or second generation endometrial ablation. Women were randomly assigned by either an interactive voice response telephone system or an internet-based application with a minimisation algorithm based on centre and age group (<40 years vs ≥40 years). Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy involves laparoscopic (keyhole) surgery to remove the upper part of the uterus (the body) containing the endometrium. Endometrial ablation aims to treat heavy menstrual bleeding by destroying the endometrium, which is responsible for heavy periods. The co-primary clinical outcomes were patient satisfaction and condition-specific quality of life, measured with the menorrhagia multi-attribute quality of life scale (MMAS), assessed at 15 months after randomisation. Our analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle. The trial was registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN49013893. FINDINGS: Between May 21, 2014, and March 28, 2017, we enrolled and randomly assigned 660 women (330 in each group). 616 (93%) of 660 women were operated on within the study period, 588 (95%) of whom received the allocated procedure and 28 (5%) of whom had an alternative surgery. At 15 months after randomisation, more women allocated to laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy were satisfied with their operation compared with those in the endometrial ablation group (270 [97%] of 278 women vs 244 [87%] of 280 women; adjusted percentage difference 9·8, 95% CI 5·1-14·5; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2·53, 95% CI 1·83-3·48; p<0·0001). Women randomly assigned to laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy were also more likely to have the best possible MMAS score of 100 than women assigned to endometrial ablation (180 [69%] of 262 women vs 146 [54%] of 268 women; adjusted percentage difference 13·3, 95% CI 3·8-22·8; adjusted OR 1·87, 95% CI 1·31-2·67; p=0·00058). 14 (5%) of 309 women in the laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy group and 11 (4%) of 307 women in the endometrial ablation group had at least one serious adverse event (adjusted OR 1·30, 95% CI 0·56-3·02; p=0·54). INTERPRETATION: Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy is superior to endometrial ablation in terms of clinical effectiveness and has a similar proportion of complications, but takes longer to perform and is associated with a longer recovery. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Study protocol: E-freeze - freezing of embryos in assisted conception: a randomised controlled trial evaluating the clinical and cost effectiveness of a policy of freezing embryos followed by thawed frozen embryo transfer compared with a policy of fresh embryo transfer, in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation.

BACKGROUND: Infertility affects one in seven couples; many of these need in vitro fertilisation (IVF). IVF involves external hormones to stimulate a woman's ovaries to produce eggs which are harvested surgically. Embryos, created in the laboratory by mixing eggs with sperm, are grown in culture for a few days before being replaced within the uterus (fresh embryo transfer). Spare embryos are usually frozen with a view to transfer at a later point in time - especially if the initial fresh transfer does not result in a pregnancy. Despite improvements in technology, IVF success rates remain low with an overall live birth rate of 25-30% per treatment. Additionally, there are concerns about health outcomes for mothers and babies conceived through IVF, particularly after fresh embryo transfer, including maternal ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and preterm delivery. It is believed that high levels of hormones during ovarian stimulation could create a relatively hostile environment for embryo implantation whilst increasing the risk of OHSS. It has been suggested that freezing all embryos with the intention of thawing and replacing them within the uterus at a later stage (thawed frozen embryo transfer) instead of fresh embryo transfer, may lead to improved pregnancy rates and fewer complications. We aim to compare the clinical and cost effectiveness of fresh and thawed frozen embryo transfer, with the primary aim of identifying any difference in the chance of having a healthy baby. METHODS: E-Freeze is a pragmatic, multicentre two-arm parallel group randomised controlled trial where women aged ≥18 and < 42 years, with at least three good quality embryos are randomly allocated to receive either a fresh or thawed frozen embryo transfer. The primary outcome is a healthy baby, defined as a term, singleton, live birth with appropriate weight for gestation. Cost effectiveness will be calculated from a healthcare and societal perspective. DISCUSSION: E-Freeze will determine the relative benefits of fresh and thawed frozen embryo transfer in terms of improving the chance of having a healthy baby. The results of this pragmatic study have the potential to be directly transferred to clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN61225414 . Date assigned 29/12/2015.

Preventing recurrence of endometriosis by means of long-acting progestogen therapy (PRE-EMPT): report of an internal pilot, multi-arm, randomised controlled trial incorporating flexible entry design and adaption of design based on feasibility of recruitment.

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis is associated with the growth of endometrium in ectopic sites mainly within the pelvis. This results in inflammation and scarring, causing pain and impaired quality of life. Endometriotic lesions can be excised or ablated surgically, but the risk of recurrence is high. A Heath Technology Assessment commissioning call in 2011 sought applications for trials aimed at evaluating long-term effectiveness of postoperative, long-acting, reversible contraceptives (LARCs) in preventing recurrence of endometriosis. A survey of gynaecologists indicated that there was no consensus about which LARC (Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System (LNG-IUS) or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate injection (DMPA)) or comparator (combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) or no treatment) should be evaluated. Hence, we designed a 'flexible-entry' internal pilot to assess whether a four-arm trial was feasible including a possible design adaption based on pilot findings. METHODS: In this pilot, women could be randomised to two, three or four treatment options provided that one was a LARC and one was a non-LARC. An assessment of feasibility based on recruitment to these options and a revised substantive trial design was considered by an independent oversight committee. RESULTS: The study ran for 1 year from April 2014 and 77 women were randomised. Only 5 (6%) women accepted randomisation to all groups, with 63 (82%) having a LARC preference and 55 (71%) a non-LARC preference. Four-way and three-way designs were ruled out with a two-way LARC versus COCP design, stratified by prerandomisation choice of LARC and optional subrandomisation to LNG-IUS versus DMPA considered a feasible substantive study. CONCLUSIONS: Multi-arm studies are potentially efficient as they can answer multiple questions simultaneously but are difficult to recruit to if there are strong patient or clinician preferences. A flexible approach to randomisation in a pilot phase can be used to assess feasibility of such studies and modify a trial design based on chosen recruitment options, but trialists should consider carefully any practical arrangements should groups need to be dropped during a study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number, ISRCTN97865475 . Registered on 20 March 2014.

Pharmaceutical treatments to prevent recurrence of endometriosis following surgery: a model-based economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: Conduct an economic evaluation based on best currently available evidence comparing alternative treatments levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate, combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) and 'no treatment' to prevent recurrence of endometriosis after conservative surgery in primary care, and to inform the design of a planned trial-based economic evaluation. METHODS: We developed a state transition (Markov) model with a 36-month follow-up. The model structure was informed by a pragmatic review and clinical experts. The economic evaluation adopted a UK National Health Service perspective and was based on an outcome of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). As available data were limited, intentionally wide distributions were assigned around model inputs, and the average costs and outcome of the probabilistic sensitivity analyses were reported. RESULTS: On average, all strategies were more expensive and generated fewer QALYs compared to no treatment. However, uncertainty attributing to the transition probabilities affected the results. Inputs relating to effectiveness, changes in treatment and the time at which the change is made were the main causes of uncertainty, illustrating areas where robust and specific data collection is required. CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no evidence to support any treatment being recommended to prevent the recurrence of endometriosis following conservative surgery. The study highlights the importance of developing decision models at the outset of a trial to identify data requirements to conduct a robust post-trial analysis.

Gabapentin for the Management of Chronic Pelvic Pain in Women (GaPP1): A Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial.

Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) affects 2.1-24% of women. Frequently, no underlying pathology is identified, and the pain is difficult to manage. Gabapentin is prescribed for CPP despite no robust evidence of efficacy. We performed a pilot trial in two UK centres to inform the planning of a future multicentre RCT to evaluate gabapentin in CPP management. Our primary objective was to determine levels of participant recruitment and retention. Secondary objectives included estimating potential effectiveness, acceptability to participants of trial methodology, and cost-effectiveness of gabapentin. Women with CPP and no obvious pelvic pathology were assigned to an increasing regimen of gabapentin (300-2700 mg daily) or placebo. We calculated the proportion of eligible women randomised, and of randomised participants who were followed up to six months. The analyses by treatment group were by intention-to-treat. Interviews were conducted to evaluate women's experiences of the trial. A probabilistic decision analytical model was used to estimate cost-effectiveness. Between September 2012-2013, 47 women (34% of those eligible) were randomised (22 to gabapentin, 25 to placebo), and 25 (53%) completed six-month follow-up. Participants on gabapentin had less pain (BPI difference 1.72 points, 95% CI:0.07-3.36), and an improvement in mood (HADS difference 4.35 points, 95% CI:1.97-6.73) at six months than those allocated placebo. The majority of participants described their trial experience favorably. At the UK threshold for willingness-to-pay, the probabilities of gabapentin or no treatment being cost-effective are similar. A pilot trial assessing gabapentin for CPP was feasible, but uncertainty remains, highlighting the need for a large definitive trial.

What women want from women's reproductive health research: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Researchers are being urged to involve patients in the design and conduct of studies in health care with limited insight at present into their needs, abilities or interests. This is particularly true in the field of reproductive health care where many conditions such as pregnancy, menopause and fertility problems involve women who are otherwise healthy. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the feasibility of involving patients and members of the public in research on women's reproductive health care (WRH). SETTING: University and tertiary care hospital in north-east Scotland; 37 women aged 18-57. METHOD: Four focus groups and one individual interview were audio-recorded and verbatim transcripts analysed thematically by two researchers using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Most participants were interested in WRH, but some participated to promote a health issue of special concern to them. Priorities for research reflected women's personal concerns: endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, menopause, fertility risks of delaying parenthood and early post-natal discharge from hospital. Women were initially enthusiastic about getting involved in research on WRH at the design or delivery stage, but after discussion in focus groups, some questioned their ability to do so or the time available to commit to research. None of the respondents expected payment for any involvement, believing that the experience would be rewarding enough in itself. CONCLUSIONS: Involving patients and public in research would include different perspectives and priorities; however, recruiting for this purpose would be challenging.

Monitoring of stimulated cycles in assisted reproduction (IVF and ICSI).

BACKGROUND: Traditional monitoring of ovarian hyperstimulation during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment has included transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS) plus serum estradiol levels to ensure safe practice by reducing the incidence and severity of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) whilst achieving the good ovarian response needed for assisted reproduction treatment. The need for combined monitoring (using TVUS and serum estradiol) during ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction is controversial. It has been suggested that combined monitoring is time consuming, expensive and inconvenient for women and that simplification of IVF and ICSI therapy by using TVUS only should be considered. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of monitoring controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in IVF and ICSI cycles in subfertile couples with TVUS only versus TVUS plus serum estradiol concentration, with respect to rates of live birth, pregnancy and OHSS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the National Research Register, and web-based trial registers such as Current Controlled Trials. The last search was conducted in May 2014. There was no language restriction applied. All references in the identified trials and background papers were checked and authors were contacted to identify relevant published and unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials that compared monitoring with TVUS only versus TVUS plus serum estradiol concentrations in women undergoing COH for IVF and ICSI treatment were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently selected the studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. They resolved disagreements by discussion with the rest of the authors. Outcomes data were pooled and summary statistics were presented when appropriate. The quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: With this update, four new studies were identified resulting in a total of six trials including 781 women undergoing monitoring of COH with either TVUS alone or a combination of TVUS and serum estradiol concentration during IVF or ICSI treatment.None of the six studies reported our primary outcome of live birth rate. Pooled data showed no evidence of a difference in clinical pregnancy rate per woman between monitoring with TVUS only and combined monitoring (odds ratio (OR) 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.54; four studies; N = 617; I² = 5%; low quality evidence). This suggests that compared with women with a 34% chance of clinical pregnancy using monitoring with TVUS plus serum estradiol, the clinical pregnancy rate in women using TVUS only was between 29% and 44%.There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the reported cases of OHSS (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.48 to 2.20; six studies; N = 781; I² = 0%; low quality evidence), suggesting that compared with women with a 4% chance of OHSS using monitoring with TVUS plus serum estradiol, the OHSS rate in women monitored by TVUSS only was between 2% and 8%.There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the mean number of oocytes retrieved pre woman (mean difference (MD) 0.32; 95% CI -0.60 to 1.24; five studies; N = 596; I² = 17%; low quality evidence).The evidence was low quality for all comparisons. Limitations included imprecision and potential bias due to unclear randomisation methods, allocation concealment and blinding, as well as differences in treatment protocols. Quality assessment was hampered by the lack of methodological descriptions in several studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review update found no evidence from randomised trials to suggest that combined monitoring by TVUS and serum estradiol is more efficacious than monitoring by TVUS alone with regard to clinical pregnancy rates and the incidence of OHSS. The number of oocytes retrieved appeared similar for both monitoring protocols. The data suggest that both these monitoring methods are safe and reliable. However, these results should be interpreted with caution because the overall quality of the evidence was low. Results were compromised by imprecision and poor reporting of study methodology. A combined monitoring protocol including both TVUS and serum estradiol may need to be retained as precautionary good clinical practice and as a confirmatory test in a subset of women to identify those at high risk of OHSS. An economic evaluation of the costs involved with the two methods and the views of the women undergoing cycle monitoring would be welcome.

Cost of fertility treatment and live birth outcome in women of different ages and BMI.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the impact of different age and BMI groups on total investigation and treatment costs in women attending a secondary/tertiary care fertility clinic? SUMMARY ANSWER: Women in their early to mid-30s and women with normal BMI had higher cumulative investigation and treatment costs, but also higher probability of live birth. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Female age and BMI have been used as criteria for rationing publically funded fertility treatments. Population-based data on the costs of investigating and treating infertility are lacking. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION: A retrospective cohort study of 2463 women was conducted in a single secondary/tertiary care fertility clinic in Aberdeen, Scotland from 1998 to 2008. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants included all women living in a defined geographical area referred from primary care to a specialized fertility clinic over an 11-year period. Women were followed up for 5 years or until live birth if this occurred sooner. Mean discounted cumulative National Health Service costs (expressed in 2010/2011 GBP) of fertility investigations, treatments (including all types of assisted reproduction), and pregnancy (including delivery episode) and neonatal admissions were calculated and summarized by age (≤ 30, 31-35, 36-40, >40 years) and BMI groupings (<18.50, 18.50-24.99 (normal BMI), 25.00-29.99, 30.00-34.99, ≥ 35.00 kg/m(2)). Further multivariate modelling was carried out to estimate the impact of age and BMI on investigation and treatment costs and live birth outcome, adjusting for covariates predictive of the treatment pathway and live birth. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 2463 women referred, 1258 (51.1%) had a live birth within 5 years, with 694 (55.1%) of these being natural conceptions. The live birth rate was highest among women in the youngest age group (64.3%), and lowest in those aged >40 years (13.4%). Overall live birth rates were generally lower in women with BMI >30 kg/m(2). The total costs of investigations were generally highest among women younger than 30 years (£491 in those with normal BMI), whilst treatment costs tended to be higher in 31-35 year olds (£1,840 in those with normal BMI). Multivariate modelling predicted a cost increase associated with treatment which was highest among women in the lowest BMI group (across all ages), and also highest among women aged 31-35 years. The increase in the predicted probability of live birth with exposure to treatment was consistent across age and BMI categories (∼ 10%), except in the oldest age group where a slightly smaller increase in the probability of live birth was observed. The ratio of increased costs to the increased probability of live birth in women who were treated increased markedly in women over the age of 40 years, but tended to fall as BMI increased within all age groups. LIMITATIONS AND REASON FOR CAUTION: Our results, based on retrospective observational data from a single centre, have limited generalizability and are not free from clinician and clinic selection bias which can influence the choice of treatments as well as their costs. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Spontaneous live birth rates were particularly high in younger women with unexplained infertility, suggesting that expectant management is a reasonable option in this group. The policy of not over-investigating older women and offering early treatment where appropriate still incurred the highest costs per additional live birth associated with treatment, owing to the lower probability of treatment success. The increased additional cost for each live birth associated with treatment for women with decreasing BMI across all age groups, suggests that it may be possible to identify a more targeted approach to treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was partly funded by an NHS endowment grant (Grant Number 12/48) and D.J.M. by a Chief Scientist Office Postdoctoral Fellowship (Ref PDF/12/06). There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

Global variations in the uptake of single embryo transfer.

BACKGROUND: Single embryo transfer (SET) is the most effective way of reducing multiple pregnancy rates associated with assisted reproductive technology (ART). Despite published evidence suggesting that the judicious use of elective SET can lead to near-elimination of multiples without compromising cumulative live birth rates, the uptake of this strategy has been variable. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (1978-2010) were searched using appropriate MeSH headings. Leading fertility journals along with appropriate cross references were hand searched and information retrieved from national ART registers and websites of national fertility societies in order to determine current rates of SET. We explored social, economic and clinical factors determining the uptake of SET. RESULTS: It was not possible to distinguish elective from non-elective SET from national ART reports. Data from 31 countries suggest that there has been a gradual increase in SET rates over a 3 year period (2003-2005) but major geographical differences were noted. SET rates are highest in Sweden (69.4%) but are as low as 2.8% in the USA. Access to public funding for ART, availability of good cryopreservation facilities and legislation appear to be the most important reasons favouring the uptake of SET. Personal choice plays a significant role as many subfertile couples have a strong preference for twins. Awareness that double embryo transfer (DET) increases live birth per fresh treatment cycle, inability to accurately identify women at high risk for twins and limitations of existing embryos selection criteria are barriers to a wider acceptance of SET. CONCLUSIONS: The current variation in the uptake of elective SET is likely to persist until there are major changes in the way ART is viewed, funded and legislated.

The role of intrauterine insemination in male infertility.

Male infertility is a common condition and intrauterine insemination (IUI) is used to treat the mild to moderate forms. Male subfertility determination is usually based on routine semen analysis but recent publications have questioned its diagnostic and prognostic accuracy as well as the effectiveness of IUI itself, as a treatment modality. We carried out a structured review of the literature to assess the current evidence regarding the diagnosis of male infertility, the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of IUI in male infertility and factors that affect the outcome of IUI. There is still uncertainty regarding the criteria for diagnosing male infertility and predicting treatment outcome based on standard semen parameters. The presence of seminal defects compromises the outcome of IUI in comparison with unexplained infertility. The total motile sperm count (TMSC) appears to have a consistent, direct relationship with treatment outcome, but there is no definite predictive threshold for success. However, it is reasonable to offer IUI as first-line treatment if TMSC is greater than 10 million when balancing the risk and cost of alternate treatments, such as in vitro fertilization (IVF). Sperm DNA studies and sperm preparation techniques warrant further studies in order to establish their clinical relevance. There are limited data on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of IUI in male infertility and large high-quality randomized controlled trials are warranted. However the difficulties in organizing such a study, at the present time, are a matter for discussion.

Direct health services costs of providing assisted reproduction services in older women.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the total health service costs incurred for each live birth achieved by older women undergoing IVF compared with costs in younger women. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: In vitro fertilization unit and maternity hospital in a tertiary care setting. PATIENT(S): Women who underwent their first cycle of IVF between 1997 and 2006. INTERVENTION(S): Bottom-up costs were calculated for all interventions in the IVF cycle. Early pregnancy and antenatal care costs were obtained from National Health Service reference costs, Information Services Division Scotland, and local departmental costs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Cost per live birth. RESULT(S): The mean cost per live birth (95% confidence interval [CI]) in women undergoing IVF at the age of > or =40 years was pound 40,320 (pound 27,105- pound 65,036), which is >2.5 times higher than those aged 35-39 years (pound 17,096 [pound 15,635- pound 18,937]). The cost per ongoing pregnancy was almost three times in women aged > or =40 (pound 31,642 [pound 21,241- pound 58,979]) compared with women 35-39 years of age (pound 11,300 [pound 10,006- pound 12,938]). CONCLUSION(S): The cost of a live birth after IVF rises significantly at the age of 40 years owing to lower success rates. Most of the extra cost is due to the low success of IVF treatment, but some of it is due to higher rates of early pregnancy loss.

The direct health services costs of providing assisted reproduction services in overweight or obese women: a retrospective cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence of overweight and obesity is rising. Hence, it is likely that a higher proportion of women undergoing assisted reproduction treatment are overweight or obese. METHODS: In a retrospective cross-sectional analysis using routinely collected data of an IVF Unit and maternity hospital in a tertiary care setting in the UK, direct costs were assessed for all weight classes. Costs for underweight, overweight and obese were compared with those for women with normal body mass index (BMI). RESULTS: Of 1756 women, who underwent their first cycle of IVF between 1997 and 2006, 43 (2.4%) were underweight; 988 (56.3%) had normal BMI; 491 (28.0%) were overweight; 148 (8.4%) were obese (class I) and 86 (4.9%) were obese (class II). The mean (95% CI) cost of each live birth resulting from IVF was pound 18,747 (13 864-27 361) in underweight group; pound 16,497 (15 374-17 817) in women with normal BMI; pound 18,575 (16,648-21,081) in overweight women; pound 18,805 (15 397-23 554) in obese class I; pound 20,282 (15 288-28 424) in obese class II or over. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of a live birth resulting from IVF is not different in underweight, overweight and obese class I when compared with women with normal BMI. However, due to increased obstetric complications weight loss should still be recommended prior to commencing IVF even in overweight or obese (class I) women.