[Sustainability as a pillar of our healthcare system]. / Duurzaamheid als nieuwe pijler van ons zorgstelsel.

When making choices in healthcare, in addition to quality, affordability and accessibility, sustainability (climate and environmental impact) must also be taken into account. Dutch healthcare is responsible for 7% of the entire CO2 footprint, 4% of all waste and 13% of raw material consumption. In addition to the fact that making buildings and processes in healthcare more sustainable is desperately needed, we advocate that we also look at the care provided. We propose two approaches: firstly, not delivering the care that has no added value for the patient is the most sustainable care. So that needs to be looked at even more critically. Secondly, the effect on climate and the environment must be taken into account when choices are made between different care options. The social discussion should be conducted about how negative effects on the sustainability of the planet relate to (small) positive effects on individual health. How do quality, affordability and accessibility relate to sustainability? Given the urgency of the climate crisis, these questions need to be addressed now.

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

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

Nurturing Societal Values in and Through Health Innovations Comment on "What Health System Challenges Should Responsible Innovation in Health Address?"

Aligning innovation processes in healthcare with health system demands is a societal objective, not always achieved. In line with earlier contributions, Lehoux et al outline priorities for research, public communication, and policy action to achieve this objective. We endorse setting these priorities, while also highlighting a 'commitment gap' in collectively addressing system-level challenges. To acknowledge that stakeholders engaged in dialogue with one another are addressing the commitment gap is not a small step but a giant leap towards realising a socially responsible innovation agenda. Translating system-level demand signals into innovation opportunities is, therefore, the task-cum-art of all stakeholders, one that often prompts them to innovate how they deal with innovations.

The ethics of clinical applications of germline genome modification: a systematic review of reasons.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the reasons for or against the future clinical application of germline genome modification (GGM)? SUMMARY ANSWER: A total of 169 reasons were identified, including 90 reasons for and 79 reasons against future clinical application of GGM. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: GGM is still unsafe and insufficiently effective for clinical purposes. However, the progress made using Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR)- CRISPR-associated system (Cas) has led scientists to expect to overcome the technical hurdles in the foreseeable future. This has invited a debate on the socio-ethical and legal implications and acceptability of clinical applications of GGM. However, an overview of the reasons presented in this debate is missing. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: MEDLINE was systematically searched for articles published between January 2011 and June 2016. Articles covering reasons for or against clinical application of intentional modification of the nuclear DNA of the germline were included. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Two researchers independently extracted the reported reasons from the articles and grouped them into categories through content analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The systematic search yielded 1179 articles and 180 articles were included. Most papers were written by professionals in ethics, (science) journalism and biomedical sciences. Overall, 169 reasons were identified, including 90 reasons for, and 79 reasons against future clinical application of GGM. None of the included articles mentioned more than 60/169 reasons. The reasons could be categorized into: (i) quality of life of affected individuals; (ii) safety; (iii) effectiveness; (iv) existence of a clinical need or alternative; (v) costs; (vi) homo sapiens as a species (i.e. relating to effects on our species); (vii) social justice; (viii) potential for misuse; (ix) special interests exercising influence; (x) parental rights and duties; (xi) comparability to acceptable processes; (xii) rights of the unborn child; and (xiii) human life and dignity. Considerations relating to the implementation processes and regulation were reported. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We cannot ensure completeness as reasons may have been omitted in the reviewed literature and our search was limited to MEDLINE and a 5-year time period. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Besides needing (pre)clinical studies on safety and effectiveness, authors call for a sound pre-implementation process. This overview of reasons may assist a thorough evaluation of the responsible introduction of GGM. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): University of Amsterdam, Alliance Grant of the Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute (I.D.), and Clinical Center, Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Program (S.H.). There are no competing interests.

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.

[Oocyte vitrification: for whom?]. / Eicelvitrificatie: voor wie eigenlijk? Een dwarsdoorsnede-onderzoek.

OBJECTIVE: To study the indications of oocyte vitrification in women who undergo this intervention. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHOD: We collected the indications of oocyte vitrification in women who underwent, or started ovarian stimulation for, this intervention between May 2006 and December 31st 2013. Indications were subcategorized into six groups: no sperm available during IVF or ICSI treatment, planned gonadotoxic therapy, ovarian surgery, risk on premature ovarian insufficiency , previous gonadotoxic therapy, and anticipated gamete exhaustion. RESULTS: During the study period 298 women vitrified oocytes or started with ovarian stimulation for oocyte vitrification. The majority of the women (33%) vitrified oocytes because of anticipated gamete exhaustion. Planned gonadotoxic treatment was for 81 women (27%) the reason for oocyte vitrification. CONCLUSION: With oocyte vitrification women are able to extend the time at which they can conceive. The future will tell whether the benefits of oocyte vitrification outweigh the risks and costs.

Cost-effectiveness of assisted conception for male subfertility.

Intrauterine insemination (IUI), with or without ovarian stimulation, IVF and intracytoplasmatic sperm injection (ICSI) are frequently used treatments for couples with male subfertility. No consensus has been reached on specific cut-off values for semen parameters, at which IVF would be advocated over IUI and ICSI over IVF. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of interventions for male subfertility according to total motile sperm count (TMSC). A computer-simulated cohort of subfertile women aged 30 years with a partner was analysed with a pre-wash TMSC of 0 to 10 million. Three treatments were evaluated: IUI with and without controlled ovarian stimulation; IVF; and ICSI. Main outcome was expected live birth; secondary outcomes were cost per couple and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The choice of IVF over IUI with ovarian stimulation and ICSI over IVF depends on the willingness to pay for an extra live birth. If only cost per live birth is considered for each treatment, above a pre-wash TMSC of 3 million, IUI is less costly than IVF and, below a pre-wash, TMSC of 3 million ICSI is less costly. Effectiveness needs to be confirmed in a large randomized controlled trial.

The INeS study: prevention of multiple pregnancies: a randomised controlled trial comparing IUI COH versus IVF e SET versus MNC IVF in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility.

BACKGROUND: Multiple pregnancies are high risk pregnancies with higher chances of maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity. In the past decades the number of multiple pregnancies has increased. This trend is partly due to the fact that women start family planning at an increased age, but also due to the increased use of ART.Couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility generally receive intrauterine insemination IUI with controlled hormonal stimulation (IUI COH). The cumulative pregnancy rate is 40%, with a 10% multiple pregnancy rate.This study aims to reveal whether alternative treatments such as IVF elective Single Embryo Transfer (IVF e SET) or Modified Natural Cycle IVF (MNC IVF) can reduce the number of multiple pregnancy rates, but uphold similar pregnancy rates as IUI COH in couples with mild male or unexplained subfertility. Secondly, the aim is to perform a cost effective analyses and assess treatment preference of these couples. METHODS/DESIGN: We plan a multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial in the Netherlands comparing six cycles of intra-uterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation or six cycles of Modified Natural Cycle (MNC) IVF or three cycles with IVF-elective Single Embryo Transfer (eSET) plus cryo-cycles within a time frame of 12 months.Couples with unexplained subfertility or mild male subfertility and a poor prognosis for treatment independent pregnancy will be included. Women with anovulatory cycles, severe endometriosis, double sided tubal pathology or serious endocrine illness will be excluded.Our primary outcome is the birth of a healthy singleton. Secondary outcomes are multiple pregnancy, treatment costs, and patient experiences in each treatment arm. The analysis will be performed according tot the intention to treat principle. We will test for non-inferiority of the three arms with respect to live birth. As we accept a 12.5% loss in pregnancy rate in one of the two IVF arms to prevent multiple pregnancies, we need 200 couples per arm (600 couples in total). DISCUSSION: Determining the safest and most cost-effective treatment will ensure optimal chances of pregnancy for subfertile couples with substantially diminished perinatal and maternal complications. Should patients find the most cost-effective treatment acceptable or even preferable, this could imply the need for a world wide shift in the primary treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 52843371.

Assessment of Chlamydia trachomatis infection of semen specimens by ligase chain reaction.

Diagnostic potential of the Chlamydia trachomatis ligase chain reaction system (LCx) to assess the presence of C. trachomatis in urine and semen specimens was evaluated. Paired urine and semen specimens from 153 asymptomatic male partners of subfertile couples attending our Center for Reproductive Medicine were examined by LCx. As controls, 19 semen samples from four donors who were participating in the programme for artificial insemination were used. Of these, 12 samples had previously been shown to be C. trachomatis-positive by an in-house PCR. C. trachomatis was detected by LCx in seven of 153 (5 %) urine samples. None of the 153 semen samples tested positive by LCx. Also, none of the 12 C. trachomatis-containing control semen samples were positive by LCx. By in-house PCR, seven urine specimens and two of 153 (1 %) semen samples tested positive. The corresponding urine samples of these male partners were also C. trachomatis-positive, as well as the 12 C. trachomatis-containing samples from donors. In conclusion, LCx is not sensitive enough to assess the presence of C. trachomatis in semen specimens; therefore, this method is not recommended to routinely screen semen specimens from donors who participate in programmes for artificial insemination or male partners of subfertile couples for C. trachomatis.