Clinical outcomes of uninterrupted embryo culture with or without time-lapse-based embryo selection versus interrupted standard culture (SelecTIMO): a three-armed, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Time-lapse monitoring is increasingly used in fertility laboratories to culture and select embryos for transfer. This method is offered to couples with the promise of improving pregnancy chances, even though there is currently insufficient evidence for superior clinical results. We aimed to evaluate whether a potential improvement by time-lapse monitoring is caused by the time-lapse-based embryo selection method itself or the uninterrupted culture environment that is part of the system. METHODS: In this three-armed, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, couples undergoing in-vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection were recruited from 15 fertility clinics in the Netherlands and randomly assigned using a web-based, computerised randomisation service to one of three groups. Couples and physicians were masked to treatment group, but embryologists and laboratory technicians could not be. The time-lapse early embryo viability assessment (EEVA; TLE) group received embryo selection based on the EEVA time-lapse selection method and uninterrupted culture. The time-lapse routine (TLR) group received routine embryo selection and uninterrupted culture. The control group received routine embryo selection and interrupted culture. The co-primary endpoints were the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate within 12 months in all women and the ongoing pregnancy rate after fresh single embryo transfer in a good prognosis population. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered on the ICTRP Search Portal, NTR5423, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: 1731 couples were randomly assigned between June 15, 2017, and March 31, 2020 (577 to the TLE group, 579 to the TLR group, and 575 to the control group). The 12-month cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate did not differ significantly between the three groups: 50·8% (293 of 577) in the TLE group, 50·9% (295 of 579) in the TLR group, and 49·4% (284 of 575) in the control group (p=0·85). The ongoing pregnancy rates after fresh single embryo transfer in a good prognosis population were 38·2% (125 of 327) in the TLE group, 36·8% (119 of 323) in the TLR group, and 37·8% (123 of 325) in the control group (p=0·90). Ten serious adverse events were reported (five TLE, four TLR, and one in the control group), which were not related to study procedures. INTERPRETATION: Neither time-lapse-based embryo selection using the EEVA test nor uninterrupted culture conditions in a time-lapse incubator improved clinical outcomes compared with routine methods. Widespread application of time-lapse monitoring for fertility treatments with the promise of improved results should be questioned. FUNDING: Health Care Efficiency Research programme from Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development and Merck.

Anxiety, depression, and body image among infertile women with and without polycystic ovary syndrome.

STUDY QUESTION: In women undergoing fertility treatment, do those with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have a higher prevalence of symptoms of anxiety and depression and lower body appreciation than women without PCOS? SUMMARY ANSWER: Having PCOS was not associated with symptoms of anxiety and depression but was associated with somewhat lower body appreciation. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: PCOS has been associated with a higher chance to develop mental health problems, like anxiety, and body image concerns. The International Guidelines on PCOS recommend that all women with PCOS should routinely be screened for anxiety and depressive disorders. In most studies in this field, the comparison group included healthy women without fertility problems. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We conducted a cross-sectional survey study between May 2021 and July 2023, using an online questionnaire. We informed women about this study at fertility clinics in the Netherlands through posters and leaflets and on the websites of the Dutch patient organizations Freya and Stichting PCOS. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: This study included women with infertility, with and without PCOS, who were undergoing fertility treatment. Women completed two assessment tools: the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Body Appreciation Scale-2 (BAS-2). Primary outcomes were clinically relevant symptoms of anxiety (score ≥ 11) and depression (score ≥ 11), and BAS-2 scores. Secondary outcomes were mean anxiety and depression scores and anxiety and depression scores of 8 and higher. Dichotomous outcomes and continuous outcomes were analysed using logistic and linear regression analyses adjusted for age, BMI, and duration of infertility. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 1025 women currently undergoing infertility treatment participated, of whom 502 (49.0%) had PCOS and 523 (51.0%) had other infertility diagnoses. We found self-reported clinically relevant symptoms of anxiety in 33.1% of women with PCOS and in 31.0% of women with other infertility diagnoses (adjusted OR: 0.99, 95% CI 0.74-1.31). Clinically relevant symptoms of depression were reported in 15.5% of women with PCOS versus 14.5% of women with other infertility diagnoses (adjusted OR: 1.04, 95% CI 0.71-1.50). Women with PCOS reported slightly less body appreciation (adjusted mean difference: -1.34, 95% CI -2.32 to -0.36). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Results are based on self-report and may have been affected by sampling bias. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Although guidelines recommend screening women with PCOS, feelings of anxiety and depression can be present in any woman undergoing fertility treatments. We advise fertility clinics to be aware of women's mental health issues and to offer support accordingly, as a part of routine care. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study did not receive specific funding. All authors report no conflict of interest related to the current research. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study was pre-registered at OSF: https://osf.io/qbeav.

Long-term outcomes of switching to gonadotrophins versus continuing with clomiphene citrate, with or without intrauterine insemination, in women with normogonadotropic anovulation and clomiphene failure: follow-up study of a factorial randomized clinical trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the long-term outcomes after allocation to use of gonadotrophins versus clomiphene citrate (CC) with or without IUI in women with normogonadotropic anovulation and clomiphene failure? SUMMARY ANSWER: About four in five women with normogonadotropic anovulation and CC failure had a live birth, with no evidence of a difference in pregnancy outcomes between the allocated groups. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: CC has long been used as first line treatment for ovulation induction in women with normogonadotropic anovulation. Between 2009 and 2015, a two-by-two factorial multicentre randomized clinical trial in 666 women with normogonadotropic anovulation and six cycles of CC failure was performed (M-ovin trial). This study compared a switch to gonadotrophins with continued treatment with CC for another six cycles, with or without IUI within 8 months. Switching to gonadotrophins increased the chance of conception leading to live birth by 11% over continued treatment with CC after six failed ovulatory cycles, at a cost of €15 258 per additional live birth. The addition of IUI did not significantly increase live birth rates. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: In order to investigate the long-term outcomes of switching to gonadotrophins versus continuing treatment with CC, and undergoing IUI versus continuing with intercourse, we conducted a follow-up study. The study population comprised all women who participated in the M-ovin trial. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The participating women were asked to complete a web-based questionnaire. The primary outcome of this study was cumulative live birth. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancies, multiple pregnancies, miscarriage, stillbirth, ectopic pregnancy, fertility treatments, neonatal outcomes and pregnancy complications. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We approached 564 women (85%), of whom 374 (66%) responded (184 allocated to gonadotrophins; 190 to CC). After a median follow-up time of 8 years, 154 women in the gonadotrophin group had a live birth (83.7%) versus 150 women in the CC group (78.9%) (relative risk (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.96-1.17). A second live birth occurred in 85 of 184 women (49.0%) in the gonadotrophin group and in 85 of 190 women (44.7%) in the CC group (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.83-1.29). Women allocated to gonadotrophins had a third live birth in 6 of 184 women (3.3%) and women allocated to CC had a third live birth in 14 of 190 women (7.4%). There were respectively 12 and 11 twins in the gonadotrophin and CC groups. The use of fertility treatments in the follow-up period was comparable between both groups. In the IUI group, a first live birth occurred in 158 of 192 women (82.3%) and while in the intercourse group, 146 of 182 women (80.2%) reached at least one live birth (RR: 1.03 95% CI 0.93-1.13; 2.13%, 95% CI -5.95, 10.21). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We have complete follow-up results for 57% of the women.There were 185 women who did not respond to the questionnaire, while 102 women had not been approached due to missing contact details. Five women had not started the original trial. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Women with normogonadotropic anovulation and CC failure have a high chance of reaching at least one live birth. In terms of pregnancy rates, the long-term differences between initially switching to gonadotrophins are small compared to continuing treatment with CC. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The original study received funding from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw number: 80-82310-97-12067). A.H. reports consultancy for development and implementation of a lifestyle App, MyFertiCoach, developed by Ferring Pharmaceutical Company. M.G. receives unrestricted grants for scientific research and education from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigatorgrant (GNT1176437). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva and Merck and travel support from Merck. All other authors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This follow-up study was registered in the OSF Register, https://osf.io/pf24m. The original M-ovin trial was registered in the Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR1449.

The effect of dietary interventions on pain and quality of life in women diagnosed with endometriosis: a prospective study with control group.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the influence of dietary interventions, namely the low fermentable oligo-, di-, mono-saccharides, and polyols (Low FODMAP) diet and endometriosis diet, on endometriosis-related pain and quality of life (QoL) compared to a control group? SUMMARY ANSWER: After adhering to a dietary intervention for 6 months, women with endometriosis reported less pain and an improved QoL compared to baseline whereas, compared to the control group, they reported less bloating and a better QoL in 3 of 11 domains. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Standard endometriosis treatment can be insufficient or may be accompanied by unacceptable side effects. This has resulted in an increasing interest in self-management strategies, including the appliance of the Low FODMAP diet and the endometriosis diet (an experience-based avoidance diet, developed by women with endometriosis). The Low FODMAP diet has previously been found effective in reducing endometriosis-related pain symptoms, whereas only limited studies are available on the efficacy of the endometriosis diet. A survey study recently found the endometriosis diet effective in improving QoL but currently no guidelines on use of the diet exist. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A prospective one-center pilot study was performed between April 2021 and December 2022. Participants could choose between adherence to a diet-the Low FODMAP diet or endometriosis diet-or no diet (control group). Women adhering to a diet received extensive guidance from a dietician in training. The follow-up period was 6 months for all three groups. For all outcomes, women adhering to the diets were compared to their baseline situation and to the control group. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We included women diagnosed with endometriosis (surgically and/or by radiologic imaging) who reported pain scores ≥3 cm on the visual analogue score (0-10 cm) for dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia, and/or chronic pelvic pain. The primary endpoint focused on pain reduction for all pain symptoms, including dysuria, bloating, and tiredness. Secondary endpoints, assessed via questionnaires, focused on QoL, gastro-intestinal health, and diet adherence. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 62 participants were included in the low FODMAP diet (n = 22), endometriosis diet (n = 21), and control group (n = 19). Compared to their baseline pain scores, participants adhering to a diet reported less pain in four of six symptoms (range P < 0.001 to P = 0.012) and better scores in 6 of 11 QoL domains (range P < 0.001 to P = 0.023) after 6 months. Compared to the control group, analyzed longitudinally over the 6-month follow-up period, participants applying a diet reported significant less bloating (P = 0.049), and better scores in 3 of 11 QoL domains (range P = 0.002 to P = 0.035). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: No sample size was calculated since efficacy data were lacking in the literature. In order to optimize dietary adherence, randomization was not applied, possibly resulting in selection bias. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our study suggests that women could benefit from adherence to a dietary intervention, since we found lower pain scores and better QoL after 6 months. However, caution is implied since this is a pilot study, no sample size was calculated, and data on long-term effects (>6 months) are lacking. The results of this pilot study underline the importance of further research and the drawing up of guidelines. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): A.v.H. reports receiving a travel grant from Merck outside the scope of this study. J.W., S.V., J.T., and B.D.B. have no conflicts of interest to report. A.d.V. reports having received KP-register points for internship guidance of J.W., performing paid consultations with endometriosis patients outside the study and receiving reimbursements for educational lectures at the local hospital (Albert Schweitzer Ziekenhuis, Dordrecht, the Netherlands). A.S. reports having received expenses for travel and hotel costs as an invited speaker from ESHRE. This was outside the scope of this study. M.v.W. reports that she is a Co-Ed of Cochrane Gynecology and Fertility. V.M. reports receiving travel and speaker's fees from Guerbet and research grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring. The department of reproductive medicine (V.M.) of the Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, has received several research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring not related to the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Pre-eclampsia in pregnancies resulting from oocyte donation, natural conception or IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the prevalence of pre-eclampsia (PE) in pregnancies after oocyte donation (OD) compared to natural conception (NC) and to IVF with autologous oocytes (AO)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Overall the prevalence of PE after OD was 4-5 times higher than after NC and 2-3 times higher than after IVF with AO. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The indication for OD is expanding to lesbian women requesting shared lesbian motherhood. Previous reviews have shown that the risk of PE is higher in pregnancies after OD than after NC and after IVF with AO. Classification on the severity of PE is lacking as is the relationship with known risk factors such as maternal age and multiple gestations. Furthermore the actual prevalence of PE in pregnancies resulting from OD is not known. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. A literature search was performed using the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL, OpenGrey and Greynet from January 1980 through July 2020. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We included retrospective and prospective cohort studies. The study population consisted of pregnancies after OD and NC or IVF and data had to be available about prevalence of PE. We compared the risk of (severe) PE in OD versus NC and IVF pregnancies, subgrouped by plurality and maternal age. We calculated individual and pooled odds ratios (OR) and prevalence estimates with 95% CI using a random effect model, while heterogeneity was assessed by the I2. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In total, 27 studies comprising of 7089 OD pregnancies, 1 139 540 NC pregnancies and 72 742 IVF pregnancies were available for analysis. The risks of PE and severe PE was increased in OD pregnancies compared to NC pregnancies (pooled OR of all subgroups: 5.09, 95% CI: 4.29-6.04; I2 = 19% and OR: 7.42, 95% CI: 4.64-11.88; I2 = 49%, respectively). This suggests that compared to a PE risk of 2.9% with NC, the risk with OD was between 11.5% and 15.4%. Compared to a severe PE risk of 0.5% with NC, the risk with OD was between 2.3% and 5.6%. The pooled adjusted OR for PE was 3.24 (95% 2.74-3.83) for OD versus NC pregnancies. The risks of PE and severe PE were also increased in OD pregnancies compared to IVF pregnancies (pooled OR of all subgroups: 2.97, 95% CI: 2.49-3.53; I2 = 51% and OR: 2.97, 95% CI: 2.15-4.11; I2 = 0%, respectively). This suggests that compared to a PE risk of 5.9% with IVF, the risk with OD was between 13.5% and 18.0%. Compared to a severe PE risk of 3.3% with IVF, the risk with OD was between 6.8% and 12.2%. The pooled adjusted OR for PE was 2.67 (95% 2.28-3.13) for OD versus IVF. The pooled prevalence of PE in singleton pregnancies after OD was 10.7% (95% CI 6.6-15.5) compared to 2.0% (95% CI 1.0-3.1) after NC and 4.1% (95% CI 2.7-5.6) after IVF. The prevalence in multiple pregnancies was 27.8% (95% CI 23.6-32.2) after OD, 7.5% (95% CI 7.2-7.8) after NC and 9.7% (95% CI 6.2-13.9) after IVF. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The precise definition of PE is still a matter of debate. The different criteria could have affected the prevalence estimate. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Nearly one in six women will suffer PE after OD. Although it is uncertain whether these risks are consistent for lesbian couples undergoing shared motherhood, we feel that women who can conceive naturally could be advised to reconsider. In women with primary ovarian insufficiency, we feel that factors that may increase risk of PE ever further, such as double embryo transfer, should be avoided whenever possible. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No funding or competing interests. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020166899.

Intracervical insemination versus intrauterine insemination with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Is intracervical insemination (ICI) non-inferior to IUI with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle in terms of live birth? SUMMARY ANSWER: ICI with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle was inferior to IUI in terms of live birth. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Both ICI and IUI in the natural cycle are performed as first-line treatments in women who are eligible for donor sperm treatment. High-quality data on the effectiveness of ICI versus IUI with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle in terms of live birth is lacking. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an open-label multicentre randomized non-inferiority trial in the Netherlands and Belgium. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We randomly allocated women who were eligible for donor sperm treatment with cryopreserved donor semen to six cycles of ICI in the natural cycle or six cycles of IUI in the natural cycle. The primary outcome was conception within 8 months after randomization leading to a live birth. Secondary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and time to conception leading to live birth. We calculated relative risks (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% CI. Non-inferiority would be shown if the lower limit of the 95% RD CI was <-12%. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between June 2014 and February 2019, we included 421 women, of whom 211 women were randomly allocated to ICI and 210 to IUI. Of the 211 women allocated to ICI, 2 women were excluded, 126 women completed treatment according to protocol and 75 women did not complete 6 treatment cycles. Of the 210 women allocated to IUI, 3 women were excluded, 140 women completed treatment according to protocol and 62 women did not complete 6 treatment cycles. Mean female age was 34 years (SD ±4) in both interventions. Conception leading to live birth occurred in 51 women (24%) allocated to ICI and in 81 women (39%) allocated to IUI (RR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.84). This corresponds to an absolute RD of -15%; 95% CI: -24% to -6.9%, suggesting inferiority of ICI. ICI also resulted in a lower live birth rate over time (hazard ratio 0.58, 95% CI: 0.41-0.82). Our per-protocol analysis showed that, within the 8 months treatment horizon, 48 women (38%) had live births after ICI and 79 women (56%) had live births after IUI (RR 0.68, 95% CI: 0.52-0.88; RD -18%, 95% CI: -30% to -6%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was non-blinded owing to the nature of the interventions. We consider it unlikely that this has introduced performance bias, since pregnancy outcomes are objective outcome measures. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since ICI in the natural cycle was inferior to IUI in the natural cycle with cryopreserved donor sperm in terms of live birth rate, IUI is the preferred treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This trial received funding from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw project number 837002407). B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437), reports consultancy for ObsEva and has received research funding from Guerbet, Ferring and Merck. The other authors do not declare a COI. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4462. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 11 March 2014. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 03 June 2014.

Expectant management versus IUI in unexplained subfertility and a poor pregnancy prognosis (EXIUI study): a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: For couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, is 6 months expectant management (EM) inferior to IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS), in terms of live births? SUMMARY ANSWER: In couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, 6 months of EM is inferior compared to IUI-OS in terms of live births. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis are often treated with IUI-OS. In couples with unexplained subfertility and a relatively good prognosis for natural conception (>30% in 12 months), IUI-OS does not increase the live birth rate as compared to 6 months of EM. However, in couples with a poor prognosis for natural conception (<30% in 12 months), the effectiveness of IUI-OS is uncertain. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a non-inferiority multicentre randomized controlled trial within the infrastructure of the Dutch Consortium for Healthcare Evaluation and Research in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. We intended to include 1091 couples within 3 years. The couples were allocated in a 1:1 ratio to 6 months EM or 6 months IUI-OS with either clomiphene citrate or gonadotrophins. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied heterosexual couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception (<30% in 12 months). The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to a live birth. Non-inferiority would be shown if the lower limit of the one-sided 90% risk difference (RD) CI was less than minus 7% compared to an expected live birth rate of 30% following IUI-OS. We calculated RD, relative risks (RRs) with 90% CI and a corresponding hazard rate for live birth over time based on intention-to-treat and per-protocol (PP) analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between October 2016 and September 2020, we allocated 92 couples to EM and 86 to IUI-OS. The trial was halted pre-maturely owing to slow inclusion. Mean female age was 34 years, median duration of subfertility was 21 months. Couples allocated to EM had a lower live birth rate than couples allocated to IUI-OS (12/92 (13%) in the EM group versus 28/86 (33%) in the IUI-OS group; RR 0.40 90% CI 0.24 to 0.67). This corresponds to an absolute RD of minus 20%; 90% CI: -30% to -9%. The hazard ratio for live birth over time was 0.36 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.70). In the PP analysis, live births rates were 8 of 70 women (11%) in the EM group versus 26 of 73 women (36%) in the IUI-OS group (RR 0.32, 90% CI 0.18 to 0.59; RD -24%, 90% CI -36% to -13%) in line with inferiority of EM. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our trial did not reach the planned sample size, therefore the results are limited by the number of participants. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study confirms the results of a previous trial that in couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, EM is inferior to IUI-OS. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The trial was supported by a grant of the SEENEZ healthcare initiative. The subsidizing parties were The Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW 837004023, www.zonmw.nl) and the umbrella organization of 10 health insurers in The Netherlands. E.R.G. receives personal fees from Titus Health care outside the submitted work. M.G. declares unrestricted research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring not related to the presented work, paid to their institution VU medical centre. A.B.H. reports receiving travel and speakers fees from Nordic Pharma and Merck and he is member of the Nordic Pharma ANGEL group and of the Safety Monitoring Board of Womed. C.B.L. reports speakers fee from Inmed and Yingming, and his department receives research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet paid to VU medical centre. B.W.J.M. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437) and reports consultancy for ObsEva and Merck. M.v.W. received a grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development ZonMW (80-8520098-91072). F.M. received two grants from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development ZonMW (NTR 5599 and NTR 6590). The other authors report no competing interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial register NL5455 (NTR5599). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 18 December 2015. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 26 January 2017.

Economic evaluation of endometrial scratching before the second IVF/ICSI treatment: a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial (SCRaTCH trial).

STUDY QUESTION: Is a single endometrial scratch prior to the second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment cost-effective compared to no scratch, when evaluated over a 12-month follow-up period? SUMMARY ANSWER: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for an endometrial scratch was €6524 per additional live birth, but due to uncertainty regarding the increase in live birth rate this has to be interpreted with caution. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Endometrial scratching is thought to improve the chances of success in couples with previously failed embryo implantation in IVF/ICSI treatment. It has been widely implemented in daily practice, despite the lack of conclusive evidence of its effectiveness and without investigating whether scratching allows for a cost-effective method to reduce the number of IVF/ICSI cycles needed to achieve a live birth. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This economic evaluation is based on a multicentre randomized controlled trial carried out in the Netherlands (SCRaTCH trial) that compared a single scratch prior to the second IVF/ICSI treatment with no scratch in couples with a failed full first IVF/ICSI cycle. Follow-up was 12 months after randomization.Economic evaluation was performed from a healthcare and societal perspective by taking both direct medical costs and lost productivity costs into account. It was performed for the primary outcome of biochemical pregnancy leading to live birth after 12 months of follow-up as well as the secondary outcome of live birth after the second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment (i.e. the first after randomization). To allow for worldwide interpretation of the data, cost level scenario analysis and sensitivity analysis was performed. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: From January 2016 until July 2018, 933 women with a failed first IVF/ICSI cycle were included in the trial. Data on treatment and pregnancy were recorded up until 12 months after randomization, and the resulting live birth outcomes (even if after 12 months) were also recorded.Total costs were calculated for the second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment and for the full 12 month period for each participant. We included costs of all treatments, medication, complications and lost productivity costs. Cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out by calculating ICERs for scratch compared to control. Bootstrap resampling was used to estimate the uncertainty around cost and effect differences and ICERs. In the sensitivity and scenario analyses, various unit costs for a single scratch were introduced, amongst them, unit costs as they apply for the United Kingdom (UK). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: More live births occurred in the scratch group, but this also came with increased costs over a 12-month period. The estimated chance of a live birth after 12 months of follow-up was 44.1% in the scratch group compared to 39.3% in the control group (risk difference 4.8%, 95% CI -1.6% to +11.2%). The mean costs were on average €283 (95% CI: -€299 to €810) higher in the scratch group so that the point average ICER was €5846 per additional live birth. The ICER estimate was surrounded with a high level of uncertainty, as indicated by the fact that the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) showed that there is an 80% chance that endometrial scratching is cost-effective if society is willing to pay ∼€17 500 for each additional live birth. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: There was a high uncertainty surrounding the effects, mainly in the clinical effect, i.e. the difference in the chance of live birth, which meant that a single straightforward conclusion could not be ascertained as for now. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first formal cost-effectiveness analysis of endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment. The results presented in this manuscript cannot provide a clear-cut expenditure for one additional birth, but they do allow for estimating costs per additional live birth in different scenarios once the clinical effectiveness of scratching is known. As the SCRaTCH trial was the only trial with a follow-up of 12 months, it allows for the most complete estimation of costs to date. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by ZonMW, the Dutch organization for funding healthcare research. A.E.P.C., F.J.M.B., E.R.G. and C.B. L. reported having received fees or grants during, but outside of, this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register (NL5193/NTR 5342).

Implications of fetal premature atrial contractions: systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Fetal heart-rate irregularities occur in 1-2% of pregnancies and are usually caused by premature atrial contractions (PAC). Although PAC are considered benign, they may be associated with cardiac defects and tachyarrhythmia. We aimed to determine the incidence of congenital heart defects (CHDs) and complications in fetuses with PAC. METHODS: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement for reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 1990 to June 2021 to identify studies on fetuses with PAC. The primary outcome was CHD; secondary outcomes were complications using the endpoints supraventricular tachyarrhythmia (SVT), cardiac failure and intrauterine fetal demise. Meta-analysis of proportions was performed, subdivided into high-risk and low-risk populations based on reason for referral. Pooled incidences with 95% CIs were calculated. RESULTS: Of 2443 unique articles identified, 19 cohort studies including 2260 fetuses were included. The pooled incidence of CHD in fetuses with PAC was 2.8% (95% CI, 1.5-4.1%), when 0.6% is the incidence expected in the general population. The pooled incidence of CHD was 7.2% (95% CI, 3.5-10.9%) in the high-risk population and 0.9% (95% CI, 0.0-2.0%) in the low-risk population. SVT occurred in 1.4% (95% CI, 0.6-3.4%) of fetuses diagnosed with PAC. Cardiac failure was described in 16 fetuses (1.4% (95% CI, 0.5-3.5%)), of which eight were CHD-related. Intrauterine fetal demise occurred in four fetuses (0.9% (95% CI, 0.5-1.7%)) and was related to CHD in two cases. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the risk of CHD in fetuses with PAC is 4-5 times higher than that in the general population. CHD was present more frequently in the high-risk population. Consequently, an advanced ultrasound examination to diagnose PAC correctly and exclude CHD is recommended. Complications of PAC are rare but can result in fetal demise, thus weekly fetal heart-rate monitoring remains advisable to enable early detection of SVT and to prevent cardiac failure. © 2022 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Oil-based versus water-based contrast media for hysterosalpingography in infertile women of advanced age, with ovulation disorders or a high risk for tubal pathology: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial (H2Oil2 study).

BACKGROUND: In women with unexplained infertility, tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography (HSG) increases ongoing pregnancy and subsequent live birth rates when compared to tubal flushing with water-based contrast. It is currently unclear whether an HSG with oil-based contrast also results in more ongoing pregnancies and live births in women of advanced age, women with ovulation disorders, and women with potential tubal pathology when compared to an HSG with water-based contrast. METHODS: We plan an international, multicentre, open-label, randomized controlled trial (RCT) studying three groups of infertile women who have an indication for tubal patency testing according to their treating physician and additionally; (1) are 39 years of age or older, (2) have an ovulation disorder or (3) have a high risk for tubal pathology based on their medical history. Women with an allergy for iodinated contrast medium are excluded, as are women with diabetes, hyperprolactinemia or untreated hyper- or hypothyroidism, and women with a partner with severe male infertility. After informed consent, women will be randomly allocated to the intervention, tubal flushing with the use of oil-based contrast during HSG or the control group, tubal flushing with the use of water-based contrast during HSG in a 1:1 ratio by the web-based system Castor. The primary endpoint will be ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth with conception within six months after randomization. Secondary outcomes are other pregnancy outcomes, used fertility treatments, adverse events and cost-effectiveness. Based on the expected ongoing pregnancy rate of 17% in the control group and 27% in the intervention group, the sample size will be 930 women (465 per group). Study inclusion is expected to be complete in four years. DISCUSSION: This multicentre RCT will establish whether, for women of advanced age, women with ovulatory disease, and women who have a high risk for tubal pathology, there is a fertility enhancing effect of tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during HSG and whether the use of this contrast medium is cost-effective. Trial Registration The study was prospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Register on August 1st 2019 as 'H2Oil2' (reference number NL7925, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7925 ).

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation amid the COVID-19 pandemic: a nationwide analysis of the first COVID-19 wave in the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put tremendous pressure on healthcare systems. Most transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) centres have adopted different triage systems and procedural strategies to serve highest-risk patients first and to minimise the burden on hospital logistics and personnel. We therefore assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient selection, type of anaesthesia and outcomes after TAVI. METHODS: We used data from the Netherlands Heart Registration to examine all patients who underwent TAVI between March 2020 and July 2020 (COVID cohort), and between March 2019 and July 2019 (pre-COVID cohort). We compared patient characteristics, procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: We examined 2131 patients who underwent TAVI (1020 patients in COVID cohort, 1111 patients in pre-COVID cohort). EuroSCORE II was comparable between cohorts (COVID 4.5 ± 4.0 vs pre-COVID 4.6 ± 4.2, p = 0.356). The number of TAVI procedures under general anaesthesia was lower in the COVID cohort (35.2% vs 46.5%, p < 0.001). Incidences of stroke (COVID 2.7% vs pre-COVID 1.7%, p = 0.134), major vascular complications (2.3% vs 3.4%, p = 0.170) and permanent pacemaker implantation (10.0% vs 9.4%, p = 0.634) did not differ between cohorts. Thirty-day and 150-day mortality were comparable (2.8% vs 2.2%, p = 0.359 and 5.2% vs 5.2%, p = 0.993, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, patient characteristics and outcomes after TAVI were not different than before the pandemic. This highlights the fact that TAVI procedures can be safely performed during the COVID-19 pandemic, without an increased risk of complications or mortality.

Should germline genome editing be allowed? The effect of treatment characteristics on public acceptability.

STUDY QUESTION: To what extent do characteristics of germline genome editing (GGE) determine whether the general public supports permitting the clinical use of GGE? SUMMARY ANSWER: The risk that GGE would cause congenital abnormalities had the largest effect on support for allowing GGE, followed by effectiveness of GGE, while costs, the type of application (disease or enhancement) and the effect on child well-being had moderate effects. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Scientific progress on GGE has increased the urgency of resolving whether and when clinical application of GGE may be ethically acceptable. Various expert bodies have suggested that the treatment characteristics will be key in determining whether GGE is acceptable. For example, GGE with substantial risks (e.g. 15% chance of a major congenital abnormality) may be acceptable to prevent a severe disease but not to enhance non-medical characteristics or traits of an otherwise healthy embryo (e.g. eye colour or perhaps in the future more complex traits, such as intelligence). While experts have called for public engagement, it is unclear whether and how much the public acceptability of GGE is affected by the treatment characteristics proposed by experts. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The vignette-based survey was disseminated in 2018 among 1857 members of the Dutch general public. An online research panel was used to recruit a sample representing the adult Dutch general public. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: A literature review identified the key treatment characteristics of GGE: the effect on the well-being of the future child, use for disease or enhancement, risks for the future child, effectiveness (here defined as the chance of a live birth, assuming that if the GGE was not successful, the embryo would not be transferred), cost and availability of alternative treatments/procedures to prevent the genetic disease or provide enhancement (i.e. preimplantation genetic testing (PGT)), respectively. For each treatment characteristic, 2-3 levels were defined to realistically represent GGE and its current alternatives, donor gametes and ICSI with PGT. Twelve vignettes were created by fractional factorial design. A multinominal logit model assessed how much each treatment characteristic affected participants' choices. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The 1136 respondents (response rate 61%) were representative of the Dutch adult population in several demographics. Respondents were between 18 and 89 years of age. When no alternative treatment/procedure is available, the risk that GGE would cause (other) congenital abnormalities had the largest effect on whether the Dutch public supported allowing GGE (coefficient = -3.07), followed by effectiveness (coefficient = 2.03). Costs (covered by national insurance, coefficient = -1.14), the type of application (disease or enhancement; coefficient = -1.07), and the effect on child well-being (coefficient = 0.97) had similar effects on whether GGE should be allowed. If an alternative treatment/procedure (e.g. PGT) was available, participants were not categorically opposed to GGE, however, they were strongly opposed to using GGE for enhancement (coefficient = -3.37). The general acceptability of GGE was higher than participants' willingness to personally use it (P < 0.001). When participants considered whether they would personally use GGE, the type of application (disease or enhancement) was more important, whereas effectiveness and costs (covered by national insurance) were less important than when they considered whether GGE should be allowed. Participants who were male, younger and had lower incomes were more likely to allow GGE when no alternative treatment/procedure is available. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Some (e.g. ethnic, religious) minorities were not well represented. To limit complexity, not all characteristics of GGE could be included (e.g. out-of-pocket costs), therefore, the views gathered from the vignettes reflect only the choices presented to the respondents. The non-included characteristics could be connected to and alter the importance of the studied characteristics. This would affect how closely the reported coefficients reflect 'real-life' importance. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study is the first to quantify the substantial impact of GGE's effectiveness, costs (covered by national insurance), and effect on child well-being on whether the public considered GGE acceptable. In general, the participants were strikingly risk-averse, in that they weighed the risks of GGE more heavily than its benefits. Furthermore, although only a single study in one country, the results suggests that-if sufficiently safe and effective-the public may approve of using GGE (presumably combined with PGT) instead of solely PGT to prevent passing on a disease. The reported public views can serve as input for future consideration of the ethics and governance of GGE. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Young Academy of the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences (UPS/RB/745), Alliance Grant of the Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute (2017-170116) and National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Programme. No competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Cost-effectiveness of ovarian stimulation agents for IUI in couples with unexplained subfertility.

STUDY QUESTION: Which agent for ovarian stimulation (OS) is the most cost-effective option in terms of net benefit for couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI? SUMMARY ANSWER: In settings where a live birth is valued at €3000 or less, between €3000 and €55 000 and above €55 000, clomiphene citrate (CC), Letrozole and gonadotrophins were the most cost-effective option in terms of net benefit, respectively. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IUI-OS is a common first-line treatment for couples with unexplained subfertility and its increased uptake over the past decades and related personal or reimbursed costs are pressing concerns to patients and health service providers. However, there is no consensus on a protocol for conducting IUI-OS, with differences between countries, clinics and settings in the number of cycles, success rates, the agent for OS and the maximum number of dominant follicles in order to minimise the risk of a multiple pregnancy. In view of this uncertainty and the association with costs, guidance is needed on the cost-effectiveness of OS agents for IUI-OS. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We developed a decision-analytic model based on a decision tree that follows couples with unexplained subfertility from the start of IUI-OS to a protocoled maximum of six cycles, assuming couples receive four cycles on average within one year. We chose the societal perspective, which coincides with other perspectives such as that from health care providers, as the treatments are identical except for the stimulation agent. We based our model on parameters from a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials for IUI-OS. We compared the following three agents: CC (oral medication), Letrozole (oral medication) and gonadotrophins (subcutaneous injection). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The main health outcomes were cumulative live birth and multiple pregnancy. As the procedures are identical except for the agent used, we only considered direct medical costs of the agent during four cycles. The main cost-effectiveness measures were the differences in costs divided by the differences in cumulative live birth (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ICER) and the probability of the highest net monetary benefit in which costs for an agent were deducted from the live births gained. The live birth rate for IUI using CC was taken from trials adhering to strict cancellation criteria included in a network meta-analysis and extrapolated to four cycles. We took the relative risks for the live birth rate after Letrozole and gonadotrophins versus CC from that same network meta-analysis to estimate the remaining absolute live birth rates. The uncertainty around live birth rates, relative effectiveness and costs was assessed by probabilistic sensitivity analysis in which we drew values from distributions and repeated this procedure 20 000 times. In addition, we changed model assumptions to assess their influence on our results. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The agent with the lowest cumulative live birth rate over 4 IUI-OS cycles conducted within one year was CC (29.4%), followed by Letrozole (32.0%) and gonadotrophins (34.5%). The average costs per four cycles were €362, €434 and €1809, respectively. The ICER of Letrozole versus CC was €2809 per additional live birth, whereas the ICER of gonadotrophins versus Letrozole was €53 831 per additional live birth. When we assume a live birth is valued at €3000 or less, CC had the highest probability of maximally 65% to achieve the highest net benefit. Between €3000 and €55 000, Letrozole had the highest probability of maximally 62% to achieve the highest net benefit. Assuming a monetary value of €55 000 or more, gonadotrophins had the highest probability of maximally 56% to achieve the highest net benefit. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our model focused on population level and was thus based on average costs for the average number of four cycles conducted. We also based the model on a number of key assumptions. We changed model assumptions to assess the influence of these assumptions on our results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The high uncertainty surrounding our results indicate that more research is necessary on the relative effectiveness of using CC, Letrozole or gonadotrophins for IUI-OS in terms of the cumulative live birth rate. We suggest that in the meantime, CC or Letrozole are the preferred choice of agent. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was supported by ZonMw Doelmatigheidsonderzoek, grant 80-85200-98-91072. The funder had no role in the design, conduct or reporting of this work. BWM is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet and travel and research support from ObsEva, Merck and Guerbet. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Transfer of fresh or frozen embryos: a randomised controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Is IVF with frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer (freeze-all strategy) more effective than IVF with fresh and frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer (conventional strategy)? SUMMARY ANSWER: The freeze-all strategy was inferior to the conventional strategy in terms of cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate per woman. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IVF without transfer of fresh embryos, thus with frozen-thawed embryo transfer only (freeze-all strategy), is increasingly being used in clinical practice because of a presumed benefit. It is still unknown whether this new IVF strategy increases IVF efficacy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A single-centre, open label, two arm, parallel group, randomised controlled superiority trial was conducted. The trial was conducted between January 2013 and July 2015 in the Netherlands. The intervention was one IVF cycle with frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer(s) versus one IVF cycle with fresh and frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer(s). The primary outcome was cumulative ongoing pregnancy resulting from one IVF cycle within 12 months after randomisation. Couples were allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the freeze-all strategy or the conventional strategy with an online randomisation programme just before the start of down-regulation. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants were subfertile couples with any indication for IVF undergoing their first IVF cycle, with a female age between 18 and 43 years. Differences in cumulative ongoing pregnancy rates were expressed as relative risks (RR) with 95% CI. All outcomes were analysed following the intention-to-treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Two-hundred-and-five couples were randomly assigned to the freeze-all strategy (n = 102) or to the conventional strategy (n = 102). The cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate per woman was significantly lower in women allocated to the freeze-all strategy (19/102 (19%)) compared to women allocated to the conventional strategy (32/102 (31%); RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.36-0.98). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: As this was a single-centre study, we were unable to study differences in study protocols and clinic performance. This, and the limited sample size, should make one cautious in using the results as the basis for definitive policy. All patients undergoing IVF, including those with a poor prognosis, were included; therefore, the outcome could differ in women with a good prognosis of IVF treatment success. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our results indicate that there might be no benefit of a freeze-all strategy in terms of cumulative ongoing pregnancy rates. The efficacy of the freeze-all strategy in subgroups of patients, different stages of embryo development, and different freezing protocols needs to be further established and balanced against potential benefits and harms for mothers and children. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW grant 171101007). S.M., F.M. and M.v.W. stated they are authors of the Cochrane review 'Fresh versus frozen embryo transfers in assisted reproduction'. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register, NTR3187. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 9 December 2011. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 8 January 2013.

Birthweight and other perinatal outcomes of singletons conceived after assisted reproduction compared to natural conceived singletons in couples with unexplained subfertility: follow-up of two randomized clinical trials.

STUDY QUESTION: Does assisted reproduction, such as ovarian stimulation and/or laboratory procedures, have impact on perinatal outcomes of singleton live births compared to natural conception in couples with unexplained subfertility? SUMMARY ANSWER: Compared to natural conception, singletons born after intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) had a lower birthweight, while singletons born after IVF had comparable birthweights, in couples with unexplained subfertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Singletons conceived by assisted reproduction have different perinatal outcomes such as low birthweight and a higher risk of premature birth than naturally conceived singletons. This might be due to the assisted reproduction, such as laboratory procedures or the ovarian stimulation, or to an intrinsic factor in couples with subfertility. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a prospective cohort study using the follow-up data of two randomized clinical trials performed in couples with unexplained subfertility. We evaluated perinatal outcomes of 472 live birth singletons conceived after assisted reproduction or after natural conception within the time horizon of the studies. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: To assess the possible impact of ovarian stimulation we compared the singletons conceived after IUI with FSH or clomiphene citrate (CC) and IVF in a modified natural cycle (IVF-MNC) or standard IVF with single embryo transfer (IVF-SET) to naturally conceived singletons in the same cohorts. To further look into the possible effect of the laboratory procedures, we put both IUI and IVF groups together into IUI-OS and IVF and compared both to singletons born after natural conception. We only included singletons conceived after fresh embryo transfers. The main outcome was birthweight presented as absolute weight in grams and gestational age- and gender-adjusted percentiles. We calculated differences in birthweight using regression analyses adjusted for maternal age, BMI, smoking, parity, duration of subfertility and child gender. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In total, there were 472 live birth singletons. Of the 472 singleton pregnancies, 209 were conceived after IUI-OS (136 with FSH and 73 with CC as ovarian stimulation), 138 after IVF (50 after IVF-MNC and 88 after IVF-SET) and 125 were conceived naturally.Singletons conceived following IUI-FSH and IUI-CC both had lower birthweights compared to naturally conceived singletons (adjusted difference IUI-FSH -156.3 g, 95% CI -287.9 to -24.7; IUI-CC -160.3 g, 95% CI -316.7 to -3.8). When we compared IVF-MNC and IVF-SET to naturally conceived singletons, no significant difference was found (adjusted difference IVF-MNC 75.8 g, 95% CI -102.0 to 253.7; IVF-SET -10.6 g, 95% CI -159.2 to 138.1). The mean birthweight percentile was only significantly lower in the IUI-FSH group (-7.0 percentile, 95% CI -13.9 to -0.2). The IUI-CC and IVF-SET group had a lower mean percentile and the IVF-MNC group a higher mean percentile, but these groups were not significant different compared to the naturally conceived group (IUI-CC -5.1 percentile, 95% CI -13.3 to 3.0; IVF-MNC 4.4 percentile, 95% CI -4.9 to 13.6; IVF-SET -1.3 percentile, 95% CI -9.1 to 6.4).Looking at the laboratory process that took place, singletons conceived following IUI-OS had lower birthweights than naturally conceived singletons (adjusted difference -157.7 g, 95% CI -277.4 to -38.0). The IVF group had comparable birthweights with the naturally conceived group (adjusted difference 20.9 g, 95% CI -110.8 to 152.6). The mean birthweight percentile was significantly lower in the IUI-OS group compared to the natural group (-6.4 percentile, 95% CI -12.6 to -0.1). The IVF group was comparable (0.7 percentile, 95% CI -6.1 to 7.6). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The results are limited by the number of cases. The data were collected prospectively alongside the randomized controlled trials, but analyzed as treated. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our data suggest IUI in a stimulated cycle may have a negative impact on the birthweight of the child and possibly on pre-eclampsia. Further research should look into the effect of different methods of ovarian stimulation on placenta pathology and pre-eclampsia in couples with unexplained subfertility using naturally conceived singletons in the unexplained population as a reference. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Both initial trials were supported by a grant from ZonMW, the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (INeS 120620027, SUPER 80-83600-98-10192). The INeS study also had a grant from Zorgverzekeraars Nederland, the Dutch association of healthcare insurers (09-003). B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC investigator Grant (GNT1176437) and reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck Merck KGaA, Guerbet and iGenomix, outside the submitted work. A.H. reports grants from Ferring Pharmaceutical company (the Netherlands), outside the submitted work. F.J.M.B. receives monetary compensation as a member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono (the Netherlands), Ferring Pharmaceutics BV (the Netherlands) and Gedeon Richter (Belgium), he receives personal fees from educational activities for Ferring BV (the Netherlands) and for advisory and consultancy work for Roche and he receives research support grants from Merck Serono and Ferring Pharmaceutics BV, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: INeS study Trial NL915 (NTR939); SUPER Trial NL3895 (NTR4057).

Septum resection versus expectant management in women with a septate uterus: an international multicentre open-label randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does septum resection improve reproductive outcomes in women with a septate uterus? SUMMARY ANSWER: Hysteroscopic septum resection does not improve reproductive outcomes in women with a septate uterus. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A septate uterus is a congenital uterine anomaly. Women with a septate uterus are at increased risk of subfertility, pregnancy loss and preterm birth. Hysteroscopic resection of a septum may improve the chance of a live birth in affected women, but this has never been evaluated in randomized clinical trials. We assessed whether septum resection improves reproductive outcomes in women with a septate uterus, wanting to become pregnant. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an international, multicentre, open-label, randomized controlled trial in 10 centres in The Netherlands, UK, USA and Iran between October 2010 and September 2018. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women with a septate uterus and a history of subfertility, pregnancy loss or preterm birth were randomly allocated to septum resection or expectant management. The primary outcome was conception leading to live birth within 12 months after randomization, defined as the birth of a living foetus beyond 24 weeks of gestational age. We analysed the data on an intention-to-treat basis and calculated relative risks with 95% CI. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We randomly assigned 80 women with a septate uterus to septum resection (n = 40) or expectant management (n = 40). We excluded one woman who underwent septum resection from the intention-to-treat analysis, because she withdrew informed consent for the study shortly after randomization. Live birth occurred in 12 of 39 women allocated to septum resection (31%) and in 14 of 40 women allocated to expectant management (35%) (relative risk (RR) 0.88 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.65)). There was one uterine perforation which occurred during surgery (1/39 = 2.6%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although this was a major international trial, the sample size was still limited and recruitment took a long period. Since surgical techniques did not fundamentally change over time, we consider the latter of limited clinical significance. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The trial generated high-level evidence in addition to evidence from a recently published large cohort study. Both studies unequivocally do not reveal any improvements in reproductive outcomes, thereby questioning any rationale behind surgery. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): There was no study funding. M.H.E. reports a patent on a surgical endoscopic cutting device and process for the removal of tissue from a body cavity licensed to Medtronic, outside the scope of the submitted work. H.A.v.V. reports personal fees from Medtronic, outside the submitted work. B.W.J.M. reports grants from NHMRC, personal fees from ObsEva, personal fees from Merck Merck KGaA, personal fees from Guerbet, personal fees from iGenomix, outside the submitted work. M.G. reports several research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring (location VUMC) outside the scope of the submitted work. The remaining authors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch trial registry: NTR 1676. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 18 February 2009. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 20 October 2010.

Endometrial scratching in women with one failed IVF/ICSI cycle-outcomes of a randomised controlled trial (SCRaTCH).

STUDY QUESTION: Does endometrial scratching in women with one failed IVF/ICSI treatment affect the chance of a live birth of the subsequent fresh IVF/ICSI cycle? SUMMARY ANSWER: In this study, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch group, with a likely certainty range between -0.7% and +9.9%. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Since the first suggestion that endometrial scratching might improve embryo implantation during IVF/ICSI, many clinical trials have been conducted. However, due to limitations in sample size and study quality, it remains unclear whether endometrial scratching improves IVF/ICSI outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The SCRaTCH trial was a non-blinded randomised controlled trial in women with one unsuccessful IVF/ICSI cycle and assessed whether a single endometrial scratch using an endometrial biopsy catheter would lead to a higher live birth rate after the subsequent IVF/ICSI treatment compared to no scratch. The study took place in 8 academic and 24 general hospitals. Participants were randomised between January 2016 and July 2018 by a web-based randomisation programme. Secondary outcomes included cumulative 12-month ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth rate. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women with one previous failed IVF/ICSI treatment and planning a second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment were eligible. In total, 933 participants out of 1065 eligibles were included (participation rate 88%). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: After the fresh transfer, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch compared to control group (110/465 versus 88/461, respectively, risk ratio (RR) 1.24 [95% CI 0.96-1.59]). These data are consistent with a true difference of between -0.7% and +9.9% (95% CI), indicating that while the largest proportion of the 95% CI is positive, scratching could have no or even a small negative effect. Biochemical pregnancy loss and miscarriage rate did not differ between the two groups: in the scratch group 27/153 biochemical pregnancy losses and 14/126 miscarriages occurred, while this was 19/130 and 17/111 for the control group (RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.71-2.07) and RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.38-1.40), respectively). After 12 months of follow-up, 5.1% more live births were observed in the scratch group (202/467 versus 178/466), of which the true difference most likely lies between -1.2% and +11.4% (95% CI). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study was not blinded. Knowledge of allocation may have been an incentive for participants allocated to the scratch group to continue treatment in situations where they may otherwise have cancelled or stopped. In addition, this study was powered to detect a difference in live birth rate of 9%. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The results of this study are an incentive for further assessment of the efficacy and clinical implications of endometrial scratching. If a true effect exists, it may be smaller than previously anticipated or may be limited to specific groups of women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Studying this will require larger sample sizes, which will be provided by the ongoing international individual participant data-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42017079120). At present, endometrial scratching should not be performed outside of clinical trials. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by ZonMW, the Dutch organisation for funding healthcare research. J.S.E. Laven reports grants and personal fees from AnshLabs (Webster, Tx, USA), Ferring (Hoofddorp, The Netherlands) and Ministry of Health (CIBG, The Hague, The Netherlands) outside the submitted work. A.E.P. Cantineau reports 'other' from Ferring BV, personal fees from Up to date Hyperthecosis, 'other' from Theramex BV, outside the submitted work. E.R. Groenewoud reports grants from Titus Health Care during the conduct of the study. A.M. van Heusden reports personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees from Ferring, personal fees from Goodlife, outside the submitted work. F.J.M. Broekmans reports personal fees as Member of the external advisory board for Ferring BV, The Netherlands, personal fees as Member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, The Netherlands, personal fees as Member of the external advisory for Gedeon Richter, Belgium, personal fees from Educational activities for Ferring BV, The Netherlands, grants from Research support grant Merck Serono, grants from Research support grant Ferring, personal fees from Advisory and consultancy work Roche, outside the submitted work. C.B. Lambalk reports grants from Ferring, grants from Merck, grants from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NL5193/NTR 5342). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 31 July 2015. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 26 January 2016.

Cost-effectiveness of medically assisted reproduction or expectant management for unexplained subfertility: when to start treatment?

STUDY QUESTION: Over a time period of 3 years, which order of expectant management (EM), IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) and IVF is the most cost-effective for couples with unexplained subfertility with the female age below 38 years? SUMMARY ANSWER: If a live birth is considered worth €32 000 or less, 2 years of EM followed by IVF was the most cost-effective, whereas above €32 000 this was 1 year of EM, 1 year of IUI-OS and then 1 year of IVF. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IUI-OS and IVF are commonly used fertility treatments for unexplained subfertility although many couples can conceive naturally, as no identifiable barrier to conception could be found by definition. Few countries have guidelines on when to proceed with medically assisted reproduction (MAR), mostly based on the expected probability of live birth after treatment, but there is a lack of evidence to support the strategies proposed by these guidelines. The increased uptake of IUI-OS and IVF over the past decades and costs related to reimbursement of these treatments are pressing concerns to health service providers. For MAR to remain affordable, sustainable and a responsible use of public funds, guidance is needed on the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for unexplained subfertility, including EM. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We developed a decision analytic Markov model that follows couples with unexplained subfertility of which the woman is under 38 years of age for a time period of 3 years from completion of the fertility workup onwards. We divided the time axis of 3 years into three separate periods, each comprising 1 year. The model was based on contemporary evidence, most notably the dynamic prediction model for natural conception, which was combined with MAR treatment effects from a network meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials. We changed the order of options for managing unexplained subfertility for the 1 year periods to yield five different treatment policies in total: IVF-EM-EM (immediate IVF), EM-IVF-EM (delayed IVF), EM-EM-IVF (postponed IVF), IUIOS-IVF-EM (immediate IUI-OS) and EM-IUIOS-IVF (delayed IUI-OS). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The main outcomes per policy over the 3-year period were the probability of live birth, the average treatment and delivery costs, the probability of multiple pregnancy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and finally, which policy yields the highest net benefit in which costs for a policy were deducted from the health effects, i.e. live births gained. We chose the Dutch societal perspective, but the model can be easily modified for other locations or other perspectives. The probability of live birth after EM was taken from the dynamic prediction model for natural conception and updated for Years 2 and 3. The relative effects of IUI-OS and IVF in terms of odds ratios, taken from the network meta-analysis, were applied to the probability of live birth after EM. We applied standard discounting procedures for economic analyses for Years 2 and 3. The uncertainty around effectiveness, costs and other parameters was assessed by probabilistic sensitivity analysis in which we drew values from distributions and repeated this procedure 20 000 times. In addition, we changed model assumptions to assess their influence on our results. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: From IVF-EM-EM to EM-IUIOS-IVF, the probability of live birth varied from approximately 54-64% and the average costs from approximately €4000 to €9000. The policies IVF-EM-EM and EM-IVF-EM were dominated by EM-EM-IVF as the latter yielded a higher cumulative probability of live birth at a lower cost. The policy IUIOS-IVF-EM was dominated by EM-IUIOS-IVF as the latter yielded a higher cumulative probability of live birth at a lower cost. After removal of policies that were dominated, the ICER for EM-IUIOS-IVF was approximately €31 000 compared to EM-EM-IVF. The range of ICER values between the lowest 25% and highest 75% of simulation replications was broad. The net benefit curve showed that when we assume a live birth to be worth approximately €20 000 or less, the policy EM-EM-IVF had the highest probability to achieve the highest net benefit. Between €20 000 and €50 000 monetary value per live birth, it was uncertain whether EM-EM-IVF was better than EM-IUIOS-IVF, with the turning point of €32 000. When we assume a monetary value per live birth over €50 000, the policy with the highest probability to achieve the highest net benefit was EM-IUIOS-IVF. Results for subgroups with different baseline prognoses showed the same policies dominated and the same two policies that were the most likely to achieve the highest net benefit but at different threshold values for the assumed monetary value per live birth. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our model focused on population level and was thus based on average costs for the average number of cycles conducted. We also based the model on a number of key assumptions. We changed model assumptions to assess the influence of these assumptions on our results. The change in relative effectiveness of IVF over time was found to be highly influential on results and their interpretation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: EM-EM-IVF and EM-IUIOS-IVF followed by IVF were the most cost-effective policies. The choice depends on the monetary value assigned to a live birth. The results of our study can be used in discussions between clinicians, couples and policy makers to decide on a sustainable treatment protocol based on the probability of live birth, the costs and the limitations of MAR treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was supported by the ZonMw Doelmatigheidsonderzoek (80-85200-98-91072). The funder had no role in the design, conduct or reporting of this work. B.W.M. is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet and travel and research support from ObsEva, Merck and Guerbet. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Home- or hospital-based monitoring to time frozen embryo transfer in the natural cycle? Patient-reported outcomes and experiences from the Antarctica-2 randomised controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported experiences (PREs) in home-based monitoring compared to those in hospital-based monitoring of ovulation for scheduling frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Women undergoing either home-based or hospital-based monitoring experience an increase in anxiety/sadness symptoms over time, but women undergoing home-based monitoring felt more empowered during the treatment and classified the monitoring as more discreet compared to hospital-based monitoring. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: FET is at the heart of modern IVF. The two types of FET cycles that are mainly are used are artificial cycle FET, using artificial preparation of the endometrium with exogenous progesterone and oestrogen, and natural cycle FET (NC-FET). During a natural cycle FET, women visit the hospital repeatedly and receive an ovulation trigger to time FET (i.e. modified NC-FET or hospital-based monitoring). The previously published Antarctica randomised controlled trial (NTR 1586) showed that modified NC-FET is more cost-effective compared to artificial cycle FET. From the women's point of view a more natural approach using home-based monitoring of ovulation with LH urine tests to time FET may be desired (true NC-FET or home-based monitoring). Currently, the multicentre Antarctica-2 randomised controlled trial (RCT) is comparing the cost-effectiveness of home-based monitoring of ovulation with that of hospital-based monitoring of ovulation. The Antarctica-2 RCT enables us to study PROs, defined as the view of participating women of their healthcare status, and PREs, defined as the perception of the received care of participating women, in both FET strategies. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: PROs and PREs were assessed alongside the Antarctica-2 RCT. PROs were assessed using the validated EuroQol-5D-5L questionnaire. Currently, there are no guidelines for assessing PREs in this population. Therefore, members of the Dutch Patient Organisation for Couples with Fertility Problems (FREYA) filled out an online survey and selected the following PREs to assess (i) anxiety about missing ovulation, (ii) perceived level of partner participation, (iii) level of discretion, (iv) feeling of empowerment and (v) satisfaction with treatment. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women participating in the RCT also participated in PRO and PRE assessment. We assessed PROs and PREs at three time points: (i) before randomisation, (ii) at the time of the FET and (iii) at the time of the pregnancy test. A sample size of 200 participants was needed to find a difference of 0.3 with a standard deviation in both groups of 0.7, an alpha of 5%, power of 80% and a drop-out rate of 10%. We performed mixed model analysis for between-group comparison of treatment and time effects. MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 260 women were randomised. Of these, 132 women were treated with home-based monitoring and 128 women were treated with hospital-based monitoring. Data before randomisation were available for 232 women (home-based monitoring n = 116, hospital-based monitoring n = 116). For the PROs, we found a significant increase in anxiety/sadness symptoms over time (P < 0.001) in both groups. We found no treatment effect of home-based versus hospital-based monitoring for the PROs (P = 0.8). Concerning the PRES, we found that women felt more empowered during home-based monitoring (P = 0.001) and classified the home-based monitoring as more discreet (P = 0.000) compared to the hospital-based monitoring. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The results are applicable only to women undergoing NC-FET and not to women undergoing artificial cycle FET. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Apart from clinical outcomes, PROs and PREs are also of importance in clinical decision-making and to support tailoring treatment even more specifically to the wishes of patients. Measurement of PROs and PREs should therefore be incorporated in future clinical research. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The Antarctica-2 RCT is supported by a grant of the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw 843002807). J.B. receives unconditional educational grants from Merck Serono and Ferring and is a member of the medical advisory board of Ferring. C.L. reports that his department receives unrestricted research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. E.G. receives personal fees from Titus Health Care outside submitted work. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Trial NL6414 (NTR6590). TRIAL REGISTER DATE: 23 July 2017. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 10 April 2018.

Age-related natural fertility outcomes in women over 35 years: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the rate of natural conception leading to ongoing pregnancy or livebirth over 6-12 months for infertile women of age ≥35 years? SUMMARY ANSWER: Natural conception rates were still clinically relevant in women aged 35 years and above and were significantly higher in women with unexplained infertility compared to those with other diagnoses. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In recent years, increasing numbers of women have attempted to conceive at a later age, resulting in a commensurate increase in the need for ART. However, there is a lack of data on natural fertility outcomes (i.e. no interventions) in women with increasing age. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A systematic review with individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis was carried out. PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov were searched until 1 July 2018 including search terms 'fertility service', 'waiting list', 'treatment-independent' and 'spontaneous conception'. Language restrictions were not imposed. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Inclusion criteria were studies (at least partly) reporting on infertile couples with female partner of age ≥35 years who attended fertility services, underwent fertility workup (e.g. history, semen analysis, tubal status and ovulation status) and were exposed to natural conception (e.g. independent of treatment such as IVF, ovulation induction and tubal surgery). Studies that exclusively studied only one infertility diagnosis, without including other women presenting to infertility services for other causes of infertility, were excluded. For studies that met the inclusion criteria, study authors were contacted to provide IPD, after which fertility outcomes for women of age ≥35 years were retrieved. Time to pregnancy or livebirth and the effect of increasing age on fertility outcomes after adjustment for other prognostic factors were analysed. Quality of studies was graded with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (non-randomised controlled trials (RCTs)) or the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (for RCTs). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We included nine studies (seven cohort studies and two RCTs) (n = 4379 women of at least age 35 years), with the observed composite primary outcome of ongoing pregnancy or livebirth occurring in 429 women (9.8%) over a median follow-up of 5 months (25th to 75th percentile: 2.5-8.5 months). Studies were of moderate to high quality. The probability of natural conception significantly decreased with any diagnosis of infertility, when compared with unexplained infertility. We found non-linear effects of female age and duration of infertility on ongoing pregnancy and tabulated the predicted probabilities for unexplained infertile women aged 35-42 years with either primary or secondary infertility and with a duration of infertility from 1 to 6 years. For a 35-year-old woman with 2 years of primary unexplained infertility, the predicted probability of natural conception leading to ongoing pregnancy or livebirth was 0.15 (95% CI 0.11-0.19) after 6 months and 0.24 (95% CI 0.17-0.30) after 12 months. For a 42-year-old woman, this decreased to 0.08 (95% CI 0.04-0.11) after 6 months and 0.13 (95% CI 0.07-0.18) after 12 months. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: In the studies selected, there were different study designs, recruitment strategies in different centres, protocols and countries and different methods of assessment of infertility. Data were limited for women above the age of 40 years. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Women attending fertility services should be encouraged to pursue natural conception while waiting for treatment to commence and after treatment if it is unsuccessful. Our results may aid in counselling women, and, in particular, for those with unexplained infertility. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): S.J.C. received funding from the University of Adelaide Summer Research Scholarship. B.W.M. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437), B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Merck KGaA, iGenomix and Guerbet. B.W.M. reports research support by Merck and Guerbet. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018096552.