The cost-effectiveness of transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy versus hysterosalpingography in the work-up for subfertility.

STUDY QUESTION: Is a strategy starting with transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy (THL) cost-effective compared to a strategy starting with hysterosalpingography (HSG) in the work-up for subfertility? SUMMARY ANSWER: A strategy starting with THL is cost-effective compared to a strategy starting with HSG in the work-up for subfertile women. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Tubal pathology is a common cause of subfertility and tubal patency testing is one of the cornerstones of the fertility work-up. Both THL and HSG are safe procedures and can be used as a first-line tubal patency test. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This economic evaluation was performed alongside a randomized clinical trial comparing THL and HSG in 300 subfertile women, between May 2013 and October 2016. For comparisons of THL and HSG, the unit costs were split into three main categories: costs of the diagnostic procedure, costs of fertility treatments and the costs for pregnancy outcomes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Subfertile women scheduled for tubal patency testing were eligible. Women were randomized to a strategy starting with THL or a strategy starting with HSG. The primary outcome of the study was conception leading to a live birth within 24 months after randomization. The mean costs and outcomes for each treatment group were compared. We used a non-parametric bootstrap resampling of 1000 re-samples to investigate the effect of uncertainty and we created a cost-effectiveness plane and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We allocated 149 women to THL and 151 to HSG, and we were able to achieve complete follow-up of 142 versus 148 women, respectively. After the fertility work-up women were treated according to the Dutch guidelines and based on a previously published prognostic model. In the THL group, 83 women (58.4%) conceived a live born child within 24 months after randomization compared to 82 women (55.4%) in the HSG group (difference 3.0% (95% CI: -8.3 to 14.4)). The mean total costs per woman were lower in the THL group compared to the HSG group (THL group €4991 versus €5262 in the HSG group, mean cost difference = -€271 (95% CI -€273 to -€269)). Although the costs of only the diagnostic procedure were higher in the THL group, in the HSG group more women underwent diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopies and also had higher costs for fertility treatments. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our trial was conducted in women with a low risk of tubal pathology; therefore, the results of our study are not generalizable to women with high risk of tubal pathology. Furthermore, this economic analysis was based on the Dutch healthcare system, and possibly our results are not generalizable to countries with different strategies or costs for fertility treatments. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: After 2 years of follow-up, we found a live birth rate of 58.4% in the THL group versus 55.4% in the HSG group and a lower mean cost per woman in the THL group, with a cost difference of -€271. The findings of our trial suggest that a strategy starting with THL is cost-effective compared to a strategy starting with HSG in the workup for subfertile women. However, the cost difference between the two diagnostic strategies is limited compared to the total cost per woman in our study and before implementing THL as a first-line strategy for tubal patency testing, more research in other fields, such as patient preference and acceptance, is necessary. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The authors received no external financial support for the research. B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator Grant (GNT1176437). B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA, Guerbet. B.W.J.M. reports receiving travel support from Merck KGaA. C.T.P. reports consultancy for Guerbet, outside of this manuscript. All other authors have no conflicts to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR3462.

IVF or IUI as first-line treatment in unexplained subfertility: the conundrum of treatment selection markers.

STUDY QUESTION: Are there treatment selection markers that could aid in identifying couples, with unexplained or mild male subfertility, who would have better chances of a healthy child with IVF with single embryo transfer (IVF-SET) than with IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS)? SUMMARY ANSWER: We did not find any treatment selection markers that were associated with better chances of a healthy child with IVF-SET instead of IUI-OS in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A recent trial, comparing IVF-SET to IUI-OS, found no evidence of a difference between live birth rates and multiple pregnancy rates. It was suggested that IUI-OS should remain the first-line treatment instead of IVF-SET in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and female age between 18 and 38 years. The question remains whether there are some couples that may have higher pregnancy chances if treated with IVF-SET instead of IUI. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed our analyses on data from the INeS trial, where couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis for natural conception were randomly allocated to IVF-SET, IVF in a modified natural cycle or IUI-OS. In view of the aim of this study, we only used data of the comparison between IVF-SET (201 couples) and IUI-OS (207 couples). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We pre-defined the following baseline characteristics as potential treatment selection markers: female age, ethnicity, smoking status, type of subfertility (primary/secondary), duration of subfertility, BMI, pre-wash total motile count and Hunault prediction score. For each potential treatment selection marker, we explored the association with the chances of a healthy child after IVF-SET and IUI-OS and tested if there was an interaction with treatment. Given the exploratory nature of our analysis, we used a P-value of 0.1. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: None of the markers were associated with higher chances of a healthy child from IVF-SET compared to IUI-OS (P-value for interaction >0.10). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Since this is the first large study that looked at potential treatment selection markers for IVF-SET compared to IUI-OS, we had no data on which to base a power calculation. The sample size was limited, making it difficult to detect any smaller associations. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We could not identify couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility who would have had higher chances of a healthy child from immediate IVF-SET than from IUI-OS. As in the original trial IUI-OS had similar effectiveness and was less costly compared to IVF-SET, IUI-OS should remain the preferred first-line treatment in these couples. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, and a grant from the Netherlands' association of health care insurers. There are no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The trial was registered at the Dutch trial registry (NTR939).

Performance of outpatient transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the feasibility of performing transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy (THL) in an outpatient setting? SUMMARY ANSWER: It is feasible to perform THL in an outpatient setting, reflected by a low complication and failure rate and a high patients' satisfaction. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: THL is a safe method to investigate tubal patency and exploring the pelvis in subfertile women. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Retrospective cohort study of 1127 subfertile women who underwent THL as primary diagnostic method for testing tubal patency in an outpatient setting. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied all THL procedures performed as a primary diagnostic tubal patency test in an outpatient setting in subfertile women starting from the initial THL in four large hospitals. Baseline characteristics were obtained, as well as the outcome of the procedures in terms of success, complications and findings by examining medical records. We used a uniform visual analogue scale (VAS) score document to collect data on pain and acceptability prospectively and compared two methods of pain relief. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We studied a total of 1103 women who underwent THL. Successful access to the pouch of Douglas was achieved in 1028 women (93.2%), and 1017 women had a complete evaluation (92.2%). Double-sided tubal patency was found in 844 women (83%), unilateral tubal patency in 127 women (12.5%), while in 46 women (4.5%) bilateral occluded tubes were diagnosed. Endometriosis alone was seen in 64 women (6.3%), adhesions alone in 87 women (8.6%) and both endometriosis and adhesions in 42 women (4.1%).Complications occurred in 29 (2.6%) women, including 10 perforations of the rectum (0.9%), 8 perforations of the posterior uterine wall (0.7%) and 5 infections/pelvic inflammatory diseases (PIDs) (0.5%). Bleeding of the vaginal wall requiring intervention and hospital admissions due to pain was seen in 4 (0.4%) and 2 women, respectively (0.2%). The average pain score was rated 4.0 (±2.4 SD) on a VAS from 0 to 10 with 0 meaning no pain at all with no difference in different types of pain relief. Acceptability was rated 1.5 (±2.1 SD). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The main limitation of the study is its retrospective character and the fact that only a fourth of the women were asked for pain and acceptability scores. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: THL can be used as a primary method for tubal assessment in an outpatient setting. Further randomized studies are needed to assess whether THL is superior to other methods and strategies for tubal assessment in terms of prognostic capacity and cost-effectiveness. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST: No external funding was either sought or obtained for this study. The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Effectiveness of lifestyle intervention in subgroups of obese infertile women: a subgroup analysis of a RCT.

STUDY QUESTION: Do age, ovulatory status, severity of obesity and body fat distribution affect the effectiveness of lifestyle intervention in obese infertile women? SUMMARY ANSWER: We did not identify a subgroup in which lifestyle intervention increased the healthy live birth rate however it did increase the natural conception rate in anovulatory obese infertile women. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Obese women are at increased risk of infertility and are less likely to conceive after infertility treatment. We previously demonstrated that a 6-month lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment did not increase the rate of healthy live births (vaginal live birth of a healthy singleton at term) within 24 months of follow-up as compared to prompt infertility treatment in obese infertile women. Natural conceptions occurred more frequently in women who received a 6-month lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a secondary analysis of a multicentre RCT (randomized controlled trial), the LIFEstyle study. Between 2009 and 2012, 577 obese infertile women were randomly assigned to a 6-month lifestyle intervention followed by infertility treatment (intervention group) or to prompt infertility treatment (control group). Subgroups were predefined in the study protocol, based on frequently used cut-off values in the literature: age (≥36 or <36 years), ovulatory status (anovulatory or ovulatory), BMI (≥35 or <35 kg/m2) and waist-hip (WH) ratio (≥0.8 or <0.8). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Data of 564 (98%) randomized women who completed follow-up were analyzed. We studied the effect of the intervention program in various subgroups on healthy live birth rate within 24 months, as well as the rate of overall live births (live births independent of gestational age, mode of delivery and health) and natural conceptions within 24 months. Live birth rates included pregnancies resulting from both treatment dependent and natural conceptions. Logistic regression models with randomization group, subgroup and the interaction between randomization group and subgroup were used. Significant interaction was defined as a P-value <0.1. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Neither maternal age, ovulatory status nor BMI had an impact on the healthy live birth rate within 24 months, nor did they influence the overall live birth rate within 24 months after randomization. WH ratio showed a significant interaction with the effect of lifestyle intervention on healthy live birth rate (P = 0.05), resulting in a lower healthy live birth rate in women with a WH ratio <0.8. WH ratio had no interaction regarding overall live birth rate (P = 0.27) or natural conception rate (P = 0.38). In anovulatory women, the effect of lifestyle intervention resulted in more natural conceptions compared to ovulatory women (P-value for interaction = 0.02). There was no interaction between other subgroups and the effect of the intervention on the rate of natural conception. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Since this was a subgroup analysis of a RCT and sample size determination of the trial was based on the primary outcome of the study, the study was not powered for analyses of all subgroups. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our finding that lifestyle intervention leads to increased natural conception in anovulatory obese women could be used in the counselling of these women, but requires further research using an appropriately powered study in order to confirm this result. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study was supported by a grant from ZonMw, the Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development (50-50110-96-518). The Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the UMCG received an unrestricted educational grant from Ferring pharmaceuticals BV, The Netherlands. Ben Mol is a consultant for ObsEva, Geneva. Annemieke Hoek received a speaker's fee for a postgraduate education from MSD pharmaceutical company, outside the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The LIFEstyle study was registered at the Dutch trial registry (NTR 1530).

Is IVF-served two different ways-more cost-effective than IUI with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation?

STUDY QUESTION: What is the cost-effectiveness of in vitro fertilization (IVF) with conventional ovarian stimulation, single embryo transfer (SET) and subsequent cryocycles or IVF in a modified natural cycle (MNC) compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (IUI-COH) as a first-line treatment in couples with unexplained subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis on natural conception?. SUMMARY ANSWER: Both IVF strategies are significantly more expensive when compared with IUI-COH, without being significantly more effective. In the comparison between IVF-MNC and IUI-COH, the latter is the dominant strategy. Whether IVF-SET is cost-effective depends on society's willingness to pay for an additional healthy child. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IUI-COH and IVF, either after conventional ovarian stimulation or in a MNC, are used as first-line treatments for couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility. As IUI-COH is less invasive, this treatment is usually offered before proceeding to IVF. Yet, as conventional IVF with SET may lead to higher pregnancy rates in fewer cycles for a lower multiple pregnancy rate, some have argued to start with IVF instead of IUI-COH. In addition, IVF in the MNC is considered to be a more patient friendly and less costly form of IVF. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized noninferiority trial. Between January 2009 and February 2012, 602 couples with unexplained infertility and a poor prognosis on natural conception were allocated to three cycles of IVF-SET including frozen embryo transfers, six cycles of IVF-MNC or six cycles of IUI-COH. These couples were followed until 12 months after randomization. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We collected data on resource use related to treatment, medication and pregnancy from the case report forms. We calculated unit costs from various sources. For each of the three strategies, we calculated the mean costs and effectiveness. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH and for IVF-MNC compared with IUI-COH. Nonparametric bootstrap resampling was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in our estimates. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There were 104 healthy children (52%) born in the IVF-SET group, 83 (43%) the IVF-MNC group and 97 (47%) in the IUI-COH group. The mean costs per couple were €7187 for IVF-SET, €8206 for IVF-MNC and €5070 for IUI-COH. Compared with IUI-COH, the costs for IVF-SET and IVF-MNC were significantly higher (mean differences €2117; 95% CI: €1544-€2657 and €3136, 95% CI: €2519-€3754, respectively).The ICER for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH was €43 375 for the birth of an additional healthy child. In the comparison of IVF-MNC to IUI-COH, the latter was the dominant strategy, i.e. more effective at lower costs. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We only report on direct health care costs. The present analysis is limited to 12 months. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since we found no evidence in support of offering IVF as a first-line strategy in couples with unexplained and mild subfertility, IUI-COH should remain the treatment of first choice. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study was supported by a grant from ZonMw, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, (120620027) and a grant from Zorgverzekeraars Nederland, the Netherlands' association of health care insurers (09-003). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52843371; Nederlands Trial Register NTR939.

Comparison of early versus late initiation of GnRH antagonist co-treatment for controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the impact of initiating GnRH antagonist co-treatment for in vitro fertilization (IVF) on cycle day (CD) 2 compared with CD 6 on live birth rate (LBR) per started cycle and on the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Early initiation of GnRH antagonist does not appear to improve clinical outcomes of IVF compared with midfollicular initiation. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: During ovarian stimulation for IVF, GnRH antagonist co-treatment is usually administered from the midfollicular phase onwards. Earlier initiation may improve the follicular phase hormonal milieu and therefore overall clinical outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This open-label, multicentre randomized controlled trial was conducted between September 2009 and July 2011. A web-based program was used for randomization and 617 IVF-intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) patients were included. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Recombinant FSH (150-225 IU) was administered daily from CD 2 onwards in both groups. The study group (CD2; n = 308) started GnRH antagonist co-treatment on CD 2, whereas the control group (CD6; n = 309) started on CD 6. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the two groups. A non-significant trend towards a higher LBR per started cycle and CLBR was observed in the CD6 group compared with the CD2 group (LBR: 24.0 versus 21.5%, P = 0.5; CLBR: 29.9 versus 26.7%, P = 0.6). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was terminated prematurely because no significant difference was observed in clinical outcomes after 617 inclusions. A much larger study population would be needed to detect a small significant difference in favour of either study arm, which raises the question of whether this would be relevant for clinical practice. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The present study shows that the additional treatment burden and costs of starting GnRH antagonist on CD 2 instead of on CD 6 are not justified, as early initiation of GnRH antagonist does not improve LBRs. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was partially supported by a grant from Merck Serono. O.H., M.J.C.E, A.V., P.A.D., R.E.B., G.J.E.O., C.A.G.H., G.C.D.M., H.J.V., P.F.M.H. and A.B. have nothing to declare. F.J.B. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Merck Serono, MSD and Roche. B.J.C. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Ferring, Merck Serono and MSD. C.B.L has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Auxogen, Ferring, Merck Serono and MSD. B.C.J.M.F. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Andromed, Ardana, Ferring, Genovum, Merck Serono, MSD, Organon, Pantharei Bioscience, PregLem, Schering, Schering Plough, Serono and Wyeth. J.S.E.L. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Ferring, Gennovum, MSD, Merck Serono, Organon, Schering Plough and Serono. N.S.M. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Anecova, Ferring, Merck Serono, MSD, Organon and Serono. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: www.clinicaltrials.gov, no. NCT00866034.

Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic electrocautery of the ovaries versus ovulation induction with recombinant FSH in clomiphene citrate-resistant women with polycystic ovary syndrome: an economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic electrocautery of the ovaries and ovulation induction with gonadotrophins are both second line treatments for women with clomiphene citrate-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Long-term follow-up after electrocautery versus ovulation induction with gonadotrophins has demonstrated at least comparable chances for a first live born child with a reduced need for ovulation induction or assisted reproduction treatment and increased chances for a second live born child. In this study, we report on the long-term economic consequences of both treatment modalities. METHODS: Between February 1998 and October 2001, we performed a multi-centre randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing a strategy of laparoscopic electrocautery of the ovaries, followed by clomiphene citrate and gonadotrophins when anovulation persisted, and a strategy of ovulation induction with gonadotrophins in women with clomiphene citrate-resistant PCOS. Eight to twelve years after randomization we performed a follow-up study on reproductive outcome in these women and the fertility treatments they had needed including data on direct medical costs of pregnancy and delivery. Clinical data included number of treatment cycles, live births, miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies and multiple pregnancies. We calculated mean costs per woman after randomization until the first live birth. Confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by bootstrapping. RESULTS: We obtained data for an economic analysis on 159 of the 168 randomized women (95%). In total, 71 of 83 women (86%) allocated to the electrocautery strategy and 69 of 85 women (81%) allocated to the gonadotrophin strategy had at least one live birth. Given the equivalence between the two treatment strategies in terms of a first live birth-the primary outcome measure-our analysis focused on the cost difference between the two strategies within a mean follow-up time of 8-12 years. The mean costs per first live birth after randomization were €11 176 (95% CI: €9689-€12 549) for the electrocautery group and €14 423 (95% CI: €12 239-€16 606) for the recombinant FSH group, resulting in significantly lower costs (P < 0.05) per first live birth for women allocated to the electrocautery group (mean difference €3247; 95% CI: €650-€5814). CONCLUSION: In women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS, laparoscopic electrocautery of the ovaries results in significantly lower costs per live birth than ovulation induction with gonadotrophins for an at least equal effectiveness.

The capacity of transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy versus hysterosalpingography to diagnose tubal pathology in the work-up of subfertile women, a randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the capacity of transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy (THL) versus hysterosalpingography (HSG) as a primary tool to diagnose tubal pathology. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a multicenter RCT (NTR3462) in 4 teaching hospitals in the Netherlands, comparing THL and HSG as first line tubal test in subfertile women. The primary outcome of the trial was cumulative live birth rate at 24 months. Here, we present the secondary outcomes, the diagnostic findings of both THL and HSG as well as performance defined as failures, complications and pain- and acceptability scores. RESULTS: Between May 2013 and October 2016, we allocated 149 women to THL and 151 to HSG, of which 17 women in the THL group (11.4%) and 12 in the HSG group (7.9%) conceived naturally before the scheduled procedure, while 13 HSGs and 5 THLs were not performed for other reasons (withdrawal of informed consent, not willing to undergo tubal testing and protocol violations). A total of 119 THLs and 134 HSGs were carried out. Failures were seen more in the THL group (n = 8, 5.6%) than in the HSG group (n = 1, 0.7%) (p = 0.014). Complications did not differ significantly between the groups (THL n = 4; 2.8% vs HSG n = 1; 0.7%) (p = 0.20). Bilateral tubal occlusion was detected in one versus three women (0.9% versus 2.2%) of the THL group and HSG group, while unilateral tubal occlusion was detected in seven (6.2%) versus eight (5.9%) women, respectively. Normal findings were seen in 96 (79.3%) women randomised to THL and in 119 (87.5%) in women randomised for HSG (RR 0.91 95%CI 0.81-1.01, p = 0.08). The pain score was significantly less for THL (VAS 4.7 (SD: 2.5)) than for HSG (VAS 5.4 (SD:2.5)) (p 0.038). The acceptability rate of THL and was high and comparable. CONCLUSION: THL and HSG have a comparable capacity in diagnosing tubal pathology with comparable performance in safety, pain and acceptability.

[Diagnostic image (336). A woman with a calcified pelvic mass]. / Diagnose in beeld (336). Een vrouw met een verkalkte pelviene massa.

In a 34-year-old woman with uterine fibroids, one of the fibroids was calcified and was therefore visible on a conventional radiograph.

[Laparoscopic electrocoagulation of the ovaries prior to in vitro fertilization in two females with polycystic ovary syndrome]. / Laparoscopische elektrocoagulatie van de ovaria voorafgaande aan in-vitrofertilisatie bij twee vrouwen met het polycysteus-ovariumsyndroom.

A 32-year-old woman with oligomenorrhoea/amenorrhoea and a 30-year-old woman with oligomenorrhoea as a result of the polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), with an active desire for children, were considered eligible for in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) because the semen of their partners was of inferior quality. However, the patients' polycystic ovaries proved to be difficult to stimulate. There was either no response to stimulation with gonadotropins or an excessive response, as a result of which treatment had to be stopped prematurely. However, when laparoscopic ovarian electrocautery was done and a stimulation cycle was subsequently started, adequate and controlled stimulation of the ovaries turned out to be quite possible in both cases. Afterwards, a follicle aspiration could be performed with success and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) was carried out. Embryo transfer resulted in pregnancy only in the first patient. This procedure, which has never been described before in the Dutch literature, might also be effective in other women with PCOS who are eligible for IVF.

Prevention of multiple pregnancies in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility: randomised controlled trial of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer or in vitro fertilisation in modified natural cycle compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer or in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle with that of intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in terms of a healthy child. DESIGN: Multicentre, open label, three arm, parallel group, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. SETTING: 17 centres in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Couples seeking fertility treatment after at least 12 months of unprotected intercourse, with the female partner aged between 18 and 38 years, an unfavourable prognosis for natural conception, and a diagnosis of unexplained or mild male subfertility. INTERVENTIONS: Three cycles of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer (plus subsequent cryocycles), six cycles of in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, or six cycles of intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation within 12 months after randomisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was birth of a healthy child resulting from a singleton pregnancy conceived within 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were live birth, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, time to pregnancy, complications of pregnancy, and neonatal morbidity and mortality RESULTS: 602 couples were randomly assigned between January 2009 and February 2012; 201 were allocated to in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer, 194 to in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, and 207 to intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Birth of a healthy child occurred in 104 (52%) couples in the in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer group, 83 (43%) in the in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle group, and 97 (47%) in the intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation group. This corresponds to a risk, relative to intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation, of 1.10 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.34) for in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer and 0.91 (0.73 to 1.14) for in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle. These 95% confidence intervals do not extend below the predefined threshold of 0.69 for inferiority. Multiple pregnancy rates per ongoing pregnancy were 6% (7/121) after in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer, 5% (5/102) after in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, and 7% (8/119) after intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation (one sided P=0.52 for in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer compared with intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation; one sided P=0.33 for in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation). CONCLUSIONS: In vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer and in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle were non-inferior to intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in terms of the birth of a healthy child and showed comparable, low multiple pregnancy rates.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52843371; Nederlands Trial Register NTR939.

Apoptosis in human ejaculated spermatozoa.

After the introduction of assays determining apoptosis in human ejaculated spermatozoa, several studies have been published about the relationship between apoptosis in spermatozoa and semen quality. Apoptosis in spermatozoa is significantly correlated with conventional semen quality parameters, but also with the outcome of assisted reproductive techniques. The apoptotic process is probably set in motion before ejaculation. Determining apoptosis in spermatozoa can improve selection criteria in assisted reproduction.

Microfluidic Chips for Semen Analysis.

The gold standard of semen analysis is still an manual method, which is time-consuming, labour intensive and needs thorough quality control. Microfluidics can also offer advantages for this application. Therefore a first step in the development of a microfluidic chip has been made, which enables the man the semen analysis at home. In this article recent efforts to determine the concentration and motility using a microfluidic chip are summarized.