Development of a research agenda for general practice based on knowledge gaps identified in Dutch guidelines and input from 48 stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Several funding organizations using different agendas support research in general practice. Topic selection and prioritization are often not coordinated, which may lead to duplication and research waste. OBJECTIVES: To develop systematically a national research agenda for general practice involving general practitioners, researchers, patients and other relevant stakeholders in healthcare. METHODS: We reviewed knowledge gaps from 90 Dutch general practice guidelines and formulated research questions based on these gaps. In addition, we asked 96 healthcare stakeholders to add research questions relevant for general practice. All research questions were prioritized by practising general practitioners in an online survey (n = 232) and by participants of an invitational conference including general practitioners (n = 48) and representatives of other stakeholders in healthcare (n = 16), e.g. patient organizations and medical specialists. RESULTS: We identified 787 research questions. These were categorized in two ways: according to the chapters of the International Classification for Primary Care (ICPC) and in 12 themes such as common conditions, person-centred care and patient education, collaboration and organization of care. The prioritizing procedure resulted in top 10 lists of research questions for each ICPC chapter and each theme. CONCLUSION: The process resulted in a widely supported National Research Agenda for General Practice. We encourage both researchers and funding organizations to use this agenda to focus their research on the most relevant issues in general practice and to generate new evidence for the next generation of guidelines and the future of general practice.

Relationship between inhibin A and B, estradiol and follicle growth dynamics during ovarian stimulation in normo-ovulatory women.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between serum concentrations of inhibin A, inhibin B and estradiol (E(2)) and the number of developing follicles during the administration of exogenous follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) in various regimens in normo-ovulatory volunteers and to evaluate if inhibins act as suitable markers for the number of developing follicles during ovarian stimulation. DESIGN AND METHODS: Serial hormone determinations and assessment of follicle numbers were carried out during unstimulated cycles and during various interventions with exogenous FSH. Subjects were randomized for FSH administration into the following groups: a single high dose (375 IU) during the early follicular phase (group A), 5 consecutive low doses (75 IU/day) starting in the mid follicular phase (group B) or daily low doses (75 IU/day) during the early to late follicular phase (starting on cycle days 3, 5 or 7; groups C, D and E respectively). RESULTS: Extending the FSH window increases the number of small antral follicles and hence inhibin B serum concentrations. If such an intervention results in multi-follicular growth, mid follicular phase inhibin B (P = 0.001) as well as late follicular phase inhibin B and inhibin A levels are significantly (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 respectively) increased compared with mono-follicular cycles or the natural cycle. Although mid follicular inhibin B levels correlated well with the number of small antral (P < 0.05) and pre-ovulatory (P < 0.001) follicles in the late follicular phase, mid follicular inhibin A and estradiol serum concentrations only correlated with the number of pre-ovulatory follicles (P < 0.001 and P < 0.01 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The present data extend our understanding of the relationship between follicle dynamics, serum inhibins and FSH during ovarian hyperstimulation. However, although mid follicular inhibin B does correlate with the number of developing follicles, it does not facilitate the identification of women at risk for multiple follicle development.

Does metformin modify ovarian responsiveness during exogenous FSH ovulation induction in normogonadotrophic anovulation? A placebo-controlled double-blind assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the addition of metformin to gonadotrophin ovulation induction in insulin-resistant, normogonadotrophic, anovulatory women alters ovarian responsiveness to exogenous FSH. DESIGN: Placebo-controlled double-blind assessment in an academic hospital. RESULTS: After a progestagen withdrawal bleeding, patients were randomised for either metformin (n = 11) or placebo (n = 9) treatment. In cases of absent ovulation, exogenous FSH was subsequently administered to induce ovulation. Only during metformin treatment did body mass index and androgen (androstenedione and testosterone) levels decrease, whereas FSH and LH levels increased significantly. In the metformin group, a single patient ovulated before the initiation of exogenous FSH. Significantly more monofollicular cycles and lower preovulatory oestradiol concentrations were observed in women receiving FSH with metformin compared with FSH alone. CONCLUSIONS: Metformin co-treatment in a group of insulin-resistant, normogonadotrophic, anovulatory patients resulted in normalization of the endocrine profile and facilitated monofollicular development during the FSH induction of ovulation.

A randomized comparison of two ovarian stimulation protocols with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist cotreatment for in vitro fertilization commencing recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone on cycle day 2 or 5 with the standard long GnRH agonist protocol.

Extending the FSH window for multifollicular development by administering FSH from the midfollicular phase onward constitutes a novel mild protocol for ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization (IVF) based on the physiology of single dominant follicle selection in normo-ovulatory women. We compared outcomes from this protocol with two other stimulation protocols. One hundred and forty-two normo-ovulatory patients with an indication for IVF (or IVF/ICSI) were randomized to a GnRH agonist long protocol (group A; n = 45) or one of two GnRH antagonist protocols commencing recombinant FSH on cycle d 2 (group B; n = 48) or cycle d 5 (group C; n = 49). A fixed dose (150 IU/d) of rFSH was used for ovarian stimulation, and GnRH antagonist cotreatment was initiated on the day when the leading follicle reached 14 mm diameter. Group C showed a shorter duration of stimulation (median duration, 11, 9, and 8 d for groups A, B, and C, respectively; P < 0.001), reflected in a significantly lower total dose of rFSH used (median amount of rFSH, 1650, 1350, and 1200 IU for groups A, B, and C, respectively; P < 0.001). In group C more cycles were cancelled during the stimulation phase due to insufficient response, resulting in a lower percentage of oocyte retrievals (84%, 73%, and 63% for groups A, B, and C; P = 0.02). However, women in group C obtained better quality embryos (percentage of embryo score of 1 for best embryo, 29%, 37%, and 61% for groups A, B, and C, respectively; P = 0.008), resulting in more transfers per oocyte retrieval (68%, 71%, and 90% for groups A, B, and C, respectively; P = 0.04). After profound ovarian stimulation (groups A and B) only 7% of the patients who retrieved four oocytes or less conceived, whereas after mild stimulation (group C) 67% of these patients conceived (P < 0.01). Overall, no differences were found among the three groups comparing pregnancy rate per started IVF cycle. In conclusion, application of the described mild ovarian stimulation protocol resulted in pregnancy rates per started IVF cycle similar to those observed after profound stimulation with GnRH agonist cotreatment despite shorter stimulation and a 27% reduction in exogenous FSH. A higher cancellation rate before oocyte retrieval was compensated by improved embryo quality concomitant with a higher chance of undergoing embryo transfer. A relatively low number of oocytes retrieved after mild ovarian stimulation distinctly differs from the pathological reduction in the number of oocytes retrieved after profound ovarian stimulation (poor response) associated with poor IVF outcome. The relatively small number of oocytes obtained after mild ovarian stimulation may represent the best of the cohort in a given cycle.