Cost-Effectiveness of perioperative Vaginally Administered estrogen in postmenopausal women undergoing prolapse surgery (EVA trial): study protocol for a multicenter double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is associated with high recurrence rates. The costs associated with the treatment of recurrent POP are huge, and the burden from women who encounter recurrent POP, negatively impacts their quality of life. Estrogen therapy might improve surgical outcome for POP due to its potential beneficial effects. It is thought that vaginal estrogen therapy improves healing and long-term maintenance of connective tissue integrity. Hence, this study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of perioperative vaginal estrogen therapy in postmenopausal women undergoing POP surgery. METHODS: The EVA trial is a multi-center double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial conducted in the Netherlands comparing the effectiveness and costs-effectiveness of vaginal estrogen therapy. This will be studied in 300 postmenopausal women undergoing primary POP surgery, with a POP-Q stage of ≥ 2. After randomization, participants administer vaginal estrogen cream or placebo cream from 4 to 6 weeks preoperative until 12 months postoperative. The primary outcome is subjective improvement of POP symptoms at 1 year follow-up, measured with the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale. Secondary outcomes are POP-Q anatomy in all compartments, re-interventions, surgery related complications, general and disease specific quality of life, sexual function, signs and complaints of vaginal atrophy, vaginal pH, adverse events, costs, and adherence to treatment. Follow up is scheduled at 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months postoperative. Data will be collected using validated questionnaires and out-patient visits including gynecological examination performed by an independent gynecologist. DISCUSSION: This study investigates whether perioperative vaginal estrogen will be cost-effective in the surgical treatment of POP in postmenopausal women. It is hypothesized that estrogen therapy will show a reduction in recurrent POP symptoms and a reduction in reoperations for POP, with subsequent improved quality of life among women and cost savings. Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Registry: NL6853; registered 19-02-2018, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/6853 . EudraCT: 2017-003144-21; registered: 24-07-2017.

Partially absorbable mesh or native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse: a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to compare medium-term efficacy and safety of a partially absorbable mesh kit and native tissue repair in pelvic organ prolapse (POP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women with primary POP stage ≥ II were randomized to transvaginal trocar-guided partially absorbable mesh (81 women) or native tissue repair (82 women). Primary outcome was overall anatomical success (POP < stage II) at 24 months. Secondary outcomes were composite success, global improvement, and adverse events. RESULTS: Sixty-nine (85%) of the women allocated to partially absorbable mesh underwent mesh surgery; 8 (10%) crossed over to native tissue repair and 4 women (5%) withdrew from the study. Eighty (98%) of the women allocated to native tissue repair underwent the assigned treatment and 2 (2%) withdrew. Twenty-four months later, 140 surgically treated women (89%) demonstrated an overall anatomical success of 39%; 45% (32 out of 71 women) for mesh, and 32% (22 out of 69) for native tissue repair (RR 1.4, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.2). Composite success was 88 and 73% respectively (RR: 1.1, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.4). There was global improvement in 86% (48 out of 56 women) in the mesh group and in 77% (47 out of 60 women) in the native tissue group (RR: 1.1, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.3). Four women were diagnosed with mesh exposure at 2 years (6%). CONCLUSION: At 24 months, no significant anatomical or composite benefit of partially absorbable mesh over native tissue repair could be demonstrated in women who had been surgically treated for primary POP.

A revised prediction model for natural conception.

One of the aims in reproductive medicine is to differentiate between couples that have favourable chances of conceiving naturally and those that do not. Since the development of the prediction model of Hunault, characteristics of the subfertile population have changed. The objective of this analysis was to assess whether additional predictors can refine the Hunault model and extend its applicability. Consecutive subfertile couples with unexplained and mild male subfertility presenting in fertility clinics were asked to participate in a prospective cohort study. We constructed a multivariable prediction model with the predictors from the Hunault model and new potential predictors. The primary outcome, natural conception leading to an ongoing pregnancy, was observed in 1053 women of the 5184 included couples (20%). All predictors of the Hunault model were selected into the revised model plus an additional seven (woman's body mass index, cycle length, basal FSH levels, tubal status,history of previous pregnancies in the current relationship (ongoing pregnancies after natural conception, fertility treatment or miscarriages), semen volume, and semen morphology. Predictions from the revised model seem to concur better with observed pregnancy rates compared with the Hunault model; c-statistic of 0.71 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.73) compared with 0.59 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.61).

Reducing Inter-Laboratory Differences between Semen Analyses Using Z Score and Regression Transformations.

BACKGROUND: Standardization of the semen analysis may improve reproducibility. We assessed variability between laboratories in semen analyses and evaluated whether a transformation using Z scores and regression statistics was able to reduce this variability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study. We calculated between-laboratory coefficients of variation (CVB) for sperm concentration and for morphology. Subsequently, we standardized the semen analysis results by calculating laboratory specific Z scores, and by using regression. We used analysis of variance for four semen parameters to assess systematic differences between laboratories before and after the transformations, both in the circulation samples and in the samples obtained in the prospective cohort study in the Netherlands between January 2002 and February 2004. RESULTS: The mean CVBwas 7% for sperm concentration (range 3 to 13%) and 32% for sperm morphology (range 18 to 51%). The differences between the laboratories were statistically significant for all semen parameters (all P<0.001). Standardization using Z scores did not reduce the differences in semen analysis results between the laboratories (all P<0.001). CONCLUSION: There exists large between-laboratory variability for sperm morphology and small, but statistically significant, between-laboratory variation for sperm concentration. Standardization using Z scores does not eliminate between-laboratory variability.

Semen analysis and prediction of natural conception.

STUDY QUESTION: Do two semen analyses predict natural conception better than a single semen analysis and will adding the results of repeated semen analyses to a prediction model for natural pregnancy improve predictions? SUMMARY ANSWER: A second semen analysis does not add helpful information for predicting natural conception compared with using the results of a single semen analysis and addition of the second analysis to a prediction model for natural conception did not improve predictions. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A major problem with semen analyses is the large variability of results within an individual. High-quality evidence is lacking on how many semen analyses need to be performed during the fertility workup to achieve an accurate prediction of conception. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We conducted a prospective cohort study of 897 consecutive couples presenting with subfertility in two university hospitals in the period 2002-2004 in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, AND METHODS: The laboratories scored sperm parameters according to the 1999 WHO criteria. Sperm concentration was counted and motility was assessed in a Makler counting chamber at a magnification of ×200. All assessments were performed by trained laboratory technicians. Follow-up started at the completion of the infertility workup and ended after 12 months. Primary end-point was natural conception resulting in an ongoing pregnancy. We constructed models for three strategies for the prediction of natural conception, using univariable and multivariable Cox hazard regression analyses. We evaluated the performance of the three strategies by comparing goodness-of-fit, discrimination and calibration. First, we analysed the semen parameters only. Secondly, we analysed the semen parameters in addition to the multivariable Hunault prediction model. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 897 couples, 132 (15%) achieved a pregnancy by natural conception. Using the results of a single semen analysis only, the calculated probabilities of natural conception within 12 months across the study population ranged from 0.12 to 0.38, with a median of 0.16 (IQR: 0.16-0.17). Using the results of two semen analyses did not lead to a better goodness-of-fit. Discriminative capacity was rather poor, with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) ranging from 0.51 to 0.56. Using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test statistic we found no signs of poor calibration. Using the results of two semen analyses in combination with the Hunault model did not significantly increase goodness-of-fit compared with using a single semen analysis. The Hunault model with the addition of the semen parameters fitted the data significantly better than the Hunault model itself (difference in -2 Log likelihood: 13; 3 df; P = 0.002). Using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test statistic we found no signs of poor calibration. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The academic setting possibly explains the relatively low natural conception rates, with only 15% achieving a natural conception within 1 year. Men with azoospermia were excluded. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Performing more than one semen analysis will not increase the prognostic power of the test in clinical practice. Adding the first semen analysis to the Hunault model for the prediction of natural conception improved performance significantly compared with using the Hunault model alone. External validation, in other populations, should follow to confirm our conclusions, and to evaluate the generalizability or transportability of the extended Hunault model. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No external funding was involved in this study. None of the authors has any conflict of interest to declare.

Long term outcome in subfertile couples with isolated cervical factor.

OBJECTIVE: A previous randomized clinical trial (RCT) compared immediate treatment with intrauterine insemination (IUI) to expectant management for six months in subfertile couples with an isolated cervical factor. That study showed higher ongoing pregnancy rates in couples receiving intrauterine insemination. The current study compared the long-term effectiveness and costs of this intervention. STUDY DESIGN: We followed all couples (N=99) who were previously included in the RCT for three years after randomization and registered pregnancies and treatments. After the initial trial period, couples in both groups were offered further treatment according to local protocol. The primary outcome was an ongoing pregnancy after three years. RESULTS: After three years, there were 36 ongoing pregnancies in the immediate IUI group (N=51 couples) and 38 ongoing pregnancies in the expectant management group (N=48 couples). The ongoing pregnancy rates were 71% and 79% respectively (RR 0.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7-1.1)). CONCLUSIONS: In couples with an isolated cervical factor, a treatment strategy including immediate treatment with IUI does not result in higher ongoing pregnancy rates on the long term. Initial expectant management is therefore justified in these couples and identifying a cervical factor by a post-coital test is unnecessary.

Couples dropping out of a reimbursed intrauterine insemination program: what is their prognostic profile and why do they drop out?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether baseline characteristics and prognostic profiles differed between couples who drop out from intrauterine insemination (IUI) and couples that continue IUI, and the reasons for couples dropping out from IUI programs. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Fertility centers. PATIENT(S): Consecutive subfertile couples undergoing IUI. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Characteristics and prognosis of ongoing pregnancy after IUI at the start of treatment of couples that dropped out compared with couples that continued treatment or achieved an ongoing pregnancy. RESULT(S): We studied 803 couples who underwent 3,579 IUI cycles of whom 221 couples dropped out (28%). Couples dropping out completed 2.8 (SD ±1.4) cycles per couple compared with 4.5 (SD ±2.3) cycles per couple for those continuing treatment. Couples dropping out had a higher female age, longer subfertility duration, and higher basal FSH. Mean prognosis to achieve an ongoing pregnancy after IUI at start of treatment was 7.9% (SD ±2.4) per cycle for couples who dropped out and 8.5% (SD ±2.5) per cycle for couples continuing treatment. Of the dropouts, 100 couples (45%) were actively censored from the IUI program, 87 couples (39%) because of poor prognosis; 121 couples (55%) were passively censored from the program, of whom 62 (28%) dropped out owing to personal reasons; 59 couples (27%) were lost to follow-up. CONCLUSION(S): We found significant differences in prognostic profile between couples continuing treatment and couples dropping out, although these differences seem limited from a clinical perspective. We conclude that overestimation of ongoing pregnancy rates after IUI due to couples dropping out is limited.

Long-term outcome in couples with unexplained subfertility and an intermediate prognosis initially randomized between expectant management and immediate treatment.

BACKGROUND: We recently reported that treatment with intrauterine insemination and controlled ovarian stimulation (IUI-COS) did not increase ongoing pregnancy rates compared with expectant management (EM) in couples with unexplained subfertility and intermediate prognosis of natural conception. Long-term cost-effectiveness of a policy of initial EM is unknown. We investigated whether the recommendation not to treat during the first 6 months is valid, regarding the long-term effectiveness and cumulative costs. METHODS: Couples with unexplained subfertility and intermediate prognosis of natural conception (n=253, at 26 public clinics, the Netherlands) were randomly allocated to 6 months EM or immediate start with IUI-COS. The couples were then treated according to local protocol, usually IUI-COS followed by IVF. We followed couples until 3 years after randomization and registered pregnancies and resources used. Primary outcome was time to ongoing pregnancy. Secondary outcome was treatment costs. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Economic evaluation was performed from the perspective of the health care institution. RESULTS: Time to ongoing pregnancy did not differ between groups (log-rank test P=0.98). Cumulative ongoing pregnancy rates were 72-73% for EM and IUI-COS groups, respectively [relative risk 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85-1.1)]. Estimated mean costs per couple were € 3424 (95% CI € 880-€ 5968) in the EM group and € 6040 (95% CI € 4055-€ 8125) in the IUI-COS group resulting in an estimated saving of € 2616 per couple (95% CI € 385-€ 4847) in favour of EM. CONCLUSIONS: In couples with unexplained subfertility and an intermediate prognosis of natural conception, initial EM for 6 months results in a considerable cost-saving with no delay in achieving pregnancy or jeopardizing the chance of pregnancy. Further comparisons between aggressive and milder forms of ovarian stimulation should be performed.

Couples with unexplained subfertility and unfavorable prognosis: a randomized pilot trial comparing the effectiveness of in vitro fertilization with elective single embryo transfer versus intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian stimulation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of IVF with elective single embryo transfer (IVF-eSET) vs. IUI with controlled ovarian stimulation (IUI-COS) as an alternative treatment to reduce the risk for a multiple pregnancy. DESIGN: Randomized pilot trial. SETTING: Three academic and six teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. PATIENT(S): Couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and an unfavorable prognosis for natural conception. INTERVENTION(S): One cycle of IVF-eSET or three cycles of IUI-COS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Ongoing pregnancy per couple. RESULT(S): We randomly allocated 116 women to IVF-eSET (n = 58) or IUI-COH (n = 58). There were 14 ongoing pregnancies (24%) in the IVF-eSET group and 12 pregnancies (21%) in the IUI-COS group (relative ratio 1.17; 95% confidence interval 0.60-2.30). There were two twin pregnancies in the IVF-eSET group (14%) and two twin pregnancies and one triplet pregnancy in the IUI-COH group (25%). CONCLUSION(S): In patients with unexplained or mild male subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, one cycle of IVF-eSET might be as effective as three cycles of IUI-COS as primary treatment. Elective single embryo transfer does not seem an effective strategy in preventing multiple pregnancies in this particular population. In the future a strict SET policy (i.e., compulsory SET) might be an option. Our trial provides evidence for the feasibility and highlights the importance of a large definitive trial to determine the effectiveness and side effects of both strategies.

Prognostic value of the postcoital test for spontaneous pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the capacity of the postcoital test (PCT) to predict spontaneous pregnancy in a large cohort study of subfertile couples. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Department of reproductive medicine of 38 hospitals in the Netherlands. PATIENT(S): Between January 2002 and February 2004, we prospectively included consecutive subfertile couples who had not been evaluated previously for subfertility. INTERVENTION(S): We estimated the contribution of the PCT result to the existing prediction model for spontaneous pregnancy by calculating the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of an abnormal PCT result. We constructed a second prediction model (PCT model) based on the reference model including the PCT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Primary endpoint in this study was ongoing pregnancy. We evaluated the performance of the PCT model in comparison with the reference model by calculating goodness of fit, discrimination, calibration, and the "net reclassification improvement". RESULT(S): We included 3,021 couples of whom 537 (18%) had a spontaneous pregnancy and 55 (1.8%) a nonsuccessful pregnancy; 1,316 (44%) started treatment within 12 months, 824 (27%) neither started treatment nor became pregnant, and 289 (10%) became lost to follow-up within 12 months. The adjusted HR for an abnormal PCT was 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62 to 0.94). The adjusted HR for an abnormal PCT was 0.63 (95% CI: 0.47 to 0.84) in case of no spermatozoa, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.57 to 1.2) in case of nonmotile spermatozoa, and 1.2 (95% CI: 0.8 to 1.8) in case of motile, nonprogressive spermatozoa. Adding the PCT result to the reference model did not improve goodness of fit. Discrimination was equally poor for the PCT model and the reference model. The calibration plots of both models showed comparably good calibration. The net reclassification improvement of the predictions of the PCT model compared with the reference model was -1.1%. CONCLUSION(S): This study demonstrated that the PCT has prognostic value but does not add substantially to a prognostic model for spontaneous pregnancy.

Role of semen analysis in subfertile couples.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the associations between the results of the male partner's semen analysis (classified according to the World Health Organization [WHO] criteria) and fathering a child without any treatment. DESIGN: Prospective multicenter cohort study. SETTING: Twenty subfertility centers in The Netherlands. PATIENT(S): A total of 3,345 consecutive couples presenting for subfertility. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Associations between the results of the male partner's semen analysis, classified according to the WHO criteria, and fathering a child without any treatment within a time horizon of 1 year. Subsequently, we redefined semen quality criteria and reevaluated the associations. RESULT(S): Follow-up data of 3,129 couples (94%) were available, of which 517 (17%) had a healthy pregnancy without treatment. The 1-year pregnancy rate in men with WHO normozoospermia did not differ significantly from that in men with WHO impaired semen (24% vs. 23%). In contrast, we observed lower chances of fathering a child for sperm concentrations <40 × 10(6)/mL, total sperm count <200 × 10(6), and sperm morphology <20% normal forms. With a multivariable regression model based on the redefined male semen subfertility criteria we were able to make a finer differentiation between subfertile men, with probabilities of fathering a child ranging from 7% to 41%. CONCLUSION(S): The current WHO criteria for semen quality do not discriminate between fertile and subfertile men. Our redefined and graded semen criteria have strong predictive value. If interpreted correctly, the fast and inexpensive semen analysis remains the gold standard for defining a man's role in subfertility.

Reproducibility and reliability of repeated semen analyses in male partners of subfertile couples.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the precise degree of variability that is represented by the reproducibility and reliability of semen analysis. The general assumption is that semen analyses need to be repeated because of a high degree of within-individual variability. However, the precise degree of variability is not well established in male partners of subfertile couples. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Two university hospitals in the Netherlands, which routinely perform two semen analyses in the male partner of subfertile couples. PATIENT(S): Male partners of subfertile couples. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): We assessed the test-retest reproducibility, by calculating the coefficient of variation (CV(w)) for five semen parameters. The CV(w) expresses, on a relative scale, the degree of closeness of repeated measurements taken in the same subject. We also estimated the reliability of these semen parameters, in terms of the intraclass correlation coefficient, which expresses the ratio of the between-subject variability over the total variability. RESULT(S): We analyzed the data of 5,240 men and found that the CV(w) of all semen parameters ranged from 28% to 34%. The intraclass correlation coefficients of these semen parameters were moderate to high: volume: 0.70; concentration: 0.89; motility: 0.58; morphology: 0.60; total motile count: 0.73. CONCLUSION(S): This study affirmed the presumed large within-subject variability and the limited reproducibility of semen analyses in subfertile men. Whether this degree of variability within men justifies one or more repetitions of the semen analysis in view of consequences for clinical management should be the topic of future studies. Until then it seems reasonable to perform two semen analyses.

Time to pregnancy after a previous miscarriage in subfertile couples.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the time to spontaneous ongoing pregnancy after a previous miscarriage in subfertile couples. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. SETTING: The study was conducted in 38 fertility centers in the Netherlands. PATIENT(S): Subfertile couples who miscarried after completing their basic fertility work-up. INTERVENTION(S): Expectant management after a miscarriage. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Spontaneous ongoing pregnancy. RESULT(S): We included 5,663 subfertile couples, of which 1,098 (19%) conceived spontaneously. Among these 1,098 couples, 199 (18%) miscarried and these couples were included in the present study. Follow-up was completed for 171 couples, of which 95 conceived again within 24 months of follow-up. Of these 95 pregnancies, 86 (91%) were ongoing. The cumulative spontaneous ongoing pregnancy rate (PR) after 24 months was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI] 59%-81%). CONCLUSION(S): Subfertile couples, who experience a treatment-independent pregnancy resulting in a miscarriage, have very good prospects of a spontaneous ongoing pregnancy in the near future. This information is useful in counseling couples who had a miscarriage after a previous period of subfertility.

Prediction models in reproductive medicine: a critical appraisal.

BACKGROUND: Prediction models have been developed in reproductive medicine to help assess the chances of a treatment-(in)dependent pregnancy. Careful evaluation is needed before these models can be implemented in clinical practice. METHODS: We systematically searched the literature for papers reporting prediction models in reproductive medicine for three strategies: expectant management, intrauterine insemination (IUI) or in vitro fertilization (IVF). We evaluated which phases of development these models had passed, distinguishing between (i) model derivation, (ii) internal and/or external validation, and (iii) impact analysis. We summarized their performance at external validation in terms of discrimination and calibration. RESULTS: We identified 36 papers reporting on 29 prediction models. There were 9 models for the prediction of treatment-independent pregnancy, 3 for the prediction of pregnancy after IUI and 17 for the prediction of pregnancy after IVF. All of the models had completed the phase of model derivation. For six models, the validity of the model was assessed only in the population in which it was developed (internal validation). For eight models, the validity was assessed in populations other than the one in which the model was developed (external validation), and only three of these showed good performance. One model had reached the phase of impact analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there are three models with good predictive performance. These models can be used reliably as a guide for making decisions about fertility treatment, in patients similar to the development population. The effects of using these models in patient care have to be further investigated.

Immunoglobulin G antisperm antibodies and prediction of spontaneous pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the predictive capacity of immunoglobulin G ASA (direct MAR test) for spontaneous ongoing pregnancy in subfertile couples. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Nine fertility centers in The Netherlands. PATIENT(S): Consecutive ovulatory subfertile couples. INTERVENTION(S): A basic fertility workup, including a mixed agglutination reaction test for IgG (MAR test) at first semen analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Spontaneous conception resulting in ongoing pregnancy. RESULT(S): We included 1,794 couples, of which 283 (16%) had a spontaneous ongoing pregnancy within 1 year. When a threshold 50% was used for an abnormal test result, the MAR test was positive in 3% of the couples. In the univariable analysis, a positive MAR test >or=50% reduced, albeit not statistically significant, the probability of spontaneous pregnancy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34 to 1.7). In the multivariable analysis, a positive MAR test >or=50% had no contribution in the prediction of spontaneous pregnancy (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.4). CONCLUSION(S): This large cohort study shows that the MAR test is not able to predict spontaneous pregnancy chances. Its routine use in the basic fertility workup for identification of couples with low spontaneous pregnancy chances is not justified.

A prediction model for ongoing pregnancy after in vitro fertilization in couples with male subfertility.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the predictive capacity of male and female characteristics on in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcome in couples with male subfertility and to construct an IVF prediction model. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a cohort study including all couples with male subfertility undergoing IVF. The main outcome measure was an ongoing pregnancy after IVF. The baseline characteristics from a couple including parameters of the semen-analysis were included in a univariable and multivariable analysis to construct a prediction model (model I). The addition of antisperm antibodies (ASA) and post-wash total motile count (TMC) to models I, II and III, respectively, were analyzed. RESULTS: We included 275 couples with male subfertility who underwent 473 IVF cycles with an ongoing pregnancy rate of 19% per cycle. A prediction model containing female age, secondary subfertility, percentage progressively motile sperm, percentage sperm with normal morphology, prewash total motile sperm count, bilateral tubal pathology, history of intrauterine insemination and cycle number was constructed (model I). Prediction with model I resulted in the selection of 95 couples, of whom 55 conceived (pregnancy rate of 28% per cycle). Use of the model with n ASA (Model II) resulted in the selection of 79 couples, of whom still 55 conceived (30% per cycle). CONCLUSION: In couples with male subfertility, the use of a prediction model including ASA improves the efficiency of IVF.

Intrauterine insemination: how many cycles should we perform?

BACKGROUND: In the past 20 years, various recommendations have been made about the maximum number of intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles that should be performed, because evidence underpinning a possible limit is lacking. METHODS: We performed a multicentre, retrospective cohort analysis among couples treated with IUI up to nine cycles. Primary outcome measure was ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) per cycle. Cumulative OPRs (COPR) after three, six and nine cycles of IUI were calculated using life-table analysis. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify variables possibly affecting OPR's. RESULTS: Overall, 3714 couples with male, cervical or unexplained subfertility underwent 15,303 cycles of IUI. In 70% of cycles, controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) was used (51% clomiphene-citrate, 19% gonadotropins). Mean OPR rate was 5.6% per cycle. OPR in the seventh, eighth and ninth cycle were 5.1%, 6.7% and 4.6%, respectively. Taking censored patients into account, the calculated COPR was 18% after the third cycle, 30% after the seventh cycle and 41% after the ninth cycle. If censored patients were considered to have no chance of conception, a crude COPR of 25% after nine cycles was found. Multivariable regression analysis showed no significant impact of age, type of subfertility, diagnosis, use of hyperstimulation or cycle number on OPR after the sixth treatment cycle. CONCLUSIONS: OPR in high-order IUI cycles are acceptable, and do not offer a rationale for cancellation before nine cycles. Using this type of very mild COH, it may be reasonable to conduct up to nine cycles.

Obesity affects spontaneous pregnancy chances in subfertile, ovulatory women.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is increasing rapidly among women all over the world. Obesity is a known risk factor for subfertility due to anovulation, but it is unknown whether obesity also affects spontaneous pregnancy chances in subfertile, ovulatory women. METHODS: We evaluated whether obesity affected the chance of a spontaneous pregnancy in a prospectively assembled cohort of 3029 consecutive subfertile couples. Women had to be ovulatory and had to have at least one patent tube, whereas men had to have a normal semen analysis. Time to spontaneous ongoing pregnancy within 12 months was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: The probability of a spontaneous pregnancy declined linearly with a body mass index (BMI) over 29 kg/m(2). Corrected for possible related factors, women with a high BMI had a 4% lower pregnancy rate per kg/m(2) increase [hazard ratio: 0.96 (95% CI 0.91-0.99)]. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that obesity is associated with lower pregnancy rates in subfertile ovulatory women.

Predictive value of pregnancy history in subfertile couples: results from a nationwide cohort study in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether pregnancy history can predict the occurrence of a spontaneous ongoing pregnancy in subfertile couples. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Thirty fertility centers in the Netherlands. PATIENT(S): Subfertile, ovulatory women with at least one patent tube and male partners without severely impaired semen quality. INTERVENTION(S): Fertility work-up, including a detailed pregnancy history. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Spontaneous ongoing pregnancy. RESULT(S): We included 4445 couples, of whom 793 (18%) had a spontaneous ongoing pregnancy within 1 year of follow-up. Previous live birth and miscarriage in current partnership were both associated with higher fecundity as compared with primary infertility (hazard rate ratios for spontaneous pregnancy [HR] 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.7 and 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5, respectively). Pregnancies in a woman's previous partnerships did not affect the fecundity of the couple. A pregnancy in a previous partnership of the male partner was associated with lower fecundity (HR 0.76; 95% CI, 0.58-0.99). A previous pregnancy after fertility treatment also was associated with lower fecundity (HR 0.52; 95% CI, 0.30-0.90). CONCLUSION(S): Accurate prediction of the future fertility of a couple requires an exact assessment of the fertility history of both partners.

Patients' preferences for intrauterine insemination or in-vitro fertilization.

Patients' preferences for intrauterine insemination (IUI) relative to IVF were assessed using trade-off interviews, and the number of IUI cycles they would undergo before changing to IVF. A total of 73 couples undergoing IUI with a total of 111 interviews were included. Scenarios were offered where pregnancy chance after IUI was varied against a fixed pregnancy rate after IVF. The impact of multiple pregnancy risk on the couple's preference was also investigated. Interviews were held before starting IUI, after three or four IUI cycles and after six IUI cycles. With decreasing probability of ongoing pregnancy after IUI, an increasing number of couples switched their preference from IUI to IVF. This switch occurred after six cycles at a significantly higher (P = 0.01) mean cumulative pregnancy rate (53%) compared with other groups (31%). With increasing risk of multiple pregnancy, preference for IUI declined only slightly, with mean risks of 73, 78 and 83% of a multiple pregnancy for the three groups respectively. In conclusion, at baseline and after three cycles of IUI the majority of couples undergoing IUI preferred continuation of IUI over IVF. A clear shift in preference towards IVF occurred after six cycles. Risk of multiple pregnancy did not affect preference for IUI with ovarian stimulation.