The long-term costs and effects of tubal flushing with oil-based versus water-based contrast during hysterosalpingography.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the long-term costs and effects of oil- versus water-based contrast in infertile women undergoing hysterosalpingography (HSG)? DESIGN: This economic evaluation of a long-term follow-up of a multicentre randomized controlled trial involved 1119 infertile women randomized to HSG with oil- (n = 557) or water-based contrast (n = 562) in the Netherlands. RESULTS: In the oil-based contrast group, 39.8% of women needed no other treatment, 34.6% underwent intrauterine insemination (IUI) and 25.6% had IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in the 5 years following HSG. In the water-based contrast group, 35.0% of women had no other treatment, 34.2% had IUI and 30.8% had IVF/ICSI in the 5 years following HSG (P = 0.113). After 5 years of follow-up, HSG using oil-based contrast resulted in equivalent costs (mean cost difference -€144; 95% confidence interval [CI] -€579 to +€290; P = 0.515) for a 5% increase in the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate compared with HSG using water-based contrast (80% compared with 75%, Relative Risk (RR) 1.07; 95% CI 1.00-1.14). Similarly, HSG with oil-based contrast resulted in equivalent costs (mean cost difference -€50; 95% CI -€576 to +€475; P = 0.850) for a 7.5% increase in the cumulative live birth rate compared with HSG with water-based contrast (74.8% compared with 67.3%, RR 1.11; 95% CI 1.03-1.20), making it the dominant strategy. Scenario analyses suggest that the oil-based contrast medium is the dominant strategy up to a price difference of €300. CONCLUSION: Over a 5-year follow-up, HSG with an oil-based contrast was associated with a 5% increase in ongoing pregnancy rate, a 7.5% increase in live birth rate and similar costs to HSG with water-based contrast.

Reduced oxygen concentration during human IVF culture improves embryo utilization and cumulative pregnancy rates per cycle.

STUDY QUESTION: Do different oxygen levels during human IVF embryo culture affect embryo utilization, cumulative IVF success rates per cycle and neonatal birthweight? SUMMARY ANSWER: After 2 days of culture, a lower oxygen level (5%) leads to more good-quality embryos and more embryos that can be cryopreserved, and thereby to a higher cumulative live birth rate per cycle when compared to embryo culture in 20% oxygen, while birthweights are similar. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Several studies have compared IVF outcome parameters after embryo culture in a more physiological level of 5% oxygen and the atmospheric level of 20%. Although there is consensus that embryo development improves in 5% oxygen, effects on pregnancy and live birth rates are mainly seen in blastocyst, but not cleavage-stage transfers. A major drawback of these studies is that only fresh embryo transfers were included, not taking additional frozen-thawed transfers from these cycles into account. This might have underestimated the effects of oxygen level, especially in cleavage-stage embryo transfers. Furthermore, little is known about the effect of oxygen level during culture on birthweight. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This is a cohort study in 871 consecutive patients who had an IVF cycle between January 2012 and December 2013, and 5-7 years follow-up to allow transfer of frozen-thawed embryos. Based on daily availability of positions in the incubators, all oocytes and embryos of one cycle were allocated to one of the three incubators with traditional ambient oxygen levels (6% CO2 and 20% O2 in air), or to a fourth incubator that was adjusted to have low oxygen levels of 5% (6% CO2, 5% O2 and 89% N2). Embryos were cultured under 5 or 20% oxygen until Day 2 or 3, when embryos were transferred or cryopreserved, respectively. Clinical and other laboratory procedures were similar in both groups. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: To compare embryo characteristics and (cumulative) pregnancy outcomes between the two oxygen groups, for each patient only the first cycle in the study period was included in the analysis, resulting in 195 cycles in the 5% group (1627 oocytes) and 676 in the 20% oxygen group (5448 oocytes). Embryo characteristics were analysed per cycle and per embryo and were corrected for maternal age, cycle rank order, fertilization method (IVF or ICSI) and cause of subfertility. Perinatal data from the resulting singletons (n = 124 after fresh and 45 after frozen-thawed embryo transfer) were collected from delivery reports from the hospitals or midwife practices. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In the 5% oxygen group, there were significantly more embryos of good quality (45.8 versus 30.9% in the 20% group, adjusted odds ratio (OR) [95% CI] = 1.9 [1.6-2.4]). This did not result in higher live birth rates per cycle, but after fresh transfers more good-quality spare embryos could be cryopreserved (46.1 versus 29.7%, adjusted OR [95% CI] = 2.0 [1.7-2.5]).After a follow-up period of 5-7 years, in which 82.4% of the cryopreserved embryos from the 5% oxygen group and 85.4% from the 20% oxygen group were thawed, the percentage of patients with at least one live birth resulting from the study cycle was significantly higher in the low oxygen group (adjusted OR [95% CI] = 1.5 [1.01-2.2]). In 124 live born singletons from fresh embryo transfers and in 45 from transfers of cryopreserved embryos, birthweight was similar in both oxygen groups after correction for confounding factors. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: This is a retrospective study, and treatment allocation was not randomised. The study was not powered for a predefined birthweight difference. With the number of live births in our study, small differences in birthweight might not have been detected. The selection of embryos to be cryopreserved was based on embryo morphology criteria that might be different in other clinics. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Improved embryo utilization by more cryopreservation leading to higher cumulative live birth rates per cycle favours the use of 5% instead of 20% oxygen during human IVF embryo culture. This study also demonstrates that for comparison of different IVF treatment regimens, the cumulative outcome, including transfers of fresh and frozen-thawed embryos, is to be preferred instead of analysis of fresh embryo transfers only. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No external funding was received for this study. None of the authors has a conflict of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NA.

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

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

Individualized versus standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF/ICSI: an RCT. Part 1: The predicted poor responder.

STUDY QUESTION: Does an increased FSH dose result in higher cumulative live birth rates in women with a predicted poor ovarian response, apparent from a low antral follicle count (AFC), scheduled for IVF or ICSI? SUMMARY ANSWER: In women with a predicted poor ovarian response (AFC < 11) undergoing IVF/ICSI, an increased FSH dose (225/450 IU/day) does not improve cumulative live birth rates as compared to a standard dose (150 IU/day). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In women scheduled for IVF/ICSI, an ovarian reserve test (ORT) can predict ovarian response to stimulation. The FSH starting dose is often adjusted based on the ORT from the belief that it will improve live birth rates. However, the existing RCTs on this topic, most of which show no benefit, are underpowered. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Between May 2011 and May 2014, we performed an open-label multicentre RCT in women with an AFC < 11 (Dutch Trial Register NTR2657). The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy achieved within 18 months after randomization and resulting in a live birth. We needed 300 women to assess whether an increased dose strategy would increase the cumulative live birth rate from 25 to 40% (two-sided alpha-error 0.05, power 80%). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women with an AFC ≤ 7 were randomized to an FSH dose of 450 IU/day or 150 IU/day, and women with an AFC 8-10 were randomized to 225 IU or 150 IU/day. In the standard group, dose adjustment was allowed in subsequent cycles based on pre-specified criteria. Both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the strategies were evaluated from an intention-to-treat perspective. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In total, 511 women were randomized, 234 with an AFC ≤ 7 and 277 with an AFC 8-10. The cumulative live birth rate for increased versus standard dosing was 42.4% (106/250) versus 44.8% (117/261), respectively [relative risk (RR): 0.95 (95%CI, 0.78-1.15), P = 0.58]. As an increased dose strategy was more expensive [delta costs/woman: €1099 (95%CI, 562-1591)], standard FSH dosing was the dominant strategy in our economic analysis. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Despite our training programme, the AFC might have suffered from inter-observer variation. As this open study permitted small dose adjustments between cycles, potential selective cancelling of cycles in women treated with 150 IU could have influenced the cumulative results. However, since first cycle live birth rates point in the same direction we consider it unlikely that the open design masked a potential benefit for the individualized strategy. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since an increased dose in women scheduled for IVF/ICSI with a predicted poor response (AFC < 11) does not improve live birth rates and is more expensive, we recommend using a standard dose of 150 IU/day in these women. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW number 171102020). T.C.T., H.L.T. and S.C.O. received an unrestricted personal grant from Merck BV. H.R.V. receives monetary compensation as a member on an external advisory board for Ferring pharmaceutical BV. B.W.J.M. is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for OvsEva, Merck and Guerbet. F.J.M.B. receives monetary compensation as a member of the external advisory board for Ferring pharmaceutics BV (the Netherlands) and Merck Serono (the Netherlands) for consultancy work for Gedeon Richter (Belgium) and Roche Diagnostics on automated AMH assay development (Switzerland) and for a research cooperation with Ansh Labs (USA). All other authors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registered at the ICMJE-recognized Dutch Trial Registry (www.trialregister.nl). Registration number NTR2657. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 20 December 2010. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 12 May 2011.

Oil-Based or Water-Based Contrast for Hysterosalpingography in Infertile Women.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy rates among infertile women have been reported to increase after hysterosalpingography, but it is unclear whether the type of contrast medium used (oil-based or water-soluble contrast) influences this potential therapeutic effect. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, randomized trial in 27 hospitals in the Netherlands in which infertile women who were undergoing hysterosalpingography were randomly assigned to undergo this procedure with the use of oil-based or water-based contrast. Subsequently, couples received expectant management or the women underwent intrauterine insemination. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy within 6 months after randomization. Outcomes were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: A total of 1119 women were randomly assigned to hysterosalpingography with oil contrast (557 women) or water contrast (562 women). A total of 220 of 554 women in the oil group (39.7%) and 161 of 554 women in the water group (29.1%) had an ongoing pregnancy (rate ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16 to 1.61; P<0.001), and 214 of 552 women in the oil group (38.8%) and 155 of 552 women in the water group (28.1%) had live births (rate ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.64; P<0.001). Rates of adverse events were low and similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of ongoing pregnancy and live births were higher among women who underwent hysterosalpingography with oil contrast than among women who underwent this procedure with water contrast. (Netherlands Trial Register number, NTR3270 .).

Hysteroscopy before in-vitro fertilisation (inSIGHT): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hysteroscopy is often done in infertile women starting in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) to improve their chance of having a baby. However, no data are available from randomised controlled trials to support this practice. We aimed to assess whether routine hysteroscopy before the first IVF treatment cycle increases the rate of livebirths. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial in seven university hospitals and 15 large general hospitals in the Netherlands. Women with a normal transvaginal ultrasound of the uterine cavity and no previous hysteroscopy who were scheduled for their first IVF treatment were randomly assigned (1:1) to either hysteroscopy with treatment of detected intracavitary abnormalities before starting IVF (hysteroscopy group) or immediate start of the IVF treatment (immediate IVF group). Randomisation was done with web-based concealed allocation and was stratified by centre with variable block sizes. Participants, doctors, and outcome assessors were not masked to the assigned group. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy (detection of a fetal heartbeat at >12 weeks of gestation) within 18 months of randomisation and resulting in livebirth. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01242852. FINDINGS: Between May 25, 2011, and Aug 27, 2013, we randomly assigned 750 women to receive either hysteroscopy (n=373) or immediate IVF (n=377). 209 (57%) of 369 women eligible for assessment in the hysteroscopy group and 200 (54%) of 373 in the immediate IVF group had a livebirth from a pregnancy during the trial period (relative risk 1·06, 95% CI 0·93-1·20; p=0·41). One (<1%) woman in the hysteroscopy group developed endometritis after hysteroscopy. INTERPRETATION: Routine hysteroscopy does not improve livebirth rates in infertile women with a normal transvaginal ultrasound of the uterine cavity scheduled for a first IVF treatment. Women with a normal transvaginal ultrasound should not be offered routine hysteroscopy. FUNDING: The Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW).

The OPTIMIST study: optimisation of cost effectiveness through individualised FSH stimulation dosages for IVF treatment. A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Costs of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) are high, which is partly due to the use of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH). FSH is usually administered in a standard dose. However, due to differences in ovarian reserve between women, ovarian response also differs with potential negative consequences on pregnancy rates. A Markov decision-analytic model showed that FSH dose individualisation according to ovarian reserve is likely to be cost-effective in women who are eligible for IVF. However, this has never been confirmed in a large randomised controlled trial (RCT). The aim of the present study is to assess whether an individualised FSH dose regime based on an ovarian reserve test (ORT) is more cost-effective than a standard dose regime. METHODS/DESIGN: Multicentre RCT in subfertile women indicated for a first IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle, who are aged < 44 years, have a regular menstrual cycle and no major abnormalities at transvaginal sonography. Women with polycystic ovary syndrome, endocrine or metabolic abnormalities and women undergoing IVF with oocyte donation, will not be included. Ovarian reserve will be assessed by measuring the antral follicle count. Women with a predicted poor response or hyperresponse will be randomised for a standard versus an individualised FSH regime (150 IU/day, 225-450 IU/day and 100 IU/day, respectively). Participants will undergo a maximum of three stimulation cycles during maximally 18 months. The primary study outcome is the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate resulting in live birth achieved within 18 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are parameters for ovarian response, multiple pregnancies, number of cycles needed per live birth, total IU of FSH per stimulation cycle, and costs. All data will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed to assess whether the health and associated economic benefits of individualised treatment of subfertile women outweigh the additional costs of an ORT. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will be integrated into a decision model that compares cost-effectiveness of the three dose-adjustment strategies to a standard dose strategy. The study outcomes will provide scientific foundation for national and international guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR2657.

The inSIGHT study: costs and effects of routine hysteroscopy prior to a first IVF treatment cycle. A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmatic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment a large drop is present between embryo transfer and occurrence of pregnancy. The implantation rate per embryo transferred is only 30%. Studies have shown that minor intrauterine abnormalities can be found in 11-45% of infertile women with a normal transvaginal sonography or hysterosalpingography. Two randomised controlled trials have indicated that detection and treatment of these abnormalities by office hysteroscopy after two failed IVF cycles leads to a 9-13% increase in pregnancy rate. Therefore, screening of all infertile women for intracavitary pathology prior to the start of IVF/ICSI is increasingly advocated. In absence of a scientific basis for such a policy, this study will assess the effects and costs of screening for and treatment of unsuspected intrauterine abnormalities by routine office hysteroscopy, with or without saline infusion sonography (SIS), prior to a first IVF/ICSI cycle. METHODS/DESIGN: Multicenter randomised controlled trial in asymptomatic subfertile women, indicated for a first IVF/ICSI treatment cycle, with normal findings at transvaginal sonography. Women with recurrent miscarriages, prior hysteroscopy treatment and intermenstrual blood loss will not be included. Participants will be randomised for a routine fertility work-up with additional (SIS and) hysteroscopy with on-the-spot-treatment of predefined intrauterine abnormalities versus the regular fertility work-up without additional diagnostic tests. The primary study outcome is the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate resulting in live birth achieved within 18 months of IVF/ICSI treatment after randomisation. Secondary study outcome parameters are the cumulative implantation rate; cumulative miscarriage rate; patient preference and patient tolerance of a SIS and hysteroscopy procedure. All data will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle, using univariate and multivariate logistic regression and cox regression. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed to evaluate the costs of the additional tests as routine procedure. In total 700 patients will be included in this study. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will help to clarify the significance of hysteroscopy prior to IVF treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01242852.