The risk of hypogonadism after testicular sperm extraction in men with various types of azoospermia: a prospective cohort study.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the risk of hypogonadism in men with obstructive azoospermia, non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) or Klinefelter syndrome after testicular sperm extraction (TESE)? DESIGN: This prospective longitudinal cohort study was carried out between 2007 and 2015. RESULTS: Around 36% of men with Klinefelter syndrome, 4% of men with obstructive azoospermia and 3% of men with NOA needed testosterone replacement therapy (TRT). Klinefelter syndrome was strongly associated with TRT while no association was found between obstructive azoospermia or NOA and TRT. Irrespective of the pre-operative diagnosis, a higher testosterone concentration before TESE was associated with a lower chance of needing TRT. CONCLUSIONS: Men with obstructive azoospermia or NOA have a similar moderate risk of clinical hypogonadism after TESE, while this risk is much larger for men with Klinefelter syndrome. The risk of clinical hypogonadism is lower when testosterone concentrations are high before TESE.

Fertility preservation for women with breast cancer: a multicentre randomized controlled trial on various ovarian stimulation protocols.

STUDY QUESTION: Does ovarian stimulation with the addition of tamoxifen or letrozole affect the number of cumulus-oocyte complexes (COCs) retrieved compared to standard ovarian stimulation in women with breast cancer who undergo fertility preservation? SUMMARY ANSWER: Alternative ovarian stimulation protocols with tamoxifen or letrozole did not affect the number of COCs retrieved at follicle aspiration in women with breast cancer. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Alternative ovarian stimulation protocols have been introduced for women with breast cancer who opt for fertility preservation by means of banking of oocytes or embryos. How these ovarian stimulation protocols compare to standard ovarian stimulation in terms of COC yield is unknown. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This multicentre, open-label randomized controlled superiority trial was carried out in 10 hospitals in the Netherlands and 1 hospital in Belgium between January 2014 and December 2018. We randomly assigned women with breast cancer, aged 18-43 years, who opted for banking of oocytes or embryos to one of three study arms; ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen, ovarian stimulation plus letrozole or standard ovarian stimulation. Standard ovarian stimulation included GnRH antagonist, recombinant FSH and GnRH agonist trigger. Randomization was performed with a web-based system in a 1:1:1 ratio, stratified for oral contraception usage at start of ovarian stimulation, positive estrogen receptor (ER) status and positive lymph nodes. Patients and caregivers were not blinded to the assigned treatment. The primary outcome was number of COCs retrieved at follicle aspiration. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: During the study period, 162 women were randomly assigned to one of three interventions. Fifty-four underwent ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen, 53 ovarian stimulation plus letrozole and 55 standard ovarian stimulation. Analysis was according to intention-to-treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: No differences among groups were observed in the mean (±SD) number of COCs retrieved: 12.5 (10.4) after ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen, 14.2 (9.4) after ovarian stimulation plus letrozole and 13.6 (11.6) after standard ovarian stimulation (mean difference -1.13, 95% CI -5.70 to 3.43 for tamoxifen versus standard ovarian stimulation and 0.58, 95% CI -4.03 to 5.20 for letrozole versus standard ovarian stimulation). After adjusting for oral contraception usage at the start of ovarian stimulation, positive ER status and positive lymph nodes, the mean difference was -1.11 (95% CI -5.58 to 3.35) after ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen versus standard ovarian stimulation and 0.30 (95% CI -4.19 to 4.78) after ovarian stimulation plus letrozole versus standard ovarian stimulation. There were also no differences in the number of oocytes or embryos banked. There was one serious adverse event after standard ovarian stimulation: one woman was admitted to the hospital because of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The available literature on which we based our hypothesis, power analysis and sample size calculation was scarce and studies were of low quality. Our study did not have sufficient power to perform subgroup analysis on follicular, luteal or random start of ovarian stimulation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our study showed that adding tamoxifen or letrozole to a standard ovarian stimulation protocol in women with breast cancer does not impact the effectiveness of fertility preservation and paves the way for high-quality long-term follow-up on breast cancer treatment outcomes and women's future pregnancy outcomes. Our study also highlights the need for high-quality studies for all women opting for fertility preservation, as alternative ovarian stimulation protocols have been introduced to clinical practice without proper evidence. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was supported by a grant (2011.WO23.C129) of 'Stichting Pink Ribbon', a breast cancer fundraising charity organization in the Netherlands. M.G., C.B.L. and R.S. declared that the Center for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC (location VUMC) has received unconditional research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring, not related to the presented work. C.B.L. declared a speakers fee for Inmed and Yingming. S.C.L. reports grants and non-financial support from Agendia, grants, non-financial support and other from AstraZeneca, grants from Eurocept-pharmaceuticals, grants and non-financial support from Genentech/Roche and Novartis, grants from Pfizer, grants and non-financial support from Tesaro and Immunomedics, other from Cergentis, IBM, Bayer, and Daiichi-Sankyo, outside the submitted work; In addition, S.C.L. has a patent UN23A01/P-EP pending that is unrelated to the present work. J.M.J.S. reported payments and travel grants from Merck and Ferring. C.C.M.B. reports her role as unpaid president of the National guideline committee on Fertility Preservation in women with cancer. K.F. received unrestricted grants from Merck Serono, Good Life and Ferring not related to present work. K.F. declared paid lectures for Ferring. D.S. declared former employment from Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD). K.F. declared paid lectures for Ferring. D.S. reports grants from MSD, Gedeon Richter and Ferring paid to his institution; consulting fee payments from MSD and Merck Serono paid to his institution; speaker honoraria from MSD, Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck Serono paid to his institution. D.S. has also received travel and meeting support from MSD, Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck Serono. No payments are related to present work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4108. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 6 August 2013. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 30 January 2014.

Unmet support needs in donor sperm treatment: consequences for parents and their donor-children.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Are unmet needs for psychosocial counselling, peer support and friends/family support in parents directly and/or indirectly related to the mental health of parents and their donor-children? DESIGN: A cross-sectional sample of 214 parents participated in this quantitative study via an online questionnaire. The sample comprised mothers and fathers in a heterosexual relationship (n = 85), mothers in a lesbian relationship (n = 67) and single mothers (n = 62). Parents were recruited via three Dutch fertility clinics and four network organizations. Unmet support needs were measured with an adapted version of the Unmet Needs for Parenting Support questionnaire, changing the original items into items about donor conception. The items were derived from a qualitative study and checked by experts in donor conception. The parents' mental health was measured with the Adult Self Report and the donor-children's mental health with the Child Behaviour Checklist. A multigroup mediation analysis was conducted to explore relationships between parents' unmet support needs and their child's mental health, with the parents' mental health as a possible mediator. RESULTS: There were no direct relations between parents' unmet support needs and the mental health of donor-children. Unmet needs for psychosocial counselling, peer support and friends/family support for parents and children's mental health were indirectly related through the mental health of the parents: 0.074 (CI 95%  = 0.013-0.136; P = 0.017), 0.085 (CI 95% = 0.018-0.151; P = 0.036) and 0.063 (CI 95% = 0.019-0.106; P = 0.013), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that fertility clinics, network organizations and authorities for infertility counsellors make their support available to parents for extended periods after their treatment. Further qualitative studies are necessary to assess how to relieve unmet support needs during donor sperm treatment.

Donor sperm treatment: the role of semen parameters in intracervical insemination, a retrospective cohort study.

Donor sperm treatment is advised to be performed with frozen-thawed donor semen. A disadvantage of frozen-thawed semen is lower pregnancy rates compared to inseminations with fresh semen. Semen parameters affect ongoing pregnancy rates in intracervical inseminations with frozen-thawed donor semen. In an attempt to translate this into clinical relevance, cohort studies have tried to find cut-off values for semen parameters after thawing for intracervical insemination, but these studies assessed only one semen parameter per study, thereby overlooking the intricate interplay between all semen parameters. We performed a retrospective cohort study and tried to calculate thresholds for all semen parameters that lead to the best possible ongoing pregnancy rates in intracervical insemination with frozen-thawed donor semen. Between April 1999 and December 2015, data from 1,186 women who underwent 7,103 cycles of intracervical insemination with donor semen from 129 sperm donors were available for analysis. Our results showed that total motility and total motile count (TMC) after thawing were associated with ongoing pregnancy rate. The best possible ongoing pregnancy chances after intracervical insemination were obtained at a total motility of ≥20% and a total motile count (TMC) of ≥8 × 106 after thawing.

Psychosocial counselling in donor sperm treatment: unmet needs and mental health among heterosexual, lesbian and single women.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the unmet needs after psychosocial counselling and mental health of women who opt for donor sperm treatment (DST), and are unmet counselling needs related to their mental health? DESIGN: This quantitative study included women in a heterosexual relationship (n = 19), women in a lesbian relationship (n = 25) and single women (n = 51) who opted for DST. Women were included if they had passed the DST intake procedure at a Dutch fertility clinic, were not pregnant and had no previous donor-child. Unmet needs were measured by a self-developed questionnaire based on specific topics identified in a previous qualitative study with added items from experts in the field of DST. The Adult Self Report was used to measure mental health. Relationships between unmet counselling needs and mental health were explored by multiple regression analyses. RESULTS: Fifty-two women (55%) reported unmet counselling needs. Women in heterosexual relationships mostly had unmet counselling needs on the topics of the decision to opt for DST (n = 11, 58%) and non-genetic parenthood (n = 11, 58%); women in lesbian relationships (n = 10, 40%) and single women (n = 14, 27%) mostly had unmet needs on the topic of choosing a sperm donor. In general, women had good mental health, but 13 (14%) met the criteria for clinical mental health problems. Women with more unmet counselling needs also had more mental health problems. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based guidelines for psychosocial counselling in DST should be developed. Only then can counselling be improved and be fit for purpose.

Oocyte or ovarian tissue banking: decision-making in women aged 35 years or older facing age-related fertility decline.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Women who face age-related fertility decline have the option to safeguard future reproductive potential by banking oocytes or ovarian tissue. What are the methods that women prefer and what factors are important in their decision-making? DESIGN: Qualitative interview study, participants were recruited through monthly information sessions at a university hospital on oocyte banking, postings on social media, websites and newsletters and snowball sampling. Women had to be aged 35 years or older, single, childless and with a possible future desire for motherhood. Key concepts of the Health Belief Model were used as framework for the analyses. RESULTS: In total, 15 women participated in this qualitative study. For oocyte banking, they mentioned chances of success, extra time and faith in the technique and healthcare professionals as benefits. Risks for themselves or future children and costs were considered to be barriers in decision making. For ovarian tissue banking, the chances of success, the possibility of natural conception, the time investment and effect on menopausal symptoms were seen as benefits, and lack of experience and lack of information were considered barriers for themselves or their future children. Overall, they considered the procedures involved in oocyte banking as relatively 'easy', whereas ovarian tissue banking was seen as a more invasive procedure. CONCLUSION: Most women preferred oocyte banking over ovarian tissue banking because of its relative convenience. Future quantitative research in a larger cohort is necessary to confirm the findings and provide more insight into the relative importance of the different factors influencing women's decision.

A comparative analysis of human adult testicular cells expressing stem Leydig cell markers in the interstitium, vasculature, and peritubular layer.

BACKGROUND: Origin of human adult Leydig cells (ALCs) is not well understood. This might be partly due to limited data available on the identification and location of human precursor and stem Leydig cells (SLCs) which hampers the study on the development of ALCs. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to investigate whether described human (PDGFRα, NGFR) and rodent (NES, PDGFRα, THY1, NR2F2) SLC markers are expressed by a common cell population within human adult testicular interstitial cells in vivo and before and after in vitro propagation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Immunohistochemical analyses were used to identify localization of human adult testicular interstitial cells expressing described SLC markers. Next, interstitial cells were isolated and cultured. The percentage of cells expressing one or more SLC markers was determined before and after culture using flow cytometry. RESULTS: NR2F2 and PDGFRα were present in peritubular, perivascular, and Leydig cells, while THY1 was expressed in peritubular and perivascular cells. Although NES and NGFR were expressed in endothelial cells, co-localization with PDGFRα was found for both in vitro, although for NGFR only after culture. All marker positive cells were able to undergo propagation in vitro. DISCUSSION: The partly overlap in localization and overlap in expression in human testicular cells indicate that PDGFRα, NR2F2, and THY1 are expressed within the same ALC developmental lineage from SLCs. Based on the in vitro results, this is also true for NES and after in vitro propagation for NGFR. CONCLUSION: Our results that earlier described SLC markers are expressed in overlapping human interstitial cell population opens up further research strategies aiming for a better insight in the Leydig cell lineage and will be helpful for development of strategies to cure ALC dysfunction.

Guideline-based quality indicators for early pregnancy assessment units.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What valid guideline-based quality indicators can measure quality of care in early pregnancy assessment units (EPAU)? DESIGN: The systematic RAND-modified Delphi method was used to develop an indicator set from four evidence-based guidelines. An international expert panel was assembled to extract recommendations from these guidelines to establish quality indicators. RESULTS: A total of 119 recommendations were extracted. Eleven recommendations received a high median score and top five score above the 75th percentile and were selected as key recommendations. The expert panel reassessed 15 high score recommendations and top five score between the 50th and 75th percentile as well as one high score recommendation without consensus. Eight of these 16 recommendations were selected in the second round as key recommendations. The key recommendations were formulated into a set of 19 quality indicators, summarized as follows: women referred to an EPAU could be seen within 24 h and receive a clear explanation on treatment options; designated senior staff members could be responsible for the unit and staff could have had ultrasound training; protocols could be available for daily practice covering all treatment options for miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy; and an EPAU could have access to urine pregnancy testing and serum HCG assays. CONCLUSIONS: Nineteen quality indicators to measure early pregnancy care provided by EPAU were identified.

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.

Interventions for unexplained infertility: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical management for unexplained infertility includes expectant management as well as active treatments, including ovarian stimulation (OS), intrauterine insemination (IUI), OS-IUI,  and in vitro fertilisation (IVF) with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).Existing systematic reviews have conducted head-to-head comparisons of these interventions using pairwise meta-analyses. As this approach allows only the comparison of two interventions at a time and is contingent on the availability of appropriate primary evaluative studies, it is difficult to identify the best intervention in terms of effectiveness and safety. Network meta-analysis compares multiple treatments simultaneously by using both direct and indirect evidence and provides a hierarchy of these treatments, which can potentially better inform clinical decision-making. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different approaches to clinical management (expectant management, OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF/ICSI) in couples with unexplained infertility. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We searched electronic databases including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL, up to 6 September 2018, as well as reference lists, to identify eligible studies. We also searched trial registers for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing at least two of the following clinical management options in couples with unexplained infertility: expectant management, OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF (or combined with ICSI). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts identified by the search strategy. We obtained the full texts of potentially eligible studies to assess eligibility and extracted data using standardised forms. The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of cumulative live birth or ongoing pregnancy, and the primary safety outcome was multiple pregnancy. We performed a network meta-analysis within a random-effects multi-variate meta-analysis model. We presented treatment effects by using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For the network meta-analysis, we used Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA) to evaluate the overall certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 RCTs (4349 couples) in this systematic review and 24 RCTs (3983 couples) in a subsequent network meta-analysis. Overall, the certainty of evidence was low to moderate: the main limitations were imprecision and/or heterogeneity.Ten RCTs including 2725 couples reported on live birth. Evidence of differences between OS, IUI, OS-IUI, or IVF/ICSI versus expectant management was insufficient (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.98; low-certainty evidence; OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.43; low-certainty evidence; OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.94; low-certainty evidence; OR 1.88, 95 CI 0.81 to 4.38; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following expectant management is assumed to be 17%, the chance following OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF would be 9% to 28%, 11% to 33%, 15% to 37%, and 14% to 47%, respectively. When only including couples with poor prognosis of natural conception (3 trials, 725 couples) we found OS-IUI and IVF/ICSI increased live birth rate compared to expectant management (OR 4.48, 95% CI 2.00 to 10.1; moderate-certainty evidence; OR 4.99, 95 CI 2.07 to 12.04; moderate-certainty evidence), while there was insufficient evidence of a difference between IVF/ICSI and OS-IUI (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.60; low-certainty evidence).Eleven RCTs including 2564 couples reported on multiple pregnancy. Compared to expectant management/IUI, OS (OR 3.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 9.41; low-certainty evidence) and OS-IUI (OR 3.34 95% CI 1.09 to 10.29; moderate-certainty evidence) increased the odds of multiple pregnancy, and there was insufficient evidence of a difference between IVF/ICSI and expectant management/IUI (OR 2.66, 95% CI 0.68 to 10.43; low-certainty evidence). These findings suggest that if the chance of multiple pregnancy following expectant management or IUI is assumed to be 0.6%, the chance following OS, OS-IUI, and IVF/ICSI would be 0.6% to 5.0%, 0.6% to 5.4%, and 0.4% to 5.5%, respectively.Trial results show insufficient evidence of a difference between IVF/ICSI and OS-IUI for moderate/severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (OR 2.50, 95% CI 0.92 to 6.76; 5 studies; 985 women; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of moderate/severe OHSS following OS-IUI is assumed to be 1.1%, the chance following IVF/ICSI would be between 1.0% and 7.2%. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence of differences in live birth between expectant management and the other four interventions (OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF/ICSI). Compared to expectant management/IUI, OS may increase the odds of multiple pregnancy, and OS-IUI probably increases the odds of multiple pregnancy. Evidence on differences between IVF/ICSI and expectant management for multiple pregnancy is insufficient, as is evidence of a difference for moderate or severe OHSS between IVF/ICSI and OS-IUI.

The AID study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of intrauterine insemination in the natural cycle compared with intracervical insemination in the natural cycle.

INTRODUCTION: At present, studies comparing intrauterine insemination in the natural cycle versus intracervical insemination in the natural cycle in women undergoing artificial insemination with donor sperm are scarce. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We perform a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial among five secondary and tertiary fertility clinics in the Netherlands and one tertiary fertility clinic in Belgium. Women eligible for artificial insemination with donor sperm are included. We perform six cycles of artificial insemination with donor sperm within a time horizon of 8 months comparing intrauterine insemination in the natural cycle with intracervical insemination in the natural cycle. The primary outcome is ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth conceived within eight months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, multiple pregnancy rate, pregnancy complications (preterm birth, birth weight <2500 g, pregnancy induced hypertension, (pre-) eclampsia, Hemolysis Elevated Liver enzymes Low Platelets (HELLP)), time to ongoing pregnancy, direct and indirect costs. To demonstrate the non-inferiority of intracervical insemination with a margin of 12%, we need 208 women per arm. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of the Academic Medical Centre and from the Dutch Central Committee on research involving human subjects (47330-018-13). The boards of the participating hospitals approved the study. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at international scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4462.

Gonadotrophins for ovulation induction in women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Ovulation induction with follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) is a second-line treatment in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) who do not ovulate or conceive on clomiphene citrate. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of gonadotrophins as a second-line treatment for ovulation induction in women with clomiphene citrate-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and women who do not ovulate or conceive after clomiphene citrate. SEARCH METHODS: In January 2018, we searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the World Health Organisation clinical trials register, Clinicaltrials.gov, LILACs, and PubMed databases, and Google Scholar. We checked references of in all obtained studies. We had no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials reporting data on clinical outcomes in women with PCOS who did not ovulate or conceive on clomiphene citrate, and undergoing ovulation induction with urinary-derived gonadotrophins, including urofollitropin (uFSH) in purified FSH (FSH-P) or highly purified FSH (FSH-HP) form, human menopausal gonadotropin (HMG) and highly purified human menopausal gonadotrophin (HP-HMG), or recombinant FSH (rFSH), or continuing clomiphene citrate. We included trials reporting on ovulation induction followed by intercourse or intrauterine insemination. We excluded studies that described co-treatment with clomiphene citrate, metformin, luteinizing hormone, or letrozole. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors (NW, EK, and MvW) independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted study data. Primary outcomes were live birth rate per woman and multiple pregnancy per woman. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) per woman, total gonadotrophin dose, and total duration of stimulation per woman. We combined data using a fixed-effect model to calculate the risk ratio (RR). We summarised the overall quality of evidence for the main outcomes using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: The review included 15 trials with 2387 women. Ten trials compared rFSH with urinary-derived gonadotrophins (three compared rFSH with human menopausal gonadotrophin, and seven compared rFSH with FSH-HP), four trials compared FSH-P with HMG. We found no trials that compared FSH-HP with FSH-P. One trial compared FSH with continued clomiphene citrate.Recombinant FSH (rFSH) versus urinary-derived gonadotrophinsThere may be little or no difference in the birth rate between rFSH and urinary-derived gonadotrophins (RR 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.78; five trials, N = 505; I² = 9%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that for the observed average live birth per woman who used urinary-derived FSH of 16%, the chance of live birth with rFSH is between 13% and 28%. There may also be little or no difference between groups in incidence of multiple pregnancy (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.61; eight trials, N = 1368; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.27; eight trials, N = 1330; I² = 0; low-quality evidence), or miscarriage rate (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.04; seven trials, N = 970; I² = 0; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether rFSH reduces the incidence of OHSS (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.65, ten trials, n=1565, I² = 0%, very low-quality evidence).Human menopausal gonadotrophin (HMG) or HP-HMG versus uFSHWhen compared to uFSH, we are uncertain whether HMG or HP-HMG improves live birth rate (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.52; three trials, N = 138; I² = 0%; very low quality evidence), or reduces multiple pregnancy rate (RR 2.13, 95% CI 0.51 to 8.91; four trials, N = 161; I² = 0%; very low quality evidence). We are also uncertain whether HMG or HP-HMG improves clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.59; three trials, N = 102; I² = 0; very low quality evidence), reduces miscarriage rate (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.97; two trials, N = 98; I² = 0%; very low quality evidence), or reduces the incidence of OHSS (RR 7.07, 95% CI 0.42 to 117.81; two trials, N = 53; very low quality evidence) when compared to uFSH.Gonadotrophins versus continued clomiphene citrateGonadotrophins resulted in more live births than continued clomiphene citrate (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.46; one trial, N = 661; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a live birth rate of 41% with continued clomiphene citrate, the live birth rate with FSH was between 43% and 60%. There is probably little or no difference in the incidence of multiple pregnancy between treatments (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.44; one trial, N = 661; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). Gonadotrophins resulted in more clinical pregnancies than continued clomiphene citrate (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.52; one trial, N = 661; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), and more miscarriages (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 4.47; one trial, N = 661; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). None of the women developed OHSS. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There may be little or no difference in live birth, incidence of multiple pregnancy, clinical pregnancy rate, or miscarriage rate between urinary-derived gonadotrophins and recombinant follicle stimulating hormone in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. For human menopausal gonadotropin or highly purified human menopausal gonadotrophin versus urinary follicle stimulating hormone we are uncertain whether one or the other improves or lowers live birth, incidence of multiple pregnancy, clinical pregnancy rate, or miscarriage rate. We are uncertain whether any of the interventions reduce the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. We suggest weighing costs and convenience in the decision to use one or the other gonadotrophin. In women with clomiphene citrate failure, gonadotrophins resulted in more live births than continued clomiphene citrate without increasing multiple pregnancies.

Being a donor-child: wishes for parental support, peer support and counseling.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed at exploring the wishes of Dutch donor-conceived offspring for parental support, peer support and counseling and sought to contribute to the improvement of health care for all parties involved with assisted reproductive technologies. METHODS: We held semi-structured in-depth interviews with 24 donor-conceived offspring (Mage = 26.9, range 17-41) born within father-mother, two-mother and single mother families. The majority of the donor offspring was conceived with semen of anonymous donors. All offspring were recruited by network organizations and snowball sampling. The interviews were fully transcribed and analyzed using the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Donor-conceived offspring wished that their parents had talked openly about donor conception and had missed parental support. They wished that their parents would have received counseling before donor sperm treatment on how to talk with their children about donor conception in several stages of life. They valued the availability of peer contact to exchange stories with other donor-conceived offspring and would have liked assistance in getting access to trustworthy information about characteristics and identifying information of their donor. Donor-conceived offspring wished to know where to find specialist counseling when needed. CONCLUSIONS: Peer support and counseling by professionals for donor-conceived offspring should be available for those who need it. The findings also support professional counseling for intended parents before treatment to improve parental support for donor-children.

Counsellors' practices in donor sperm treatment.

When intended parents choose to have donor sperm treatment (DST), this may entail wide-ranging and long-lasting psychosocial implications related to the social parent not having a genetic tie with the child, how to disclose donor-conception and future donor contact. Counselling by qualified professionals is recommended to help intended parents cope with these implications. The objective of this study is to present findings and insights about how counsellors execute their counselling practices. We performed a qualitative study that included 13 counsellors working in the 11 clinics offering DST in the Netherlands. We held a focus group discussion and individual face-to-face semi-structured interviews, which were fully transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. The counsellors combined screening for eligibility and guidance within one session. They acted according to their individual knowledge and clinical experience and had different opinions on the issues they discussed with intended parents, which resulted in large practice variations. The counsellors were dependent on the admission policies of the clinics, which were mainly limited to regulating access to psychosocial counselling, which also lead to a variety of counselling practices. This means that evidence-based guidelines on counselling in DST need to be developed to provide consistent counselling with less practice variation.

Reproductive outcomes after oocyte banking for fertility preservation.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the reproductive outcomes of women who bank oocytes for fertility preservation? DESIGN: A prospective follow-up study of a cohort of 327 women who banked their oocytes for fertility preservation was carried out between July 2009 and August 2015. The indications for oocyte banking and outcomes of ovarian stimulation were collected from medical files. Follow-up data were obtained from an additional questionnaire. RESULTS: In total, 243 out of 327 women (74%) responded and 228 women (70%) consented to participate and returned the questionnaire. The median time to follow-up of these women was 31 months. A total of 101 women (44%) were trying, or had tried, to become pregnant after oocyte banking, of which 66 became pregnant (65%). Five women reported an unintended pregnancy. Of these, 71 women became pregnant, 76% conceived naturally, 7% through intracytoplasmic sperm injection with their vitrified-warmed oocytes and 17% by other medically assisted reproduction treatments. Six women attempted to achieve a pregnancy using their banked oocytes. Of the six pregnancies achieved in five women, two resulted in a live birth. A total of thirty-eight women reported a live birth at the time of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Oocyte banking can be considered a form of risk management or preventive medicine because it is not certain that the women will experience sterility in the future.

The risk of TESE-induced hypogonadism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Testicular sperm extraction (TESE) is a surgical procedure to retrieve spermatozoa from the testes of men with azoospermia to help them achieve biological parenthood. Although effective, the surgical procedure is not without complications and haematoma, devascularization, inflammation and a decrease in testosterone levels have been described as such. The prevalence and duration of hypogonadism and associated symptoms after TESE have not been studied systematically. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: In this systematic review we addressed the following research questions: Are serum testosterone levels decreased after TESE and, if so, do these levels recover over time? What is the prevalence of symptoms and signs related to hypogonadism after TESE and are they related to testosterone levels? SEARCH METHODS: We searched the databases Pubmed and Embase from 1 January 1993 to 26 June 2017. We combined subject headings with terms in title and/or abstract for participants, intervention and outcomes. We included all studies that reported on TESE, regardless of the specific technique used, that measured testosterone and/or LH, and/or had information on signs or symptoms related to hypogonadism as defined by hypogonadism guidelines. An additional inclusion criterion was that studies described these measurements both before and after TESE. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions tool. OUTCOMES: We identified 15 studies reporting on total testosterone levels of which five studies also reported on testicular volume and one study on erectile dysfunction. Men with Klinefelter syndrome and men with non-obstructive azoospermia had the strongest decrease in total testosterone levels 6 months after TESE, with a mean decrease of 4.1 and 2.7 nmol/l, respectively, which recovered again to baseline levels 26 and 18 months after TESE, respectively. At 6 months after TESE, some studies reported serum total testosterone concentrations below a cut-off value of 12 nmol/l, where symptoms and signs related to hypogonadism may appear. Furthermore, an increased prevalence of erectile dysfunction related to decreased total testosterone levels 6 months after TESE was reported. Also, in some men a decrease in testicular volume was reported. However, it is not clear if this is related to low testosterone levels. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: The transient, but statistically significant, decrease in total testosterone levels indicates that men are at risk of developing a temporary hypogonadism after TESE, but there is insufficient evidence for whether patients actually experience clinical symptoms in case of decreased serum testosterone levels. To be able to properly counsel TESE patients, more large-scale monitoring on signs and symptoms of hypogonadism, in combination with testosterone measurements, needs to be performed in men undergoing TESE.

The FOAM study: is Hysterosalpingo foam sonography (HyFoSy) a cost-effective alternative for hysterosalpingography (HSG) in assessing tubal patency in subfertile women? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Tubal pathology is a causative factor in 20% of subfertile couples. Traditionally, tubal testing during fertility work-up is performed by hysterosalpingography (HSG). Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) is a new technique that is thought to have comparable accuracy as HSG, while it is less expensive and more patient friendly. HyFoSy would be an acceptable alternative for HSG, provided it has similar effectiveness in terms of patient outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: We aim to compare the effectiveness and costs of management guided by HyFoSy or by HSG. Consenting women will undergo tubal testing by both HyFoSy and HSG in a randomized order during fertility work-up. The study group will consist of 1163 subfertile women between 18 and 41 years old who are scheduled for tubal patency testing during their fertility work-up. Women with anovulatory cycles not responding to ovulation induction, endometriosis, severe male subfertility or a known contrast (iodine) allergy will be excluded. We anticipate that 7 % (N = 82) of the participants will have discordant test results for HyFoSy and HSG. These participants will be randomly allocated to either a management strategy based on HyFoSy or a management strategy based on HSG, resulting in either a diagnostic laparoscopy with chromopertubation or a strategy that assumes tubal patency (intrauterine insemination or expectant management). The primary outcome is ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth within 12 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes are patient pain scores, time to pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage rate, multiple pregnancy rate, preterm birth rate and number of additional treatments. Costs will be estimated by counting resource use and calculating unit prices. DISCUSSION: This trial will compare the effectiveness and costs of HyFoSy versus HSG in assessing tubal patency in subfertile women. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register (NTR 4746, http://www.trialregister.nl ). Date of registration: 19 August 2014.

Association between periconceptional weight loss and maternal and neonatal outcomes in obese infertile women.

BACKGROUND: Obesity in women of reproductive age has deleterious effects on reproductive and offspring health. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the association between the magnitude of periconceptional body-mass index (BMI) change and maternal and neonatal outcomes in obese infertile women who participated in the LIFEstyle study. The LIFEstyle study was a randomized controlled trial, evaluating if a six-month lifestyle intervention program prior to infertility treatment in obese infertile women improved birth rates, compared to prompt infertility treatment. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This is an exploratory post hoc analysis of the LIFEstyle study. We recorded periconceptional BMI change in women with an ongoing pregnancy, pooling data of all women, regardless of randomization arm. Periconceptional BMI change was calculated using weight at randomization and the periconceptional weight (measured in kilograms 12 weeks before or after conception and expressed as BMI change in units BMI (kg/m2)). Subsequently, women were categorized into quartiles according to the magnitude of their periconceptional change in BMI. The odds of maternal and neonatal outcomes were calculated using logistic regression analysis, comparing women in each of the first three weight change quartiles separately, and combined, to women in the fourth quartile. The fourth quartile was chosen as reference group, since these women had the least weight loss. We adjusted for periconceptional BMI, nulliparity and smoking status. In addition, we performed a subgroup analysis for singleton pregnancies. In the LIFEstyle study, 321 obese infertile women achieved an ongoing pregnancy which was conceived within 24 months after randomization. Periconceptional BMI change was available in 244 of these women (76%). Median BMI at randomization was 35.9 kg/m2. Women in the first quartile (Q1) had a periconceptional BMI change of <-2.1 kg/m2, women in the second quartile (Q2) -2.1 to -0.9 kg/m2, women in the third quartile (Q3) -0.9 to 0.1 kg/m2 and women in the fourth quartile (Q4) gained ≥0.1 kg/m2. There were no significant differences between women in the quartiles regarding rates of excessive gestational weight gain (in term pregnancies), gestational diabetes, preterm birth, induction of labor, spontaneous vaginal birth and Caesarean section. Compared to women in Q4, the adjusted odds ratios, aOR, and 95% confidence interval for a hypertensive complication were; 0.55 (0.22-1.42) for women in Q1, 0.30 (0.12-0.78) for women in Q2, 0.39 (0.16-0.96) for women in Q3 and 0.39 (0.19-0.82) for women in Q1 to Q3 combined. In the subgroup analysis, investigating singleton pregnancies only, the statistically significant decreased rate of a hypertensive complication remained in women in Q2 (aOR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10-0.72) and Q3 (aOR 0.39, 95%CI 0.16-0.98) and when comparing women in Q1 to Q3 together to women in Q4 (aOR 0.38, 95%CI 0.18-0.80). Furthermore, there was a significantly decreased aOR (95%CI) of preterm birth in women in Q2 (0.24, 0.06-0.98) and when combining women in Q1 to Q3 (0.37, 0.14-0.97) compared to women in Q4. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that a periconceptional decrease in BMI in obese infertile women could lead to a decrease of the rates of hypertensive pregnancy complications and preterm birth. The results are limited by the exploratory nature of the analyses and further evidence is necessary to provide more definitive conclusions.

Low dosing of gonadotropins in in vitro fertilization cycles for women with poor ovarian reserve: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of low doses of gonadotropins and gonadotropins combined with oral compounds compared with high doses of gonadotropins in ovarian stimulation regimens in terms of ongoing pregnancy per fresh IVF attempt in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies that evaluate the effectiveness of low dosing of gonadotropins alone or combined with oral compounds compared with high doses of gonadotropins in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Subfertile women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment. INTERVENTION(S): We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and the Clinical Trials Registry using medical subject headings and free text terms up to June 2016, without language or year restrictions. We included randomized controlled studies (RCTs) enrolling subfertile women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment and comparing low doses of gonadotropins and gonadotropins combined with oral compounds versus high doses of gonadotropins. We assessed the risk of bias using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. We pooled the results by meta-analysis using the fixed and random effects model. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE(S): The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy rate (PR) per woman randomized. RESULT(S): We retrieved 787 records. Fourteen RCTs (N = 2,104 women) were included in the analysis. Five studies (N = 717 women) compared low doses of gonadotropins versus high doses of gonadotropins. There was no evidence of a difference in ongoing PR (2 RCTs: risk rate 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.62-1.57, I2 = 0). Nine studies (N = 1,387 women) compared ovarian stimulation using gonadotropins combined with the oral compounds letrozole (n = 6) or clomiphene citrate (CC) (n = 3) versus high doses of gonadotropins. There was no evidence of a difference in ongoing PR (3 RCTs: risk rate 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.63-1.27, I2 = 0). CONCLUSION(S): We found no evidence of a difference in pregnancy outcomes between low doses of gonadotropins and gonadotropins combined with oral compounds compared with high doses of gonadotropins in ovarian stimulation regimens. Whether low doses of gonadotropins or gonadotropins combined with oral compounds is to be preferred is unknown, as they have never been compared head to head. A health economic analysis to test the hypothesis that an ovarian stimulation with low dosing is more cost-effective than high doses of gonadotropins is needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016041301.

Intrauterine insemination versus intracervical insemination in donor sperm treatment.

BACKGROUND: The first-line treatment in donor sperm treatment consists of inseminations that can be done by intrauterine insemination (IUI) or by intracervical insemination (ICI). OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of intrauterine insemination (IUI) and intracervical insemination (ICI) in women who start donor sperm treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL in October 2016, checked references of relevant studies, and contacted study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, the Grey literature, and five trials registers on 15 December 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on IUI versus ICI in natural cycles or with ovarian stimulation, and RCTs comparing different cointerventions in IUI and ICI. We included cross-over studies if pre-cross-over data were available. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We collected data on primary outcomes of live birth and multiple pregnancy rates, and on secondary outcomes of clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and cancellation rates. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs (708 women analysed) on ICI and IUI in donor sperm treatment. Two studies compared IUI and ICI in natural cycles, two studies compared IUI and ICI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles, and two studies compared timing of IUI and ICI. There was very low-quality evidence; the main limitations were risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision.IUI versus ICI in natural cyclesThere was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any clear difference in live birth rate between IUI and ICI in natural cycles (odds ratio (OR) 3.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 87.13; 1 RCT, 26 women; very low-quality evidence). There was only one live birth in this study (in the IUI group). IUI resulted in higher clinical pregnancy rates (OR 6.18, 95% CI 1.91 to 20.03; 2 RCTs, 76 women; I² = 48%; very low-quality evidence).No multiple pregnancies or miscarriages occurred in this study.IUI versus ICI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cyclesThere was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any clear difference in live birth rate between IUI and ICI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles (OR 2.55, 95% CI 0.72 to 8.96; 1 RCT, 43 women; very low-quality evidence). This suggested that if the chance of a live birth following ICI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles was assumed to be 30%, the chance following IUI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles would be between 24% and 80%. IUI may result in higher clinical pregnancy rates than ICI (OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.78; 2 RCTs, 131 women; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). IUI may be associated with higher multiple pregnancy rates than ICI (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.00 to 7.69; 2 RCTs, 131 women; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). This suggested that if the risk of multiple pregnancy following ICI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles was assumed to be 10%, the risk following IUI would be between 10% and 46%.We found insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any clear difference between the groups in miscarriage rates in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles (OR 1.97, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.04; 2 RCTs, overall 67 pregnancies; I² = 50%; very low-quality evidence).Timing of IUI and ICIWe found no studies that reported on live birth rates.We found a higher clinical pregnancy rate when IUI was timed one day after a rise in blood levels of luteinising hormone (LH) compared to IUI two days after a rise in blood levels of LH (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.53; 1 RCT, 351 women; low-quality evidence). We found insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any clear difference in clinical pregnancy rates between ICI timed after a rise in urinary levels of LH versus a rise in basal temperature plus cervical mucus scores (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.42 to 4.11; 1 RCT, 56 women; very low-quality evidence).Neither of these studies reported multiple pregnancy or miscarriage rates as outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a clear difference in live birth rates between IUI and ICI in natural or gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles in women who started with donor sperm treatment. There was insufficient evidence available for the effect of timing of IUI or ICI on live birth rates. Very low-quality data suggested that in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles, ICI may be associated with a higher clinical pregnancy rate than IUI, but also with a higher risk of multiple pregnancy rate. We concluded that the current evidence was too limited to choose between IUI or ICI, in natural cycles or with ovarian stimulation, in donor sperm treatment.