Clinical outcomes of uninterrupted embryo culture with or without time-lapse-based embryo selection versus interrupted standard culture (SelecTIMO): a three-armed, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Time-lapse monitoring is increasingly used in fertility laboratories to culture and select embryos for transfer. This method is offered to couples with the promise of improving pregnancy chances, even though there is currently insufficient evidence for superior clinical results. We aimed to evaluate whether a potential improvement by time-lapse monitoring is caused by the time-lapse-based embryo selection method itself or the uninterrupted culture environment that is part of the system. METHODS: In this three-armed, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, couples undergoing in-vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection were recruited from 15 fertility clinics in the Netherlands and randomly assigned using a web-based, computerised randomisation service to one of three groups. Couples and physicians were masked to treatment group, but embryologists and laboratory technicians could not be. The time-lapse early embryo viability assessment (EEVA; TLE) group received embryo selection based on the EEVA time-lapse selection method and uninterrupted culture. The time-lapse routine (TLR) group received routine embryo selection and uninterrupted culture. The control group received routine embryo selection and interrupted culture. The co-primary endpoints were the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate within 12 months in all women and the ongoing pregnancy rate after fresh single embryo transfer in a good prognosis population. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered on the ICTRP Search Portal, NTR5423, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: 1731 couples were randomly assigned between June 15, 2017, and March 31, 2020 (577 to the TLE group, 579 to the TLR group, and 575 to the control group). The 12-month cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate did not differ significantly between the three groups: 50·8% (293 of 577) in the TLE group, 50·9% (295 of 579) in the TLR group, and 49·4% (284 of 575) in the control group (p=0·85). The ongoing pregnancy rates after fresh single embryo transfer in a good prognosis population were 38·2% (125 of 327) in the TLE group, 36·8% (119 of 323) in the TLR group, and 37·8% (123 of 325) in the control group (p=0·90). Ten serious adverse events were reported (five TLE, four TLR, and one in the control group), which were not related to study procedures. INTERPRETATION: Neither time-lapse-based embryo selection using the EEVA test nor uninterrupted culture conditions in a time-lapse incubator improved clinical outcomes compared with routine methods. Widespread application of time-lapse monitoring for fertility treatments with the promise of improved results should be questioned. FUNDING: Health Care Efficiency Research programme from Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development and Merck.

ART in Europe, 2018: results generated from European registries by ESHRE.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the data and trends on ART and IUI cycle numbers and their outcomes, and on fertility preservation (FP) interventions, reported in 2018 as compared to previous years? SUMMARY ANSWER: The 22nd ESHRE report shows a continued increase in reported numbers of ART treatment cycles and children born in Europe, a decrease in transfers with more than one embryo with a further reduction of twin delivery rates (DRs) as compared to 2017, higher DRs per transfer after fresh IVF or ICSI cycles (without considering freeze-all cycles) than after frozen embryo transfer (FET) with higher pregnancy rates (PRs) after FET and the number of reported IUI cycles decreased while their PR and DR remained stable. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: ART aggregated data generated by national registries, clinics or professional societies have been gathered and analysed by the European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) since 1997 and reported in 21 manuscripts published in Human Reproduction and Human Reproduction Open. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: Data on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) from European countries are collected by EIM for ESHRE on a yearly basis. The data on treatment cycles performed between 1 January and 31 December 2018 were provided by either national registries or registries based on initiatives of medical associations and scientific organizations or committed persons of 39 countries. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Overall, 1422 clinics offering ART services in 39 countries reported a total of more than 1 million (1 007 598) treatment cycles for the first time, including 162 837 with IVF, 400 375 with ICSI, 309 475 with FET, 48 294 with preimplantation genetic testing, 80 641 with egg donation (ED), 532 with IVM of oocytes and 5444 cycles with frozen oocyte replacement (FOR). A total of 1271 institutions reported data on IUI cycles using either husband/partner's semen (IUI-H; n = 148 143) or donor semen (IUI-D; n = 50 609) in 31 countries and 25 countries, respectively. Sixteen countries reported 20 994 interventions in pre- and post-pubertal patients for FP including oocyte, ovarian tissue, semen and testicular tissue banking. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In 21 countries (21 in 2017) in which all ART clinics reported to the registry, 410 190 treatment cycles were registered for a total population of ∼ 300 million inhabitants, allowing a best estimate of a mean of 1433 cycles performed per million inhabitants (range: 641-3549). Among the 39 reporting countries, for IVF, the clinical PR per aspiration slightly decreased while the PR per transfer remained similar compared to 2017 (25.5% and 34.1% in 2018 versus 26.8% and 34.3% in 2017). In ICSI, the corresponding rates showed similar evolutions in 2018 compared to 2017 (22.5% and 32.1% in 2018 versus 24.0% and 33.5% in 2017). When freeze-all cycles were not considered for the calculations, the clinical PRs per aspiration were 28.8% (29.4% in 2017) and 27.3% (27.3% in 2017) for IVF and ICSI, respectively. After FET with embryos originating from own eggs, the PR per thawing was 33.4% (versus 30.2% in 2017), and with embryos originating from donated eggs 41.8% (41.1% in 2017). After ED, the PR per fresh embryo transfer was 49.6% (49.2% in 2017) and per FOR 44.9% (43.3% in 2017). In IVF and ICSI together, the trend towards the transfer of fewer embryos continues with the transfer of 1, 2, 3 and ≥4 embryos in 50.7%, 45.1%, 3.9% and 0.3% of all treatments, respectively (corresponding to 46.0%, 49.2%. 4.5% and 0.3% in 2017). This resulted in a reduced proportion of twin DRs of 12.4% (14.2% in 2017) and similar triplet DR of 0.2%. Treatments with FET in 2018 resulted in twin and triplet DRs of 9.4% and 0.1%, respectively (versus 11.2% and 0.2%, respectively in 2017). After IUI, the DRs remained similar at 8.8% after IUI-H (8.7% in 2017) and at 12.6% after IUI-D (12.4% in 2017). Twin and triplet DRs after IUI-H were 8.4% and 0.3%, respectively (in 2017: 8.1% and 0.3%), and 6.4% and 0.2% after IUI-D (in 2017: 6.9% and 0.2%). Among 20 994 FP interventions in 16 countries (18 888 in 13 countries in 2017), cryopreservation of ejaculated sperm (n = 10 503, versus 11 112 in 2017) and of oocytes (n = 9123 versus 6588 in 2017) were the most frequently reported. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The results should be interpreted with caution as data collection systems and completeness of reporting vary among European countries. Some countries were unable to deliver data about the number of initiated cycles and/or deliveries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The 22nd ESHRE data collection on ART, IUI and FP interventions shows a continuous increase of reported treatment numbers and MAR-derived livebirths in Europe. Although it is the largest data collection on MAR in Europe, further efforts towards optimization of both the collection and reporting, with the aim of improving surveillance and vigilance in the field of reproductive medicine, are awaited. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study has received no external funding and all costs are covered by ESHRE. There are no competing interests.

Economic evaluation of endometrial scratching before the second IVF/ICSI treatment: a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial (SCRaTCH trial).

STUDY QUESTION: Is a single endometrial scratch prior to the second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment cost-effective compared to no scratch, when evaluated over a 12-month follow-up period? SUMMARY ANSWER: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for an endometrial scratch was €6524 per additional live birth, but due to uncertainty regarding the increase in live birth rate this has to be interpreted with caution. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Endometrial scratching is thought to improve the chances of success in couples with previously failed embryo implantation in IVF/ICSI treatment. It has been widely implemented in daily practice, despite the lack of conclusive evidence of its effectiveness and without investigating whether scratching allows for a cost-effective method to reduce the number of IVF/ICSI cycles needed to achieve a live birth. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This economic evaluation is based on a multicentre randomized controlled trial carried out in the Netherlands (SCRaTCH trial) that compared a single scratch prior to the second IVF/ICSI treatment with no scratch in couples with a failed full first IVF/ICSI cycle. Follow-up was 12 months after randomization.Economic evaluation was performed from a healthcare and societal perspective by taking both direct medical costs and lost productivity costs into account. It was performed for the primary outcome of biochemical pregnancy leading to live birth after 12 months of follow-up as well as the secondary outcome of live birth after the second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment (i.e. the first after randomization). To allow for worldwide interpretation of the data, cost level scenario analysis and sensitivity analysis was performed. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: From January 2016 until July 2018, 933 women with a failed first IVF/ICSI cycle were included in the trial. Data on treatment and pregnancy were recorded up until 12 months after randomization, and the resulting live birth outcomes (even if after 12 months) were also recorded.Total costs were calculated for the second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment and for the full 12 month period for each participant. We included costs of all treatments, medication, complications and lost productivity costs. Cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out by calculating ICERs for scratch compared to control. Bootstrap resampling was used to estimate the uncertainty around cost and effect differences and ICERs. In the sensitivity and scenario analyses, various unit costs for a single scratch were introduced, amongst them, unit costs as they apply for the United Kingdom (UK). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: More live births occurred in the scratch group, but this also came with increased costs over a 12-month period. The estimated chance of a live birth after 12 months of follow-up was 44.1% in the scratch group compared to 39.3% in the control group (risk difference 4.8%, 95% CI -1.6% to +11.2%). The mean costs were on average €283 (95% CI: -€299 to €810) higher in the scratch group so that the point average ICER was €5846 per additional live birth. The ICER estimate was surrounded with a high level of uncertainty, as indicated by the fact that the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) showed that there is an 80% chance that endometrial scratching is cost-effective if society is willing to pay ∼€17 500 for each additional live birth. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: There was a high uncertainty surrounding the effects, mainly in the clinical effect, i.e. the difference in the chance of live birth, which meant that a single straightforward conclusion could not be ascertained as for now. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first formal cost-effectiveness analysis of endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment. The results presented in this manuscript cannot provide a clear-cut expenditure for one additional birth, but they do allow for estimating costs per additional live birth in different scenarios once the clinical effectiveness of scratching is known. As the SCRaTCH trial was the only trial with a follow-up of 12 months, it allows for the most complete estimation of costs to date. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by ZonMW, the Dutch organization for funding healthcare research. A.E.P.C., F.J.M.B., E.R.G. and C.B. L. reported having received fees or grants during, but outside of, this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register (NL5193/NTR 5342).

ART in Europe, 2017: results generated from European registries by ESHRE.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the data on ART and IUI cycles, and fertility preservation (FP) interventions reported in 2017 as compared to previous years, as well as the main trends over the years? SUMMARY ANSWER: The 21st ESHRE report on ART and IUI shows the continual increase in reported treatment cycle numbers in Europe, with a decrease in the proportion of transfers with more than one embryo causing an additional slight reduction of multiple delivery rates (DR) as well as higher pregnancy rates (PR) and DR after frozen embryo replacement (FER) compared to fresh IVF and ICSI cycles, while the number of IUI cycles increased and their outcomes remained stable. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Since 1997, ART aggregated data generated by national registries, clinics or professional societies have been gathered and analyzed by the European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) and communicated in a total of 20 manuscripts published in Human Reproduction and Human Reproduction Open. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: Data on European medically assisted reproduction (MAR) are collected by EIM for ESHRE on a yearly basis. The data on treatments performed between 1 January and 31 December 2017 in 39 European countries were provided by either National Registries or registries based on personal initiatives of medical associations and scientific organizations. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Overall, 1382 clinics offering ART services in 39 countries reported a total of 940 503 treatment cycles, including 165 379 with IVF, 391 379 with ICSI, 271 476 with FER, 37 303 with preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), 69 378 with egg donation (ED), 378 with IVM of oocytes, and 5210 cycles with frozen oocyte replacement (FOR). A total of 1273 institutions reported data on 207 196 IUI cycles using either husband/partner's semen (IUI-H; n = 155 794) or donor semen (IUI-D; n = 51 402) in 30 countries and 25 countries, respectively. Thirteen countries reported 18 888 interventions for FP, including oocyte, ovarian tissue, semen and testicular tissue banking in pre- and postpubertal patients. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In 21 countries (20 in 2016) in which all ART clinics reported to the registry, 473 733 treatment cycles were registered for a total population of approximately 330 million inhabitants, allowing a best-estimate of a mean of 1435 cycles performed per million inhabitants (range: 723-3286).Amongst the 39 reporting countries, the clinical PR per aspiration and per transfer in 2017 were similar to those observed in 2016 (26.8% and 34.6% vs 28.0% and 34.8%, respectively). After ICSI the corresponding rates were also similar to those achieved in 2016 (24% and 33.5% vs 25% and 33.2% in 2016). When freeze all cycles were removed, the clinical PRs per aspiration were 30.8% and 27.5% for IVF and ICSI, respectively.After FER with embryos originating from own eggs the PR per thawing was 30.2%, which is comparable to 30.9% in 2016, and with embryos originating from donated eggs it was 41.1% (41% in 2016). After ED the PR per fresh embryo transfer was 49.2% (49.4% in 2016) and per FOR 43.3% (43.6% in 2016).In IVF and ICSI together, the trend towards the transfer of fewer embryos continues with the transfer of 1, 2, 3 and ≥4 embryos in 46.0%, 49.2%, 4.5% and in 0.3% of all treatments, respectively (corresponding to 41.5%, 51.9%. 6.2% and 0.4% in 2016). This resulted in a reduced proportion of twin DRs of 14.2% (14.9% in 2016) and stable triplet DR of 0.3%. Treatments with FER in 2017 resulted in a twin and triplet DR of 11.2% and 0.2%, respectively (vs 11.9% and 0.2% in 2016).After IUI, the DRs remained similar at 8.7% after IUI-H (8.9% in 2016) and at 12.4% after IUI-D (12.4.0% in 2016). Twin and triplet DRs after IUI-H were 8.1% and 0.3%, respectively (in 2016: 8.8% and 0.3%) and 6.9% and 0.2% after IUI-D (in 2016: 7.7% and 0.4%). Amongst 18 888 FP interventions in 13 countries, cryopreservation of ejaculated sperm (n = 11 112 vs 7877 from 11 countries in 2016) and of oocytes (n = 6588 vs 4907 from eight countries in 2016) were the most frequently reported. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: As the methods of data collection and levels of reporting vary amongst European countries, interpretation of results should remain cautious. Some countries were unable to deliver data about the number of initiated cycles and deliveries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The 21st ESHRE report on ART, IUI and FP interventions shows a continuous increase of reported treatment numbers and MAR-derived livebirths in Europe. Being already the largest data collection on MAR in Europe, efforts should continue to optimize data collection and reporting with the perspective of improved quality control, transparency and vigilance in the field of reproductive medicine. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study has received no external funding and all costs are covered by ESHRE. There are no competing interests.

Is home-based monitoring of ovulation to time frozen embryo transfer a cost-effective alternative for hospital-based monitoring of ovulation? Study protocol of the multicentre, non-inferiority Antarctica-2 randomised controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: The objective of this trial is to compare the effectiveness and costs of true natural cycle (true NC-) frozen embryo transfer (FET) using urinary LH tests to modified NC-FET using repeated ultrasound monitoring and ovulation trigger to time FET in the NC. Secondary outcomes are the cancellation rates of FET (ovulation before hCG or no dominant follicle, no ovulation by LH urine test, poor embryo survival), pregnancy outcomes (miscarriage rate, clinical pregnancy rates, multiple ongoing pregnancy rates, live birth rates, costs) and neonatal outcomes (including gestational age, birthweight and sex, congenital abnormalities or diseases of babies born). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: FET is at the heart of modern IVF. To allow implantation of the thawed embryo, the endometrium must be prepared either by exogenous oestrogen and progesterone supplementation (artificial cycle (AC)-FET) or by using the NC to produce endogenous oestradiol before and progesterone after ovulation to time the transfer of the thawed embryo (NC-FET). During an NC-FET, women visit the hospital repeatedly and receive an ovulation trigger to time FET (i.e. modified (m)NC-FET or hospital-based monitoring). From the woman's point of view, a more natural approach using home-based monitoring of the ovulation with LH urine tests to allow a natural ovulation to time FET may be desired (true NC-FET or home-based monitoring). STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This is a multicentre, non-inferiority prospective randomised controlled trial design. Consenting women will undergo one FET cycle using either true NC-FET or mNC-FET based on randomisation. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Based on our sample size calculation, the study group will consist of 1464 women between 18 and 45 years old who are scheduled for FET. Women with anovulatory cycles, women who need ovulation induction and women with a contra indication for pregnancy will be excluded. The primary outcome is ongoing pregnancy. Secondary outcomes are cancellation rates of FET, pregnancy outcomes (including miscarriage rate, clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy rate and live birth rate). Costs will be estimated by counting resource use and calculating unit prices. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study received a grant from the Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw 843002807; www.zonmw.nl). ZonMw has no role in the design of the study, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data or writing of the manuscript. F.B. reports personal fees from member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, grants from Research support grant Merck Serono, outside the submitted work. A.E.P.C. reports and Unrestricted grant of Ferring B.V. to the Center for Reproductive medicine, no personal fee. Author up-to-date on Hyperthecosis. Congress meetings 2019 with Ferring B.V. and Theramex B.V. M.G. reports Department research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring (location VUMC) outside the submitted work. E.R.G. reports personal fees from Titus Health Care, outside the submitted work. C.B.L. reports grants from Ferring, grants from Merck, from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. The other authors have none to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register (Trial NL6414 (NTR6590), https://www.trialregister.nl/). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 23 July 2017. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 10 April 2018.

Endometrial scratching in women with one failed IVF/ICSI cycle-outcomes of a randomised controlled trial (SCRaTCH).

STUDY QUESTION: Does endometrial scratching in women with one failed IVF/ICSI treatment affect the chance of a live birth of the subsequent fresh IVF/ICSI cycle? SUMMARY ANSWER: In this study, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch group, with a likely certainty range between -0.7% and +9.9%. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Since the first suggestion that endometrial scratching might improve embryo implantation during IVF/ICSI, many clinical trials have been conducted. However, due to limitations in sample size and study quality, it remains unclear whether endometrial scratching improves IVF/ICSI outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The SCRaTCH trial was a non-blinded randomised controlled trial in women with one unsuccessful IVF/ICSI cycle and assessed whether a single endometrial scratch using an endometrial biopsy catheter would lead to a higher live birth rate after the subsequent IVF/ICSI treatment compared to no scratch. The study took place in 8 academic and 24 general hospitals. Participants were randomised between January 2016 and July 2018 by a web-based randomisation programme. Secondary outcomes included cumulative 12-month ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth rate. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women with one previous failed IVF/ICSI treatment and planning a second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment were eligible. In total, 933 participants out of 1065 eligibles were included (participation rate 88%). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: After the fresh transfer, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch compared to control group (110/465 versus 88/461, respectively, risk ratio (RR) 1.24 [95% CI 0.96-1.59]). These data are consistent with a true difference of between -0.7% and +9.9% (95% CI), indicating that while the largest proportion of the 95% CI is positive, scratching could have no or even a small negative effect. Biochemical pregnancy loss and miscarriage rate did not differ between the two groups: in the scratch group 27/153 biochemical pregnancy losses and 14/126 miscarriages occurred, while this was 19/130 and 17/111 for the control group (RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.71-2.07) and RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.38-1.40), respectively). After 12 months of follow-up, 5.1% more live births were observed in the scratch group (202/467 versus 178/466), of which the true difference most likely lies between -1.2% and +11.4% (95% CI). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study was not blinded. Knowledge of allocation may have been an incentive for participants allocated to the scratch group to continue treatment in situations where they may otherwise have cancelled or stopped. In addition, this study was powered to detect a difference in live birth rate of 9%. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The results of this study are an incentive for further assessment of the efficacy and clinical implications of endometrial scratching. If a true effect exists, it may be smaller than previously anticipated or may be limited to specific groups of women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Studying this will require larger sample sizes, which will be provided by the ongoing international individual participant data-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42017079120). At present, endometrial scratching should not be performed outside of clinical trials. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by ZonMW, the Dutch organisation for funding healthcare research. J.S.E. Laven reports grants and personal fees from AnshLabs (Webster, Tx, USA), Ferring (Hoofddorp, The Netherlands) and Ministry of Health (CIBG, The Hague, The Netherlands) outside the submitted work. A.E.P. Cantineau reports 'other' from Ferring BV, personal fees from Up to date Hyperthecosis, 'other' from Theramex BV, outside the submitted work. E.R. Groenewoud reports grants from Titus Health Care during the conduct of the study. A.M. van Heusden reports personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees from Ferring, personal fees from Goodlife, outside the submitted work. F.J.M. Broekmans reports personal fees as Member of the external advisory board for Ferring BV, The Netherlands, personal fees as Member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, The Netherlands, personal fees as Member of the external advisory for Gedeon Richter, Belgium, personal fees from Educational activities for Ferring BV, The Netherlands, grants from Research support grant Merck Serono, grants from Research support grant Ferring, personal fees from Advisory and consultancy work Roche, outside the submitted work. C.B. Lambalk reports grants from Ferring, grants from Merck, grants from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NL5193/NTR 5342). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 31 July 2015. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 26 January 2016.

Corrigendum. ART in Europe, 2015: results generated from European registries by ESHRE.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoz038.].

ART in Europe, 2016: results generated from European registries by ESHRE.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the reported data on cycles in ART, IUI and fertility preservation (FP) interventions in 2016 as compared to previous years, as well as the main trends over the years? SUMMARY ANSWER: The 20th ESHRE report on ART and IUI shows a progressive increase in reported treatment cycle numbers in Europe, with a decrease in the number of transfers with more than one embryo causing a reduction of multiple delivery rates (DR), as well as higher pregnancy rates and DR after frozen embryo replacement (FER) compared to fresh IVF and ICSI cycles, while the outcomes for IUI cycles remained stable. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Since 1997, ART aggregated data generated by national registries, clinics or professional societies have been collected, analysed by the European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) and reported in 19 manuscripts published in Human Reproduction and Human Reproduction Open. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: Yearly collection of European medically assisted reproduction (MAR) data by EIM for ESHRE. The data on treatments performed between 1 January and 31 December 2016 in 40 European countries were provided by either National Registries or registries based on personal initiatives of medical associations and scientific organizations. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: In all, 1347 clinics offering ART services in 40 countries reported a total of 918 159 treatment cycles, involving 156 002 with IVF, 407 222 with ICSI, 248 407 with FER, 27 069 with preimplantation genetic testing, 73 927 with egg donation (ED), 654 with IVM of oocytes and 4878 cycles with frozen oocyte replacement (FOR). European data on IUI using husband/partner's semen (IUI-H) and donor semen (IUI-D) were reported from 1197 institutions offering IUI in 29 and 24 countries, respectively. A total of 162 948 treatments with IUI-H and 50 467 treatments with IUI-D were included. A total of 13 689 FP interventions from 11 countries including oocyte, ovarian tissue, semen and testicular tissue banking in pre-and postpubertal patients were reported. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In 20 countries (18 in 2015) with a total population of approximately 325 million inhabitants, in which all ART clinics reported to the registry, a total of 461 401 treatment cycles were performed, corresponding to a mean of 1410 cycles per million inhabitants (range 82-3088 per million inhabitants). In the 40 reporting countries, after IVF the clinical pregnancy rates (PR) per aspiration and per transfer in 2016 were similar to those observed in 2015 (28.0% and 34.8% vs 28.5% and 34.6%, respectively). After ICSI, the corresponding rates were also similar to those achieved in 2015 (25% and 33.2% vs 26.2% and 33.2%). After FER with own embryos, the PR per thawing is still on the rise, from 29.2% in 2015 to 30.9% in 2016. After ED, the PR per fresh embryo transfer was 49.4% (49.6% in 2015) and per FOR 43.6% (43.4% in 2015). In IVF and ICSI together, the trend towards the transfer of fewer embryos continues with the transfer of 1, 2, 3 and ≥4 embryos in 41.5%, 51.9%, 6.2% and 0.4% of all treatments, respectively (corresponding to 37.7%, 53.9%, 7.9% and 0.5% in 2015). This resulted in a proportion of singleton, twin and triplet DRs of 84.8%, 14.9% and 0.3%, respectively (compared to 83.1%, 16.5% and 0.4%, respectively in 2015). Treatments with FER in 2016 resulted in twin and triplet DR of 11.9% and 0.2%, respectively (vs 12.3% and 0.3% in 2015). After IUI, the DRs remained similar at 8.9% after IUI-H (7.8% in 2015) and at 12.4% after IUI-D (12.0% in 2015). Twin and triplet DRs after IUI-H were 8.8% and 0.3%, respectively (in 2015: 8.9% and 0.5%) and 7.7% and 0.4% after IUI-D (in 2015: 7.3% and 0.6%). The majority of FP interventions included the cryopreservation of ejaculated sperm (n = 7877 from 11 countries) and of oocytes (n = 4907 from eight countries). LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: As the methods of data collection and levels of completeness of reported data vary among European countries, the results should be interpreted with caution. A number of countries failed to provide adequate data about the number of initiated cycles and deliveries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The 20th ESHRE report on ART and IUI shows a continuous increase of reported treatment numbers and MAR-derived livebirths in Europe. Being already the largest data collection on MAR in Europe, continuous efforts to stimulate data collection and reporting strive for future quality control of the data, transparency and vigilance in the field of reproductive medicine. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study has no external funding and all costs were covered by ESHRE. There are no competing interests.

ART in Europe, 2015: results generated from European registries by ESHRE.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the European trends and developments in ART and IUI in 2015 as compared to previous years? SUMMARY ANSWER: The 19th ESHRE report on ART shows a continuing expansion of treatment numbers in Europe, and this increase, the variability in treatment modalities and the rising contribution to the birth rates in most participating countries all point towards the increasing impact of ART on European society. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Since 1997, the ART data generated by national registries have been collected, analysed and reported in 18 manuscripts published in Human Reproduction. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: Collection of European data by the European IVF-Monitoring Consortium (EIM) for ESHRE. The data for treatments performed between 1 January and 31 December 2015 in 38 European countries were provided by national registries or on a voluntary basis by clinics or professional societies. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTINGS METHODS: From 1343 institutions in 38 countries offering ART services a total of 849 811 treatment cycles, involving 155 960 with IVF, 385676 with ICSI, 218098 with frozen embryo replacement (FER), 21 041 with preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), 64 477 with egg donation (ED), 265 with IVM and 4294 with FOR were recorded. European data on IUI using husband/partner's semen (IUI-H) and donor semen (IUI-D) were reported from 1352 institutions offering IUI in 25 countries and 21 countries, respectively. A total of 139 050 treatments with IUI-H and 49 001 treatments with IUI-D were included. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In 18 countries (14 in 2014) with a population of approximately 286 million inhabitants, in which all institutions contributed to their respective national registers, a total of 409 771 treatment cycles were performed, corresponding to 1432 cycles per million inhabitants (range: 727-3068 per million). After IVF the clinical pregnancy rates (PRs) per aspiration and per transfer were slightly lower in 2015 as compared to 2014, at 28.5 and 34.6% versus 29.9 and 35.8%, respectively. After ICSI, the corresponding PR achieved per aspiration and per transfer in 2015 were also slightly lower than those achieved in 2014 (26.2 and 33.2% versus 28.4 and 35.0%, respectively). On the other hand, after FER with own embryos the PR per thawing continued to rise from 27.6% in 2014 to 29.2% in 2015. After ED a slightly lower PR per embryo transfer was achieved: 49.6% per fresh transfer (50.3% in 2014) and 43.4% for FOR (48.7% in 2014). The delivery rates (DRs) after IUI remained stable at 7.8% after IUI-H (8.5% in 2014) and at 12.0% after IUI-D (11.6% in 2014). In IVF and ICSI together, 1, 2, 3 and ≥4 embryos were transferred in 37.7, 53.9, 7.9 and in 0.5% of all treatments, respectively (corresponding to 34.9, 54.5, 9.9 and in 0.7% in 2014). This evolution towards the transfer of fewer embryos in both IVF and ICSI resulted in a proportion of singleton, twin and triplet DR of 83.1, 16.5 and 0.4%, respectively (compared to 82.5, 17.0 and 0.5%, respectively, in 2014). Treatments with FER in 2015 resulted in twin and triplet DR of 12.3 and 0.3%, respectively (versus 12.4 and 0.3% in 2014). Twin and triplet delivery rates after IUI-H were 8.9 and 0.5%, respectively (in 2014: 9.5 and 0.3%), and 7.3 and 0.6% after IUI-D (in 2014: 7.7 and 0.3%). LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The methods of data collection and reporting vary among European countries. The EIM receives aggregated data from various countries with variable levels of completeness. Registries from a number of countries have failed to provide adequate data about the number of initiated cycles and deliveries. As long as incomplete data are provided, the results should be interpreted with caution. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The 19th EIM report on ART shows a continuing expansion of treatment numbers in Europe. The number of treatments reported, the variability in treatment modalities and the rising contribution to the birth rates in most participating countries point towards the increasing impact of ART on reproduction in Europe. Being the largest data collection on ART worldwide, detailed information about ongoing developments in the field is provided. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study has no external funding and all costs are covered by ESHRE. There are no competing interests.

Survey on ART and IUI: legislation, regulation, funding and registries in European countries: The European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE).

STUDY QUESTION: How are ART and IUI regulated, funded and registered in European countries? SUMMARY ANSWER: Of the 43 countries performing ART and IUI in Europe, and participating in the survey, specific legislation exists in only 39 countries, public funding (also available in the 39 countries) varies across and sometimes within countries and national registries are in place in 31 countries. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Some information devoted to particular aspects of accessibility to ART and IUI is available, but most is fragmentary or out-dated. Annual reports from the European IVF-Monitoring (EIM) Consortium for ESHRE clearly mirror different approaches in European countries regarding accessibility to and efficacy of those techniques. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: A survey was designed using the online SurveyMonkey tool consisting of 55 questions concerning three domains-legal, funding and registry. Answers refer to the countries' situation on 31 December 2018. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTINGS METHODS: All members of EIM plus representatives of countries not yet members of the Consortium were invited to participate. Answers received were checked, and initial responders were asked to address unclear answers and to provide any additional information they considered important. Tables of individual countries resulting from the consolidated data were then sent to members of the Committee of National Representatives of ESHRE, asking for a second check. Conflicting information was clarified by direct contact. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Information was received from 43 out of the 44 European countries where ART and IUI are performed. Thirty-nine countries reported specific legislation on ART, and artificial insemination was considered an ART technique in 35 of them. Accessibility is limited to infertile couples in 11 of the 43 countries. A total of 30 countries offer treatments to single women and 18 to female couples. In five countries ART and IUI are permitted for treatment of all patient groups, being infertile couples, single women and same sex couples, male and female. Use of donated sperm is allowed in 41 countries, egg donation in 38, the simultaneous donation of sperm and egg in 32 and embryo donation in 29. Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) for monogenic disorders or structural rearrangements is not allowed in two countries, and PGT for aneuploidy is not allowed in 11; surrogacy is accepted in 16 countries. With the exception of marital/sexual situation, female age is the most frequently reported limiting criteria for legal access to ART-minimal age is usually set at.18 years and maximum ranging from 45 to 51 years with some countries not using numeric definition. Male maximum age is set in very few countries. Where permitted, age is frequently a limiting criterion for third-party donors (male maximum age 35 to 55 years; female maximum age 34 to 38 years). Other legal constraints in third-party donation are the number of children born from the same donor (in some countries, number of families with children from the same donor) and, in 10 countries, a maximum number of egg donations. How countries deal with the anonymity is diverse-strict anonymity, anonymity just for the recipients (not for children when reaching legal adulthood age), mixed system (anonymous and non-anonymous donations) and strict non-anonymity.Public funding systems are extremely variable. Four countries provide no financial assistance to patients. Limits to the provision of funding are defined in all the others i.e. age (female maximum age is the most used), existence of previous children, maximum number of treatments publicly supported and techniques not entitled for funding. In a few countries, reimbursement is linked to a clinical policy. The definition of the type of expenses covered within an IVF/ICSI cycle, up to what limit and the proportion of out-of-pocket costs for patients is also extremely dissimilar.National registries of ART and IUI are in place in 31 out of the 43 countries contributing to the survey, and a registry of donors exists in 18 of them. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The responses were provided by well-informed and committed individuals and submitted to double checking. Since no formal validation was in place, possible inaccuracies cannot be excluded. Also, results are a cross section in time and ART and IUI legislations within European countries undergo continuous evolution. Finally, several domains of ART activity were deliberately left out of the scope of this ESHRE survey. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Results of this survey offer a detailed view of the ART and IUI situation in European countries. It provides updated and extensive answers to many relevant questions related to ART usage at national level and could be used by institutions and policymakers in planning services at both national and European levels. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study has no external funding, and all costs were covered by ESHRE. There were no competing interests.ESHRE Pages are not externally peer reviewed. This article has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

Treatment effect of oil-based contrast is related to experienced pain at HSG: a post-hoc analysis of the randomised H2Oil study.

STUDY QUESTION: Does pain or volume of used contrast medium impact the effectiveness of oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography (HSG)? SUMMARY ANSWER: In women who report moderate to severe pain during HSG, the use of oil-based contrast resulted in more ongoing pregnancies compared to the use of water-based contrast, whereas in women who reported mild or no pain, no difference in ongoing pregnancies was found. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: We recently showed that in infertile women undergoing HSG, the use of oil-based contrast results in more ongoing pregnancies within 6 months as compared to the use of water-based contrast. However, the underlying mechanism of this fertility-enhancing effect remains unclear. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a post-hoc analysis of the H2Oil study, a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the therapeutic effect of oil- and water-based contrast at HSG. Here, we evaluated the impact of pain experienced at HSG and volume of used contrast media during HSG on ongoing pregnancy. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In a subset of 400 participating women, pain during HSG by means of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (range: 0.0-10.0 cm) was reported, while in 512 women, we registered the volume of used contrast (in millilitres). We used logistic regression analyses to assess whether pain and volume of used contrast media modified the effect of oil-based contrast on ongoing pregnancy rates. Data were analysed according to intention-to-treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In 400 women in whom pain scores were reported, the overall median pain score was 5.0 (Interquartile range (IQR) 3.0-6.8) (oil group (n = 199) 4.8 (IQR 3.0-6.4); water group (n = 201) 5.0 (IQR 3.0-6.7); P-value 0.28). There was a significant interaction between pain (VAS ≤5 versus VAS ≥6) and the primary outcome ongoing pregnancy (P-value 0.047). In women experiencing pain (VAS ≥6), HSG with oil-based contrast resulted in better 6-month ongoing pregnancy rates compared to HSG with water-based contrast (49.4% versus 29.6%; RR 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5), while in women with a pain score ≤5, 6-month ongoing pregnancy rates were not significantly different between the use of oil- (28.8%) versus water-based contrast (29.2%) (RR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.66-1.5). In the 512 women in whom we recorded contrast, median volume was 9.0 ml (IQR 5.7-15.0) in the oil group versus 8.0 ml (IQR 5.9-13.0) in the water group, respectively (P-value 0.72). Volume of used contrast was not found to modify the effect of oil-based contrast on ongoing pregnancy (P-value for interaction 0.23). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This was a post-hoc analysis that should be considered as hypothesis generating. The RCT was restricted to infertile ovulatory women, younger than 39 years of age and with a low risk for tubal pathology. Therefore, our results should not be generalised to infertile women who do not share these features. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The underlying mechanism of the fertility-enhancing effect induced by HSG with the use of oil-based contrast remains unclear. However, these findings suggest a possible mechanistic pathway, that is increasing intrauterine pressure occurring prior to dislodging pregnancy hindering debris or mucus plugs from the proximal part of otherwise normal fallopian tubes. This information might help in the search of the underlying fertility-enhancing mechanism found by using oil-based contrast during HSG. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The original H2Oil RCT was an investigator-initiated study that was funded by the two academic institutions (AMC and VUmc) of the Amsterdam UMC. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports consultancy for Guerbet. H.V. reports consultancy fees from Ferring. C.B.L. reports speakers' fees from Ferring and research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. V.M. reports receiving travel and speakers fees as well as research grants from Guerbet. B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet and travel and research grants from Merck KGaA and Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflict of interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The H2Oil study was registered at the Netherlands Trial Registry (NTR 3270). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 1 February 2012. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 3 February 2012.

The vaginal microbiome as a predictor for outcome of in vitro fertilization with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a prospective study.

STUDY QUESTION: Is the presence or absence of certain vaginal bacteria associated with failure or success to become pregnant after an in vitro fertilization (IVF) or IVF with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF-ICSI) treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER: Microbiome profiling with the use of interspace profiling (IS-pro) technique enables stratification of the chance of becoming pregnant prior to the start of an IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Live-birth rates for an IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment vary between 25 and 35% per cycle and it is difficult to predict who will or will not get pregnant after embryo transfer (ET). Recently, it was suggested that the composition of the vaginal microbiota prior to treatment might predict pregnancy outcome. Analysis of the vaginal microbiome prior to treatment might, therefore, offer an opportunity to improve the success rate of IVF or IVF-ICSI. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: In a prospective cohort study, 303 women (age, 20-42 years) undergoing IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment in the Netherlands were included between June 2015 and March 2016. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Study subjects provided a vaginal sample before the start of the IVF or IVF-ICSI procedure. The vaginal microbiota composition was determined using the IS-pro technique. IS-pro is a eubacterial technique based on the detection and categorization of the length of the 16S-23S rRNA gene interspace region. Microbiome profiles were assigned to community state types based on the dominant bacterial species. The predictive accuracy of the microbiome profiles for IVF and IVF-ICSI outcome of fresh ET was evaluated by a combined prediction model based on a small number of bacterial species. From this cohort, a model was built to predict outcome of fertility treatment. This model was externally validated in a cohort of 50 women who were undergoing IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment between March 2018 and May 2018 in the Dutch division of the MVZ VivaNeo Kinderwunschzentrum Düsseldorf, Germany. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In total, the vaginal microbiota of 192 women who underwent a fresh ET could be analysed. Women with a low percentage of Lactobacillus in their vaginal sample were less likely to have a successful embryo implantation. The prediction model identified a subgroup of women (17.7%, n = 34) who had a low chance to become pregnant following fresh ET. This failure was correctly predicted in 32 out of 34 women based on the vaginal microbiota composition, resulting in a predictive accuracy of 94% (sensitivity, 26%; specificity, 97%). Additionally, the degree of dominance of Lactobacillus crispatus was an important factor in predicting pregnancy. Women who had a favourable profile as well as <60% L. crispatus had a high chance of pregnancy: more than half of these women (50 out of 95) became pregnant. In the external validation cohort, none of the women who had a negative prediction (low chance of pregnancy) became pregnant. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Because our study uses a well-defined study population, the results will be limited to the IVF or IVF-ICSI population. Whether these results can be extrapolated to the general population trying to achieve pregnancy without ART cannot be determined from these data. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our results indicate that vaginal microbiome profiling using the IS-pro technique enables stratification of the chance of becoming pregnant prior to the start of an IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment. Knowledge of their vaginal microbiota may enable couples to make a more balanced decision regarding timing and continuation of their IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment cycles. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was financed by NGI Pre-Seed 2014-2016, RedMedTech Discovery Fund 2014-2017, STW Valorisation grant 1 2014-2015, STW Take-off early phase trajectory 2015-2016 and Eurostars VALBIOME grant (reference number: 8884). The employer of W.J.S.S.C. has in collaboration with ARTPred acquired a MIND subsidy to cover part of the costs of this collaboration project. The following grants are received but not used to finance this study: grants from Innovatie Prestatie Contract, MIT Haalbaarheid, other from Dutch R&D tax credit WBSO, RedMedTech Discovery Fund, (J.D.d.J.). Grants from Ferring (J.S.E.L., K.F., C.B.L. and J.M.J.S.S.), Merck Serono (K.F. and C.B.L.), Dutch Heart Foundation (J.S.E.L.), Metagenics Inc. (J.S.E.L.), GoodLife (K.F.), Guerbet (C.B.L.). R.K. is employed by ARTPred B.V. during her PhD at Erasmus Medical Centre (MC). S.A.M. has a 100% University appointment. I.S.P.H.M.S., S.A.M. and A.E.B. are co-owners of IS-Diagnostics Ltd. J.D.d.J. is co-owner of ARTPred B.V., from which he reports personal fees. P.H.M.S. reports non-financial support from ARTPred B.V. P.H.M.S., J.D.d.J. and A.E.B. have obtained patents `Microbial population analysis' (9506109) and `Microbial population analysis' (20170159108), both licenced to ARTPred B.V. J.D.d.J. and A.E.B. report patent applications `Method and kit for predicting the outcome of an assisted reproductive technology procedure' (392EPP0) and patent `Method and kit for altering the outcome of an assisted reproductive technology procedure' by ARTPred. W.J.S.S.C. received personal consultancy and educational fees from Goodlife Fertility B.V. J.S.E.L. reports personal consultancy fees from ARTPred B.V., Titus Health B.V., Danone, Euroscreen and Roche during the conduct of the study. J.S.E.L. and N.G.M.B. are co-applicants on an Erasmus MC patent (New method and kit for prediction success of in vitro fertilization) licenced to ARTPred B.V. F.J.M.B. reports personal fees from Advisory Board Ferring, Advisory Board Merck Serono, Advisory Board Gedeon Richter and personal fees from Educational activities for Ferring, outside the submitted work. K.F. reports personal fees from Ferring (commercial sponsor) and personal fees from GoodLife (commercial sponsor). C.B.L. received speakers' fee from Ferring. J.M.J.S.S. reports personal fees and other from Merck Serono and personal fees from Ferring, unrelated to the submitted paper. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN83157250. Registered 17 August 2018. Retrospectively registered.

ART in Europe, 2014: results generated from European registries by ESHRE: The European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE).

STUDY QUESTION: What are the European trends and developments in ART and IUI in 2014 as compared to previous years? SUMMARY ANSWER: The 18th ESHRE report on ART shows a continuing expansion of both treatment numbers in Europe and more variability in treatment modalities resulting in a rising contribution to the birth rates in most participating countries. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Since 1997, ART data generated by national registries have been collected, analysed by the European IVF-monitoring (EIM) Consortium and reported in 17 manuscripts published in Human Reproduction. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Continuous collection of European data by the EIM for ESHRE. The data for treatments performed in 2014 between 1 January and 31 December in 39 European countries were provided by national registries or on a voluntary basis by clinics or professional societies. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: From 39 countries and 1279 institutions offering ART services, a total of 776 556 treatment cycles, involving 146 148 with IVF, 362 285 with ICSI, 192 027 with frozen embryo replacement (FER), 15 894 with PGT, 56 516 with egg donation (ED), 292 with IVM and 3404 with frozen oocyte replacement (FOR) were reported. European data on IUI using husband/partner's semen (IUI-H) and donor semen (IUI-D) were reported from 1364 institutions offering IUI in 26 countries and 21 countries, respectively. A total of 120 789 treatments with IUI-H and 49 163 treatments with IUI-D were included. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In 14 countries (17 in 2013), where all institutions contributed to their respective national registers, a total of 291 235 treatment cycles were performed in a population of ~208 million inhabitants, corresponding to 1925 cycles per million inhabitants (range: 423-2978 per million inhabitants). After treatment with IVF the clinical pregnancy rates (PR) per aspiration and per transfer were marginally higher in 2014 than in 2013, at 29.9 and 35.8% versus 29.6 and 34.5%, respectively. After treatment with ICSI the PR per aspiration and per transfer were also higher than those achieved in 2013 (28.4 and 35.0% versus 27.8 and 32.9%, respectively). After FER with own embryos the PR continued to rise, from 27.0% in 2013 to 27.6% in 2014. After ED a similar trend was observed with PR reaching 50.3% per fresh transfer (49.8% in 2013) and 48.7% for FOR (46.4% in 2013). The delivery rates (DR) after IUI remained stable at 8.5% after IUI-H (8.6% in 2013) and at 11.6% after IUI-D (11.1% in 2013). In IVF and ICSI together, 1, 2, 3 and ≥4 embryos were transferred in 34.9, 54.5, 9.9 and in 0.7% of all treatments, respectively (corresponding to 31.4%, 56.3, 11.5% and 1% in 2013). This evolution in embryo transfer strategy in both IVF and ICSI resulted in a singleton, twin and triplet DR of 82.5, 17.0 and 0.5%, respectively (compared to 82.0, 17.5 and 0.5%, respectively, in 2013). Treatments with FER in 2014 resulted in a twin and triplet DR of 12.4 and 0.3%, respectively (versus 12.5 and 0.3% in 2013). Twin and triplet DR after IUI were 9.5 and 0.3%, respectively, after IUI-H (in 2013:9.5 and 0.6%) and 7.7 and 0.3% after IUI-D (in 2013: 7.5 and 0.3%). LIMITATION, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The method of data collection and reporting varies among European countries. The EIM receives aggregated data from various countries with variable levels of completeness. Registries from a number of countries have failed to provide adequate data about the number of initiated cycles and deliveries. As long as incomplete data are provided, the results should be interpreted with caution. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The 18th ESHRE report on ART shows a continuing expansion of treatment numbers in Europe. The number of treatments reported, the variability in treatment modalities and the rising contribution to the birth rates in most participating countries point towards the increasing impact of ART on reproduction in Europe. Being the largest data collection on ART, the report gives detailed information about ongoing developments in the field. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study has no external funding and all costs are covered by ESHRE. There are no competing interests.

Stimulation of the ovaries in women with breast cancer undergoing fertility preservation: Alternative versus standard stimulation protocols; the study protocol of the STIM-trial.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy for breast cancer may have a negative impact on reproductive function due to gonadotoxicity. Fertility preservation via banking of oocytes or embryos after ovarian stimulation with FSH can increase the likelihood of a future live birth. It has been hypothesized that elevated serum estrogen levels during ovarian stimulation may induce breast tumour growth. This has led to the use of alternative stimulation protocols with addition of tamoxifen or letrozole. The effectiveness of these stimulation protocols in terms of oocyte yield is unknown. METHODS/DESIGN: Randomized open-label trial comparing ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen and ovarian stimulation plus letrozole with standard ovarian stimulation in the course of fertility preservation. The study population consists of women with breast cancer who opt for banking of oocytes or embryos, aged 18-43years at randomisation. Primary outcome is the number of oocytes retrieved at follicle aspiration. Secondary outcomes are number of mature oocytes retrieved, number of oocytes or embryos banked and peak E2 levels during ovarian stimulation. DISCUSSION: Concerning the lack of evidence on which stimulation protocol should be used in women with breast cancer and the growing demand for fertility preservation, there is an urgent need to undertake this study. By performing this study, we will be able to closely monitor the effects of various stimulation protocols in women with breast cancer and pave the way for long term follow up on the safety of this procedure in terms of breast cancer prognosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR4108.

Endometrial scratching in women with implantation failure after a first IVF/ICSI cycle; does it lead to a higher live birth rate? The SCRaTCH study: a randomized controlled trial (NTR 5342).

BACKGROUND: Success rates of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) are approximately 30%, with the most important limiting factor being embryo implantation. Mechanical endometrial injury, also called 'scratching', has been proposed to positively affect the chance of implantation after embryo transfer, but the currently available evidence is not yet conclusive. The primary aim of this study is to determine the effect of endometrial scratching prior to a second fresh in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) cycle on live birth rates in women with a failed first IVF/ICSI cycle. METHOD: Multicenter randomized controlled trial in Dutch academic and non-academic hospitals. A total of 900 women will be included of whom half will undergo an endometrial scratch in the luteal phase of the cycle prior to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation using an endometrial biopsy catheter. The primary endpoint is the live birth rate after the 2nd fresh IVF/ICSI cycle. Secondary endpoints are costs, cumulative live birth rate (after the full 2nd IVF/ICSI cycle and over 12 months of follow-up); clinical and ongoing pregnancy rate; multiple pregnancy rate; miscarriage rate and endometrial tissue parameters associated with implantation failure. DISCUSSION: Multiple studies have been performed to investigate the effect of endometrial scratching on live birth rates in women undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles. Due to heterogeneity in both the method and population being scratched, it remains unclear which group of women will benefit from the procedure. The SCRaTCH trial proposed here aims to investigate the effect of endometrial scratching prior to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in a large group of women undergoing a second IVF/ICSI cycle. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR 5342 , registered July 31st, 2015. PROTOCOL VERSION: Version 4.10, January 4th, 2017.

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

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

Total motile sperm count: a better indicator for the severity of male factor infertility than the WHO sperm classification system.

STUDY QUESTION: Does the prewash total motile sperm count (TMSC) have a better predictive value for spontaneous ongoing pregnancy (SOP) than the World Health Organization (WHO) classification system? SUMMARY ANSWER: The prewash TMSC shows a better correlation with the spontaneous ongoing pregnancy rate (SOPR) than the WHO 2010 classification system. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: According to the WHO classification system, an abnormal semen analysis can be diagnosed as oligozoospermia, astenozoospermia, teratozoospermia or combinations of these and azoospermia. This classification is based on the fifth percentile cut-off values of a cohort of 1953 men with proven fertility. Although this classification suggests accuracy, the relevance for the prognosis of an infertile couple and the choice of treatment is questionable. The TMSC is obtained by multiplying the sample volume by the density and the percentage of A and B motility spermatozoa. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We analyzed data from a longitudinal cohort study among unselected infertile couples who were referred to three Dutch hospitals between January 2002 and December 2006. Of the total cohort of 2476 infertile couples, only the couples with either male infertility as a single diagnosis or unexplained infertility were included (n = 1177) with a follow-up period of 3 years. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In all couples a semen analysis was performed. Based on the best semen analysis if more tests were performed, couples were grouped according to the WHO classification system and the TMSC range, as described in the Dutch national guidelines for male infertility. The primary outcome measure was the SOPR, which occurred before, during or after treatments, including expectant management, intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. After adjustment for the confounding factors (female and male age, duration and type of infertility and result of the postcoital test) the odd ratios (ORs) for risk of SOP for each WHO and TMSC group were calculated. The couples with unexplained infertility were used as reference. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 514 couples did and 663 couples did not achieve a SOP. All WHO groups have a lower SOPR compared with the unexplained group (ORs varying from 0.136 to 0.397). Comparing the couples within the abnormal WHO groups, there are no significant differences in SOPR, except when oligoasthenoteratozoospermia is compared with asthenozoospermia [OR 0.501 (95% CI 0.311-0.809)] and teratozoospermia [OR 0.499 (95% CI: 0.252-0.988)], and oligoasthenozoospermia is compared with asthenozoospermia [OR 0.572 (95% CI: 0.373-0.877)]. All TMSC groups have a significantly lower SOPR compared with the unexplained group (ORs varying from 0.171 to 0.461). Couples with a TMSC of <1 × 10(6) and 1-5 × 10(6) have significantly lower SOPR compared with couples with a TMSC of 5-10 × 10(6) [respectively, OR 0.371 (95% CI: 0.215-0.64) and OR 0.505 (95% CI: 0.307-0.832)]. LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION: To include all SOPs during the follow-up period of 3 years, couples were not censured at the start of treatment. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Roughly, three prognostic groups can be discerned: couples with a TMSC <5, couples with a TMSC between 5 and 20 and couples with a TMSC of more than 20 × 10(6) spermatozoa. We suggest using TMSC as the method of choice to express severity of male infertility. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: None.

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

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

How long should we continue clomiphene citrate in anovulatory women?

STUDY QUESTION: What is the effectiveness of continued treatment with clomiphene citrate (CC) in women with World Health Organization (WHO) type II anovulation who have had at least six ovulatory cycles with CC but did not conceive? SUMMARY ANSWER: When women continued CC after six treatment cycles, the cumulative incidence rate of the ongoing pregnancy rate was 54% (95% CI 37-78%) for cycles 7-12. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: If women with WHO type II anovulation fail to conceive with CC within six ovulatory cycles, guidelines advise switching to gonadotrophins, which have a high risk of multiple gestation and are expensive. It is however not clear what success rate could be achieved by continued treatment with CC. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a retrospective cohort study of women with WHO II anovulation who visited the fertility clinics of five hospitals in the Netherlands between 1994 and 2010. We included women treated with CC who had had at least six ovulatory cycles without successful conception (n = 114) after which CC was continued using dosages varying from 50 to 150 mg per day for 5 days. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Follow-up was a total of 12 treatment cycles. Primary outcome was the cumulative incidence rate of an ongoing pregnancy at the end of treatment. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We recruited 114 women that had ovulated on CC for at least six cycles but had not conceived. Of these 114 women, 35 (31%) had an ongoing pregnancy resulting in a cumulative incidence rate of an ongoing pregnancy of 54% after 7-12 treatment cycles with CC. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Limitations of our study are its retrospective approach. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Randomized trials comparing continued treatment with CC with the relatively established second line treatment with gonadotrophins are justified. In the meantime, we suggest to only begin this less convenient and more expensive treatment for women who do not conceive after 12 ovulatory cycles with CC. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: None. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.