Home-based monitoring of ovulation to time frozen embryo transfers in the Netherlands (Antarctica-2): an open-label, nationwide, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The growing field of assisted reproductive techniques, including frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET), should lead the way to the best sustainable health care without compromising pregnancy chances. Correct timing of FET is crucial to allow implantation of the thawed embryo. Nowadays, timing based on hospital-controlled monitoring of ovulation in the natural cycle of a woman is the preferred strategy because of the assumption of favourable fertility prospects. However, home-based monitoring is a simple method to prevent patient travel and any associated environmental concerns. We compared ongoing pregnancy rates after home-based monitoring versus hospital-controlled monitoring with ovulation triggering. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial was undertaken in 23 hospitals and clinics in the Netherlands. Women aged between 18 and 44 years with a regular ovulatory menstrual cycle were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio via a web-based randomisation program to home-based monitoring or hospital-controlled monitoring. Those who analysed the data were masked to the groups; those collecting the data were not. All endpoints were analysed by intention to treat and per protocol. Non-inferiority was established when the lower limit of the 90% CI exceeded -4%. This study was registered at the Dutch Trial Register (Trial NL6414). FINDINGS: 1464 women were randomly assigned between April 10, 2018, and April 13, 2022, with 732 allocated to home-based monitoring and 732 to hospital-controlled monitoring. Ongoing pregnancy occurred in 152 (20·8%) of 732 in the home-based monitoring group and in 153 (20·9%) of 732 in the hospital-controlled monitoring group (risk ratio [RR] 0·99 [90% CI 0·81 to 1·22]; risk difference [RD] -0·14 [90% CI -3·63 to 3·36]). The per-protocol analysis confirmed non-inferiority (152 [21·0%] of 725 vs 153 [21·0%] of 727; RR 1·00 (90% CI 0·81 to 1·23); RD -0·08 [90% CI -3·60 to 3·44]). INTERPRETATION: Home-based monitoring of ovulation is non-inferior to hospital-controlled monitoring of ovulation to time FET. FUNDING: The Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development.

Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography versus hysterosalpingography during fertility work-up: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the costs and effects of tubal patency testing by hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) compared to hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile women during the fertility work-up? SUMMARY ANSWER: During the fertility work-up, clinical management based on the test results of HyFoSy leads to slightly lower, though not statistically significant, live birth rates, at lower costs, compared to management based on HSG results. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Traditionally, tubal patency testing during the fertility work-up is performed by HSG. The FOAM trial, formally a non-inferiority study, showed that management decisions based on the results of HyFoSy resulted in a comparable live birth rate at 12 months compared to HSG (46% versus 47%; difference -1.2%, 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%; P = 0.27). Compared to HSG, HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain, it lacks ionizing radiation and exposure to iodinated contrast medium. Moreover, HyFoSy can be performed by a gynaecologist during a one-stop fertility work-up. To our knowledge, the costs of both strategies have never been compared. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an economic evaluation alongside the FOAM trial, a randomized multicenter study conducted in the Netherlands. Participating infertile women underwent, both HyFoSy and HSG, in a randomized order. The results of both tests were compared and women with discordant test results were randomly allocated to management based on the results of one of the tests. The follow-up period was twelve months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied 1160 infertile women (18-41 years) scheduled for tubal patency testing. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth. The economic evaluation compared costs and effects of management based on either test within 12 months. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the difference in total costs and chance of live birth. Data were analyzed using the intention to treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 of the 1160 women underwent both tubal tests and had data available: 747 women with concordant results (48% live births), 136 with inconclusive results (40% live births), and 143 with discordant results (41% had a live birth after management based on HyFoSy results versus 49% with live birth after management based on HSG results). When comparing the two strategies-management based on HyfoSy results versus HSG results-the estimated chance of live birth was 46% after HyFoSy versus 47% after HSG (difference -1.2%; 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%). For the procedures itself, HyFoSy cost €136 and HSG €280. When costs of additional fertility treatments were incorporated, the mean total costs per couple were €3307 for the HyFoSy strategy and €3427 for the HSG strategy (mean difference €-119; 95% CI: €-125 to €-114). So, while HyFoSy led to lower costs per couple, live birth rates were also slightly lower. The ICER was €10 042, meaning that by using HyFoSy instead of HSG we would save €10 042 per each additional live birth lost. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: When interpreting the results of this study, it needs to be considered that there was a considerable uncertainty around the ICER, and that the direct fertility enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests was not incorporated as women underwent both tubal patency tests in this study. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS: Compared to clinical management based on HSG results, management guided by HyFoSy leads to slightly lower live birth rates (though not statistically significant) at lower costs, less pain, without ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast exposure. Further research on the comparison of the direct fertility-enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): FOAM trial was an investigator-initiated study, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm®-FOAM kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel-and speakers fees from Guerbet and her department received research grants from Guerbet outside the submitted work. H.R.V. received consulting-and travel fee from Ferring. A.M.v.P. reports received consulting fee from DEKRA and fee for an expert meeting from Ferring, both outside the submitted work. C.H.d.K. received travel fee from Merck. F.J.M.B. received a grant from Merck and speakers fee from Besins Healthcare. F.J.M.B. is a member of the advisory board of Merck and Ferring. J.v.D. reported speakers fee from Ferring. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda and consultancy for Sanofi on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford Press in the role of deputy editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a DSMB as independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. B.W.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC GNT1176437. B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Guerbet, iGenomix, and Merck KGaA and travel support from Merck KGaA. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck, and Ferring and travel and speakers fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746.

The endometrial transcriptome of infertile women with and without implantation failure.

INTRODUCTION: Implantation failure after transferring morphologically "good-quality" embryos in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) may be explained by impaired endometrial receptivity. Analyzing the endometrial transcriptome analysis may reveal the underlying processes and could help in guiding prognosis and using targeted interventions for infertility. This exploratory study investigated whether the endometrial transcriptome profile was associated with short-term or long-term implantation outcomes (ie success or failure). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Mid-luteal phase endometrial biopsies of 107 infertile women with one full failed IVF/ICSI cycle, obtained within an endometrial scratching trial, were subjected to RNA-sequencing and differentially expressed genes analysis with covariate adjustment (age, body mass index, luteinizing hormone [LH]-day). Endometrial transcriptomes were compared between implantation failure and success groups in the short term (after the second fresh IVF/ICSI cycle) and long term (including all fresh and frozen cycles within 12 months). The short-term analysis included 85/107 women (33 ongoing pregnancy vs 52 no pregnancy), excluding 22/107 women. The long-term analysis included 46/107 women (23 'fertile' group, ie infertile women with a live birth after ≤3 embryos transferred vs 23 recurrent implantation failure group, ie no live birth after ≥3 good quality embryos transferred), excluding 61/107 women not fitting these categories. As both analyses drew from the same pool of 107 samples, there was some sample overlap. Additionally, cell type enrichment scores and endometrial receptivity were analyzed, and an endometrial development pseudo-timeline was constructed to estimate transcriptomic deviations from the optimum receptivity day (LH + 7), denoted as ΔWOI (window of implantation). RESULTS: There were no significantly differentially expressed genes between implantation failure and success groups in either the short-term or long-term analyses. Principal component analysis initially showed two clusters in the long-term analysis, unrelated to clinical phenotype and no longer distinct following covariate adjustment. Cell type enrichment scores did not differ significantly between groups in both analyses. However, endometrial receptivity analysis demonstrated a potentially significant displacement of the WOI in the non-pregnant group compared with the ongoing pregnant group in the short-term analysis. CONCLUSIONS: No distinct endometrial transcriptome profile was associated with either implantation failure or success in infertile women. However, there may be differences in the extent to which the WOI is displaced.

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.

Can hysterosalpingo-foam sonography replace hysterosalpingography as first-choice tubal patency test? A randomized non-inferiority trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) lead to similar pregnancy outcomes, compared with hysterosalpingography (HSG), as first-choice tubal patency test in infertile couples? SUMMARY ANSWER: HyFoSy and HSG produce similar findings in a majority of patients and clinical management based on the results of either HyFoSy or HSG, leads to comparable pregnancy outcomes. HyFoSy is experienced as significantly less painful. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Traditionally, tubal patency testing during fertility work-up is performed by HSG. HyFoSy is an alternative imaging technique lacking ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast medium exposure which is less expensive than HSG. Globally, there is a shift towards the use of office-based diagnostic methods, such as HyFoSy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This multicentre, prospective, comparative study with a randomized design was conducted in 26 hospitals in The Netherlands. Participating women underwent both HyFoSy and HSG in randomized order. In case of discordant results, women were randomly allocated to either a management strategy based on HyFoSy or one based on HSG. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We included infertile women between 18 and 41 years old who were scheduled for tubal patency testing during their fertility work-up. Women with anovulatory cycles not responding to ovulation induction, endometriosis, severe male infertility or a known iodine contrast allergy were excluded. The primary outcome for the comparison of the HyFoSy- and HSG-based strategies was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth within 12 months after inclusion in an intention-to-treat analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 women underwent HyFoSy and HSG. HyFoSy was inconclusive in 97 of them (9.5%), HSG was inconclusive in 30 (2.9%) and both were inconclusive in 9 (0.9%). In 747 women (73%) conclusive tests results were concordant. Of the 143/1026 (14%) with discordant results, 105 were randomized to clinical management based on the results of either HyFoSy or HSG. In this group, 22 of the 54 women (41%) allocated to management based on HyFoSy and 25 of 51 women (49%) allocated to management based on HSG had an ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth (Difference -8%; 95% CI: -27% to 10%). In total, clinical management based on the results of HyFoSy was estimated to lead to a live birth in 474 of 1026 women (46%) versus 486 of 1026 (47%) for management based on HSG (Difference -1.2%; 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%). Given the pre-defined margin of -2%, statistically significant non-inferiority of HyFoSy relative to HSG could not be demonstrated (P = 0.27). The mean pain score for HyFoSy on the 1-10 Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was 3.1 (SD 2.2) and the mean VAS pain score for HSG was 5.4 (SD 2.5; P for difference < 0.001). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Since all women underwent both tubal patency tests, no conclusions on a direct therapeutic effect of tubal flushing could be drawn. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: HyFoSy or HSG produce similar tubal pathology findings in a majority of infertile couples and, where they differ, a difference in findings does not lead to substantial difference in pregnancy outcome, while HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The FOAM study was an investigator-initiated study funded by ZonMw, The Netherlands organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). ZonMw funded the whole project. IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm-foam® kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel and speaker fees from Guerbet. F.J.M.B. reports personal fees as a member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, The Netherlands, and a research support grant from Merck Serono, outside the submitted work. C.B.L. reports speakers' fee from Ferring in the past, and his department receives research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.V.W. reports leading The Netherlands Satellite of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for Guerbet and research funding from Merck and Guerbet. V.M. reports non-financial support from IQ medicals ventures, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4746/NL4587 (https://www.trialregister.nl). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 19 August 2014. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 7 May 2015.

Antioxidants for male subfertility.

BACKGROUND: The inability to have children affects 10% to 15% of couples worldwide. A male factor is estimated to account for up to half of the infertility cases with between 25% to 87% of male subfertility considered to be due to the effect of oxidative stress. Oral supplementation with antioxidants is thought to improve sperm quality by reducing oxidative damage. Antioxidants are widely available and inexpensive when compared to other fertility treatments, however most antioxidants are uncontrolled by regulation and the evidence for their effectiveness is uncertain. We compared the benefits and risks of different antioxidants used for male subfertility. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of supplementary oral antioxidants in subfertile men. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, and two trial registers were searched on 15 February 2021, together with reference checking and contact with experts in the field to identify additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment, or treatment with another antioxidant, among subfertile men of a couple attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded studies comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and studies that included men with idiopathic infertility and normal semen parameters or fertile men attending a fertility clinic because of female partner infertility. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth. Clinical pregnancy, adverse events and sperm parameters were secondary outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 90 studies with a total population of 10,303 subfertile men, aged between 18 and 65 years, part of a couple who had been referred to a fertility clinic and some of whom were undergoing medically assisted reproduction (MAR). Investigators compared and combined 20 different oral antioxidants. The evidence was of 'low' to 'very low' certainty: the main limitation was that out of the 67 included studies in the meta-analysis only 20 studies reported clinical pregnancy, and of those 12 reported on live birth. The evidence is current up to February 2021. Live birth: antioxidants may lead to increased live birth rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.91, P = 0.02, 12 RCTs, 1283 men, I2 = 44%, very low-certainty evidence). Results in the studies contributing to the analysis of live birth rate suggest that if the baseline chance of live birth following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 16%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 17% and 27%. However, this result was based on only 246 live births from 1283 couples in 12 small or medium-sized studies. When studies at high risk of bias were removed from the analysis, there was no evidence of increased live birth (Peto OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.75, 827 men, 8 RCTs, P = 0.27, I2 = 32%). Clinical pregnancy rate: antioxidants may lead to increased clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.47, P < 0.00001, 20 RCTs, 1706 men, I2 = 3%, low-certainty evidence) compared with placebo or no treatment. This suggests that, in the studies contributing to the analysis of clinical pregnancy, if the baseline chance of clinical pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 15%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 20% and 30%. This result was based on 327 clinical pregnancies from 1706 couples in 20 small studies. Adverse events Miscarriage: only six studies reported on this outcome and the event rate was very low. No evidence of a difference in miscarriage rate was found between the antioxidant and placebo or no treatment group (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.83, P = 0.27, 6 RCTs, 664 men, I2 = 35%, very low-certainty evidence). The findings suggest that in a population of subfertile couples, with male factor infertility, with an expected miscarriage rate of 5%, the risk of miscarriage following the use of an antioxidant would be between 4% and 13%. Gastrointestinal: antioxidants may lead to an increase in mild gastrointestinal discomfort when compared with placebo or no treatment (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.99, P = 0.002, 16 RCTs, 1355 men, I2 = 40%, low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of gastrointestinal discomfort following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 2%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 2% and 7%. However, this result was based on a low event rate of 46 out of 1355 men in 16 small or medium-sized studies, and the certainty of the evidence was rated low and heterogeneity was high. We were unable to draw conclusions from the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison as insufficient studies compared the same interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this review, there is very low-certainty evidence from 12 small or medium-sized randomised controlled trials suggesting that antioxidant supplementation in subfertile males may improve live birth rates for couples attending fertility clinics. Low-certainty evidence suggests that clinical pregnancy rates may increase. There is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, however antioxidants may give more mild gastrointestinal discomfort, based on very low-certainty evidence. Subfertile couples should be advised that overall, the current evidence is inconclusive based on serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods of randomisation, failure to report on the clinical outcomes live birth rate and clinical pregnancy, often unclear or even high attrition, and also imprecision due to often low event rates and small overall sample sizes. Further large well-designed randomised placebo-controlled trials studying infertile men and reporting on pregnancy and live births are still required to clarify the exact role of antioxidants.

Increased obstetric and neonatal risks in artificial cycles for frozen embryo transfers?

RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the obstetric and neonatal risks for women conceiving via frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) during a modified natural cycle compared with an artificial cycle method. DESIGN: A follow-up study to the ANTARCTICA randomized controlled trial (RCT) (NTR 1586) conducted in the Netherlands, which showed that modified natural cycle FET (NC-FET) was non-inferior to artificial cycle FET (AC-FET) in terms of live birth rates. The current study collected data on obstetric and neonatal outcomes of 98 women who had a singleton live birth. The main outcome was birthweight; additional outcomes included hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, premature birth, gestational diabetes, obstetric haemorrhage and neonatal outcomes including Apgar scores and admission to the neonatal ward or the neonatal intensive care unit and congenital anomalies. RESULTS: Data from 82 out of 98 women were analysed according to the per protocol principle. There was no significant difference in the birthweights of children born between groups (mean difference -124 g [-363 g to 114 g]; P = 0.30). Women who conceived by modified NC-FET have a decreased risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy compared with AC-FET (relative risk 0.27; 95% CI 0.08-0.94; P = 0.031). Other outcomes, such as rates of premature birth, gestational diabetes or obstetric haemorrhage and neonatal outcomes, were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The interpretation is that modified NC-FET is the preferred treatment in women with ovulatory cycles undergoing FET when the increased risk of obstetrical complications and potential neonatal complications in AC-FET are considered.

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

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

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

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

Gonadotrophins versus clomifene citrate with or without intrauterine insemination in women with normogonadotropic anovulation and clomifene failure (M-OVIN): a randomised, two-by-two factorial trial.

BACKGROUND: In many countries, clomifene citrate is the treatment of first choice in women with normogonadotropic anovulation (ie, absent or irregular ovulation). If these women ovulate but do not conceive after several cycles with clomifene citrate, medication is usually switched to gonadotrophins, with or without intrauterine insemination. We aimed to assess whether switching to gonadotrophins is more effective than continuing clomifene citrate, and whether intrauterine insemination is more effective than intercourse. METHODS: In this two-by-two factorial multicentre randomised clinical trial, we recruited women aged 18 years and older with normogonadotropic anovulation not pregnant after six ovulatory cycles of clomifene citrate (maximum of 150 mg daily for 5 days) from 48 Dutch hospitals. Women were randomly assigned using a central password-protected internet-based randomisation programme to receive six cycles with gonadotrophins plus intrauterine insemination, six cycles with gonadotrophins plus intercourse, six cycles with clomifene citrate plus intrauterine insemination, or six cycles with clomifene citrate plus intercourse. Clomifene citrate dosages varied from 50 to 150 mg daily orally and gonadotrophin starting dose was 50 or 75 IU daily subcutaneously. The primary outcome was conception leading to livebirth within 8 months after randomisation defined as any baby born alive after a gestational age beyond 24 weeks. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. We made two comparisons, one in which gonadotrophins were compared with clomifene citrate and one in which intrauterine insemination was compared with intercourse. This completed study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR1449. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2008, and Dec 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 666 women to gonadotrophins and intrauterine insemination (n=166), gonadotrophins and intercourse (n=165), clomifene citrate and intrauterine insemination (n=163), or clomifene citrate and intercourse (n=172). Women allocated to gonadotrophins had more livebirths than those allocated to clomifene citrate (167 [52%] of 327 women vs 138 [41%] of 334 women, relative risk [RR] 1·24 [95% CI 1·05-1·46]; p=0·0124). Addition of intrauterine insemination did not increase livebirths compared with intercourse (161 [49%] vs 144 [43%], RR 1·14 [95% CI 0·97-1·35]; p=0·1152). Multiple pregnancy rates for the two comparisons were low and not different. There were three adverse events: one child with congenital abnormalities and one stillbirth in two women treated with clomifene citrate, and one immature delivery due to cervical insufficiency in a woman treated with gonadotrophins. INTERPRETATION: In women with normogonadotropic anovulation and clomifene citrate failure, a switch of treatment to gonadotrophins increased the chance of livebirth over treatment with clomifene citrate; there was no evidence that addition of intrauterine insemination does so. FUNDING: The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.

Cumulative live birth rates in low-prognosis women.

STUDY QUESTION: Do cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs) over multiple IVF/ICSI cycles confirm the low prognosis in women stratified according to the POSEIDON criteria? SUMMARY ANSWER: The CLBR of low-prognosis women is ~56% over 18 months of IVF/ICSI treatment and varies between the POSEIDON groups, which is primarily attributable to the impact of female age. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The POSEIDON group recently proposed a new stratification for low-prognosis women in IVF/ICSI treatment, with the aim to define more homogenous populations for clinical trials and stimulate a patient-tailored therapeutic approach. These new criteria combine qualitative and quantitative parameters to create four groups of low-prognosis women with supposedly similar biologic characteristics. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This study analyzed the data of a Dutch multicenter observational cohort study including 551 low-prognosis women, aged <44 years, who initiated IVF/ICSI treatment between 2011 and 2014 and were treated with a fixed FSH dose of 150 IU/day in the first treatment cycle. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Low-prognosis women were categorized into one of the POSEIDON groups based on their age (younger or older than 35 years), anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level (above or below 0.96 ng/ml), and the ovarian response (poor or suboptimal) in their first cycle of standard stimulation. The primary outcome was the CLBR over multiple complete IVF/ICSI cycles, including all subsequent fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfers, within 18 months of treatment. Cumulative incidence curves were obtained using an optimistic and a conservative analytic approach. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The CLBR of the low-prognosis women was on average ~56% over 18 months of IVF/ICSI treatment. Younger unexpected poor (n = 38) and suboptimal (n = 179) responders had a CLBR of ~65% and ~68%, respectively, and younger expected poor responders (n = 65) had a CLBR of ~59%. The CLBR of older unexpected poor (n = 41) and suboptimal responders (n = 102) was ~42% and ~54%, respectively, and of older expected poor responders (n = 126) ~39%. For comparison, the CLBR of younger (n = 164) and older (n = 78) normal responders with an adequate ovarian reserve was ~72% and ~58% over 18 months of treatment, respectively. No large differences were observed in the number of fresh treatment cycles between the POSEIDON groups, with an average of two fresh cycles per woman within 18 months of follow-up. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Small numbers in some (sub)groups reduced the precision of the estimates. However, our findings provide the first relevant indication of the CLBR of low-prognosis women in the POSEIDON groups. Small FSH dose adjustments between cycles were allowed, inducing therapeutic disparity. Yet, this is in accordance with current daily practice and increases the generalizability of our findings. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The CLBRs vary between the POSEIDON groups. This heterogeneity is primarily determined by a woman's age, reflecting the importance of oocyte quality. In younger women, current IVF/ICSI treatment reaches relatively high CLBR over multiple complete cycles, despite reduced quantitative parameters. In older women, the CLBR remains relatively low over multiple complete cycles, due to the co-occurring decline in quantitative and qualitative parameters. As no effective interventions exist to counteract this decline, clinical management currently relies on proper counselling. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No external funds were obtained for this study. J.A.L. is supported by a Research Fellowship grant and received an unrestricted personal grant from Merck BV. S.C.O., T.C.v.T., and H.L.T. received an unrestricted personal grant from Merck BV. C.B.L. received research grants from Merck, Ferring, and Guerbet. K.F. received unrestricted research grants from Merck Serono, Ferring, and GoodLife. She also received fees for lectures and consultancy from Ferring and GoodLife. A.H. declares that the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Centre Groningen received an unrestricted research grant from Ferring Pharmaceuticals BV, the Netherlands. J.S.E.L. has received unrestricted research grants from Ferring, Zon-MW, and The Dutch Heart Association. He also received travel grants and consultancy fees from Danone, Euroscreen, Ferring, AnshLabs, and Titus Healthcare. B.W.J.M. is supported by an National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy work for ObsEva, Merck, and Guerbet. He also received a research grant from Merck BV and travel support from Guerbet. F.J.M.B. received monetary compensation as a member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono (the Netherlands) and Ferring Pharmaceuticals BV (the Netherlands) for advisory work for Gedeon Richter (Belgium) and Roche Diagnostics on automated AMH assay development, and for a research cooperation with Ansh Labs (USA). All other authors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Do female age and body weight modify the effect of individualized FSH dosing in IVF/ICSI treatment? A secondary analysis of the OPTIMIST trial.

INTRODUCTION: The OPTIMIST trial revealed that for women starting in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment, no substantial differences exist in first cycle and cumulative live birth rates between an antral follicle count (AFC)-based individualized follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) dose and a standard dose. Female age and body weight have been suggested to cause heterogeneity in the effect of FSH dose individualization. The objective of the current study is to evaluate whether these patient characteristics modify the effect of AFC-based individualized FSH dosing in IVF/ICSI treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A secondary data-analysis of the OPTIMIST trial. Women initiating IVF/ICSI treatment were classified as predicted poor (AFC 0-7), suboptimal (AFC 8-10) or hyper responders (AFC >15), and randomly allocated to a standard FSH dose (150 IU/d) or an individualized FSH dose (450, 225 or 100 IU/d for predicted poor, suboptimal and hyper responders, respectively). In each predicted response category, logistic regression models with interaction terms were used to evaluate the presence of effect modification. The first cycle was analyzed, and the primary outcomes were first complete cycle live birth rate (including fresh plus frozen-thawed embryo transfers) and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) risks. RESULTS: No effect modification was revealed in the predicted poor (n = 234) and suboptimal (n = 277) responders. In the predicted hyper responders (n = 521), the effect of the individualized FSH dose on the first cycle live birth rate was modified by female age (P = 0.02) and the effect on OHSS risks was modified by body weight (P = 0.02). A dose reduction from 150 to 100 IU/d generally decreased the OHSS risks in predicted hyper responders, but also reduced the chance of a live birth in young women, and had no beneficial impact on OHSS risks in women with a relatively low body weight. CONCLUSIONS: In women with a predicted hyper response undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment, female age and body weight seem to modify the effect of FSH dose individualization. Although a reduced FSH starting dose generally decreases the OHSS risks, it may also reduce the chance of a live birth, specifically for young women. Future studies could consider these findings when investigating the optimal approach to reduce OHSS risks while maintaining the probability of a live birth for predicted hyper responders in IVF/ICSI treatment.

Long-term micturition problems of asymptomatic postpartum urinary retention: a prospective case-control study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Covert (asymptomatic) postpartum urinary retention (PUR) is defined as post-void residual volume (PVRV) ≥150 mL. Although often supposed to be a common and harmless phenomenon, no data are available on the potential long-term micturition problems of increased PVRV after vaginal delivery. METHODS: After the first spontaneous void post-vaginal delivery, PVRV was measured using a portable scanning device. Micturition symptoms were compared using validated questionnaires between women with PVRV < 150 mL and those with PVRV ≥150 mL until 1 year after delivery. Women with PVRV ≥ 150 mL were followed until complete bladder emptying was achieved. RESULTS: Data of 105 patients with PVRV < 150 mL and 119 with PVRV ≥ 150 mL were available for analysis. 75% of all patients included had PVRV ≥ 250 mL. More primiparous patients had PVRV ≥ 150 mL (p < 0.02). 92% of women with PVRV ≥ 150 mL after delivery were able to adequately empty their bladder within 4 days. One year after delivery, no statistically significant differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: Covert PUR according to the definition of PVRV ≥ 150 mL, is a common and transient phenomenon that does not result in more lower urinary tract symptoms 1 year after delivery. Although the current definition is not useful in identifying postpartum women with a pathological condition, we suggest that the definition of covert PUR should be change to: "PVRV≥500 mL after the first spontaneous void after (vaginal) delivery." This cut-off value is the value at which some women do need more time to normalise emptying of the bladder. The exact clinical implications of covert PUR need to be further studied in this subcategory of women.

Influence of endometrial thickness on pregnancy rates in modified natural cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer.

INTRODUCTION: Pregnancy after frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) is a multifactorial process. Although embryo quality is a key factor in determining pregnancy, other factors, including maternal determinants, are also considered to be predictive. Even though an association between endometrial thickness measured by transvaginal ultrasound and pregnancy rates has been reported in patients undergoing various assisted reproductive technology treatments, whether endometrial thickness predicts achieving pregnancy after natural cycle FET (NC-FET) remains unclear. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this cohort study, 463 patients allocated to the modified NC-FET (mNC-FET) arm of a previously published randomized controlled trial were included. Monitoring in mNC-FET cycles consisted of regular ultrasound scans, measuring both dominant follicle and endometrial thickness. When the dominant follicle reached a size of 16-20 mm, an injection of human chorionic gonadotrophin was administered and embryo thawing and transfer planned. No minimal endometrial thickness was defined below which transfer was to be deferred. The primary endpoint was ongoing pregnancy rate. RESULTS: Overall, the ongoing pregnancy rate per started FET cycle was 12.5%. Multivariate regression analyses showed that embryo quality was the only significant predictor for ongoing pregnancy. Mean endometrial thickness did not differ between patients achieving ongoing pregnancy and those who did not (9.0 vs. 8.8 mm, p = 0.4). Comparable results were obtained with regard to clinical pregnancy, live birth and miscarriage rates. The area under the receiver operator curve was 0.5, indicating little discriminatory value of endometrial thickness. CONCLUSIONS: Given that endometrial thickness was not found to be predictive of pregnancy after mNC-FET, cancellation based on endometrial thickness alone may not be justified.

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.

Individualized FSH dosing based on ovarian reserve testing in women starting IVF/ICSI: a multicentre trial and cost-effectiveness analysis.

STUDY QUESTION: Is there a difference in live birth rate and/or cost-effectiveness between antral follicle count (AFC)-based individualized FSH dosing or standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF or ICSI treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER: In women initiating IVF/ICSI, AFC-based individualized FSH dosing does not improve live birth rates or reduce costs as compared to a standard FSH dose. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In IVF or ICSI, ovarian reserve testing is often used to adjust the FSH dose in order to normalize ovarian response and optimize live birth rates. However, no robust evidence for the (cost-)effectiveness of this practice exists. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Between May 2011 and May 2014 we performed a multicentre prospective cohort study with two embedded RCTs in women scheduled for IVF/ICSI. Based on the AFC, women entered into one of the two RCTs (RCT1: AFC < 11; RCT2: AFC > 15) or the cohort (AFC 11-15). The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy achieved within 18 months after randomization resulting in a live birth (delivery of at least one live foetus after 24 weeks of gestation). Data from the cohort with weight 0.5 were combined with both RCTs in order to conduct a strategy analysis. Potential half-integer numbers were rounded up. Differences in costs and effects between the two treatment strategies were compared by bootstrapping. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In both RCTs women were randomized to an individualized (RCT1:450/225 IU, RCT2:100 IU) or standard FSH dose (150 IU). Women in the cohort all received the standard dose (150 IU). Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) was measured to assess AMH post-hoc as a biomarker to individualize treatment. For RCT1 dose adjustment was allowed in subsequent cycles based on pre-specified criteria in the standard group only. For RCT2 dose adjustment was allowed in subsequent cycles in both groups. Both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the strategies were evaluated from an intention-to-treat perspective. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We included 1515 women, of whom 483 (31.9%) entered the cohort, 511 (33.7%) RCT1 and 521 (34.4%) RCT2. Live births occurred in 420/747 (56.3%) women in the individualized strategy and 447/769 (58.2%) women in the standard strategy (risk difference -0.019 (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.02), P = 0.39; a total of 1516 women due to rounding up the half integer numbers). The individualized strategy was more expensive (delta costs/woman = €275 (95% CI, 40 to 499)). Individualized dosing reduced the occurrence of mild and moderate ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and subsequently the costs for management of these OHSS categories (costs saved/woman were €35). The analysis based on AMH as a tool for dose individualization suggested comparable results. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Despite a training programme, the AFC might have suffered from inter-observer variation. In addition, although strict cancel criteria were provided, selective cancelling in the individualized dose group (for poor response in particular) cannot be excluded as observers were not blinded for the FSH dose and small dose adjustments were allowed in subsequent cycles. However, as both first cycle live birth rates and cumulative live birth rates show no difference between strategies, the open design probably did not mask a potential benefit for the individualized group. Despite increasing consensus on using GnRH antagonist co-treatment in women predicted for a hyper response in particular, GnRH agonists were used in almost 80% of the women in this study. Hence, in those women, the AFC and bloodsampling for the post-hoc AMH analysis were performed during pituitary suppression. As the correlation between AFC and ovarian response is not compromised during GnRH agonist use, this will probably not have influenced classification of response. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Individualized FSH dosing for the IVF/ICSI population as a whole should not be pursued as it does not improve live birth rates and it increases costs. Women scheduled for IVF/ICSI with a regular menstrual cycle are therefore recommended a standard FSH starting dose of 150 IU per day. Still, safety management by individualized dosing in predicted hyper responders is open for further research. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW number 171102020). AMH measurements were performed free of charge by Roche Diagnostics. TCT, HLT and SCO received an unrestricted personal grant from Merck BV. AH declares that the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Centre Groningen receives an unrestricted research grant from Ferring pharmaceutics BV, The Netherlands. CBL receives grants from Merck, Ferring and Guerbet. BWJM is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for OvsEva, Merck and Guerbet. FJMB receives monetary compensation as a member of the external advisory board for Ferring pharmaceutics BV (the Netherlands) and Merck Serono (the Netherlands) for consultancy work for Gedeon Richter (Belgium) and Roche Diagnostics on automated AMH assay development (Switzerland) and for a research cooperation with Ansh Labs (USA). All other autors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registered at the ICMJE-recognized Dutch Trial Registry (www.trialregister.nl). Registration number: NTR2657.

Assisted reproductive technologies for male subfertility.

BACKGROUND: Intra-uterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) are frequently used fertility treatments for couples with male subfertility. The use of these treatments has been subject of discussion. Knowledge on the effectiveness of fertility treatments for male subfertility with different grades of severity is limited. Possibly, couples are exposed to unnecessary or ineffective treatments on a large scale. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different fertility treatments (expectant management, timed intercourse (TI), IUI, IVF and ICSI) for couples whose subfertility appears to be due to abnormal sperm parameters. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for all publications that described randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the treatment for male subfertility. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the National Research Register from inception to 14 April 2015, and web-based trial registers from January 1985 to April 2015. We applied no language restrictions. We checked all references in the identified trials and background papers and contacted authors to identify relevant published and unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing different treatment options for male subfertility. These were expectant management, TI (with or without ovarian hyperstimulation (OH)), IUI (with or without OH), IVF and ICSI. We included only couples with abnormal sperm parameters. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. They resolved disagreements by discussion with the rest of the review authors. We performed statistical analyses in accordance with the guidelines for statistical analysis developed by The Cochrane Collaboration. The quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE methods. Primary outcomes were live birth and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) per couple randomised. MAIN RESULTS: The review included 10 RCTs (757 couples). The quality of the evidence was low or very low for all comparisons. The main limitations in the evidence were failure to describe study methods, serious imprecision and inconsistency. IUI versus TI (five RCTs)Two RCTs compared IUI with TI in natural cycles. There were no data on live birth or OHSS. We found no evidence of a difference in pregnancy rates (2 RCTs, 62 couples: odds ratio (OR) 4.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 102, very low quality evidence; there were no events in one of the studies).Three RCTs compared IUI with TI both in cycles with OH. We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates (1 RCT, 81 couples: OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.59; low quality evidence) or pregnancy rates (3 RCTs, 202 couples: OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.07; I(2) = 11%, very low quality evidence). One RCT reported data on OHSS. None of the 62 women had OHSS.One RCT compared IUI in cycles with OH with TI in natural cycles. We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates (1 RCT, 44 couples: OR 3.14, 95% CI 0.12 to 81.35; very low quality evidence). Data on OHSS were not available. IUI in cycles with OH versus IUI in natural cycles (five RCTs)We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates (3 RCTs, 346 couples: OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.33; I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence) and pregnancy rates (4 RCTs, 399 couples: OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.82; I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence). There were no data on OHSS. IVF versus IUI in natural cycles or cycles with OH (two RCTs)We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates between IVF versus IUI in natural cycles (1 RCT, 53 couples: OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.35; low quality evidence) or IVF versus IUI in cycles with OH (2 RCTs, 86 couples: OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.45; I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence). One RCT reported data on OHSS. None of the women had OHSS.Overall, we found no evidence of a difference between any of the groups in rates of live birth, pregnancy or adverse events (multiple pregnancy, miscarriage). However, most of the evidence was very low quality.There were no studies on IUI in natural cycles versus TI in stimulated cycles, IVF versus TI, ICSI versus TI, ICSI versus IUI (with OH) or ICSI versus IVF. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any difference in safety and effectiveness between different treatments for male subfertility. More research is needed.

Cost-effectiveness of assisted conception for male subfertility.

Intrauterine insemination (IUI), with or without ovarian stimulation, IVF and intracytoplasmatic sperm injection (ICSI) are frequently used treatments for couples with male subfertility. No consensus has been reached on specific cut-off values for semen parameters, at which IVF would be advocated over IUI and ICSI over IVF. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of interventions for male subfertility according to total motile sperm count (TMSC). A computer-simulated cohort of subfertile women aged 30 years with a partner was analysed with a pre-wash TMSC of 0 to 10 million. Three treatments were evaluated: IUI with and without controlled ovarian stimulation; IVF; and ICSI. Main outcome was expected live birth; secondary outcomes were cost per couple and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The choice of IVF over IUI with ovarian stimulation and ICSI over IVF depends on the willingness to pay for an extra live birth. If only cost per live birth is considered for each treatment, above a pre-wash TMSC of 3 million, IUI is less costly than IVF and, below a pre-wash, TMSC of 3 million ICSI is less costly. Effectiveness needs to be confirmed in a large randomized controlled trial.

Long-term ongoing pregnancy rate and mode of conception after a positive and negative post-coital test.

OBJECTIVE: Many fertility clinics have decided to abolish the post-coital test. Yet, it is a significant factor in prognostic models that predict the spontaneous pregnancy rate within one year. The aim of this study was to evaluate (1) the long-term outcome of infertile couples with a positive or a negative post-coital test during their fertility work-up and (2) the contribution of the different modes of conception. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Three fertility clinics in the Netherlands, of which two are secondary care training hospitals and is a one tertiary care academic training hospital. POPULATION: 2476 newly referred infertile couples, where a post-coital test was performed in 1624 couples. METHODS: After basic fertility work-up, couples were treated according to the national treatment protocols. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Spontaneous and overall ongoing pregnancy rate. RESULTS: The spontaneous and overall ongoing pregnancy rates after three years were 37.7 and 77.5% after a positive post-coital test compared with 26.9 and 68.8% after a negative test (p < 0.001). Even in couples with severe male factor infertility (total motile sperm count <3) (p = 0.005) and mild male factor infertility (total motile sperm count 3-20) (p < 0.001), there was a significantly higher spontaneous ongoing pregnancy rate, justifying expectant management. CONCLUSION: After a follow-up of three years a positive post-coital test is still associated with a higher spontaneous and a higher overall ongoing pregnancy rate, even in couples with severe male factor infertility.

The lack of evidence behind over-the-counter antioxidant supplements for male fertility patients: a scoping review.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the evidence for over-the-counter antioxidant supplements for male infertility? SUMMARY ANSWER: Less than half of over-the-counter antioxidant supplements for male fertility patients have been tested in a clinical trial, and the available clinical trials are generally of poor quality. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The prevalence of male infertility is rising and, with this, the market for supplements claiming to improve male fertility is expanding. Up to now, there is limited data on the evidence for these over-the-counter supplements. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: Amazon, Google Shopping and other relevant shopping websites were searched on 24 June 2022 with the following terms: 'supplements', 'antioxidants', 'vitamins', AND 'male fertility', 'male infertility', 'male subfertility', 'fertility men', 'fertility man'. All supplements with a description of ingredients in English, Dutch, French, Spanish, or German were included. Subsequently, Pubmed and Google Scholar were searched for studies that included the supplements. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Inclusion criteria were supplements with antioxidant properties, of which the main purpose was to improve male fertility. Included supplements must be available without a doctor's prescription. Supplements containing plant extracts were excluded, as well as supplements of which the content or dosage was not clear. The ingredients, dosage, price and health claims of the supplements were recorded. We assessed whether substances in the supplements exceeded the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) or tolerable upper intake level (UL). All clinical trials and animal studies investigating included supplements were selected for this review. Clinical trials were assessed for risk of bias with a risk of bias tool appropriate for the study design. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There were 34 eligible antioxidant supplements found, containing 48 different active substances. The average price per 30 days was 53.10 US dollars. Most of the supplements (27/34, 79%) contained substances in a dosage exceeding the recommended daily allowance (RDA). All manufacturers of the supplements made health claims related to the improvement of sperm quality or male fertility. For 13 of the 34 supplements (38%), published clinical trials were available, and for one supplement, only an animal study was found. The overall quality of the included studies was poor. Only two supplements were tested in a good quality clinical trial. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: As a consequence of searching shopping websites, a comprehensive search strategy could not be formulated. Most supplements were excluded because they contained plant extracts or because supplement information was not available (in an appropriate language). WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first review that gives an insight into the market of male fertility supplements as available to infertility patients and other men seeking to improve their fertility. Earlier reviews have focused only on supplements with published clinical trials. However, we show that more than half of the supplements have not been tested in a clinical trial. To our knowledge, this review is the first to assess the dosage of supplements in relation to the RDA. In agreement with the literature, we found that the evidence on male fertility supplements is generally of poor quality. This review should urge pharmaceutical companies to evaluate their products in randomized controlled trials in order to provide people with substantiated information. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The research position of W.R.d.L. is funded by an unrestricted grant from Goodlife Pharma. W.R.d.L., K.F., and J.P.d.B. are in the research team of a clinical trial on Impryl®, one of the supplements included in this review. REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.