Search

Study Question: Can we detect DNA methylation differences between ART children that underwent embryo culture in different media?, Summary Answer: We identified no significant differences in site-specific or regional DNA methylation between the different culture medium groups., What Is Known Already: Embryo culture in G3 or K-SICM medium leads to differences in embryonic, neonatal and childhood outcomes, including growth and weight. The methylome may mediate this association as the period of in vitro culture of ART treatments coincides with epigenetic reprogramming., Study Design, Size, Duration: This study was conducted as a follow-up to a previous culture medium comparison study in which couples were pseudo-randomized to embryo culture in G3 or K-SICM medium. Of the resultant singletons, 120 (n = 65 G3, n = 55 K-SICM), were recruited at age 9., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: The ART children provided a saliva sample from which the methylome was analysed using the Infinium MethylationEPIC array. After quality and context filtering, 106 (n = 57 G3, n = 49 K-SICM) samples and 659 708 sites were retained for the analyses. Differential methylation analyses were conducted using mixed effects linear models corrected for age, sex, sample plate and cell composition. These were applied to all cytosine-guanine dinucleotide (CpG) sites, various genomic regions (genes, promoters, CpG Islands (CGIs)) and as a targeted analysis of imprinted genes and birth weight-associated CpG sites. Differential variance was assessed using the improved epigenetic variable outliers for risk prediction analysis (iEVORA) algorithm and methylation outliers were identified using a previously defined threshold (upper or lower quartile plus or minus three times the interquartile range, respectively)., Main Results and the Role of Chance: After correcting for multiple testing, we did not identify any significantly differentially methylated CpG sites, genes, promoters or CGIs between G3 and K-SICM children despite a lenient corrected P-value threshold of 0.1. Targeted analyses of (sites within) imprinted genes and birth weight-associated sites also did not identify any significant differences. The number of DNA methylation outliers per sample was comparable between the culture medium groups. iEVORA identified 101 differentially variable CpG sites of which 94 were more variable in the G3 group., Large Scale Data: Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) GSE196432., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: To detect significant methylation differences with a magnitude of <10% between the groups many more participants would be necessary; however, the clinical relevance of such small differences is unclear., Wider Implications of the Findings: The results of this study are reassuring, suggesting that if there is an effect of the culture medium on DNA methylation (and methylation-mediated diseases risk), it does not differ between the two media investigated here. The findings concur with other methylome studies of ART neonates and children that underwent embryo culture in different media, which also found no significant methylome differences., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): Study funded by March of Dimes (6-FY13-153), EVA (Erfelijkheid Voortplanting & Aanleg) specialty programme (grant no. KP111513) of Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+) and the Horizon 2020 innovation (ERIN) (grant no. EU952516) of the European Commission. The authors do not report any conflicts of interest relevant to this study., Trial Registration Number: Dutch Trial register-NL4083., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Study Question: What is the cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment in obese infertile women?, Summary Answer: Lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment as compared to prompt infertility treatment in obese infertile women is not a cost-effective strategy in terms of healthy live birth rate within 24 months after randomization, but is more likely to be cost-effective using a longer follow-up period and live birth rate as endpoint., What Is Known Already: In infertile couples, obesity decreases conception chances. We previously showed that lifestyle intervention prior to infertility treatment in obese infertile women did not increase the healthy singleton vaginal live birth rate at term, but increased natural conceptions, especially in anovulatory women. Cost-effectiveness analyses could provide relevant additional information to guide decisions regarding offering a lifestyle intervention to obese infertile women., Study Design, Size, Duration: The cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment compared to prompt infertility treatment was evaluated based on data of a previous RCT, the LIFEstyle study. The primary outcome for effectiveness was the vaginal birth of a healthy singleton at term within 24 months after randomization (the healthy live birth rate). The economic evaluation was performed from a hospital perspective and included direct medical costs of the lifestyle intervention, infertility treatments, medication and pregnancy in the intervention and control group. In addition, we performed exploratory cost-effectiveness analyses of scenarios with additional effectiveness outcomes (overall live birth within 24 months and overall live birth conceived within 24 months) and of subgroups, i.e. of ovulatory and anovulatory women, women <36 years and ≥36 years of age and of completers of the lifestyle intervention. Bootstrap analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty surrounding cost-effectiveness., Participants/materials, Settings, Methods: Infertile women with a BMI of ≥29 kg/m2 (no upper limit) were allocated to a 6-month lifestyle intervention programme preceding infertility treatment (intervention group, n = 290) or to prompt infertility treatment (control group, n = 287). After excluding women who withdrew informed consent or who were lost to follow-up we included 280 women in the intervention group and 284 women in the control group in the analysis., Main Results and the Role of Chance: Total mean costs per woman in the intervention group within 24 months after randomization were €4324 (SD €4276) versus €5603 (SD €4632) in the control group (cost difference of -€1278, P < 0.05). Healthy live birth rates were 27 and 35% in the intervention group and the control group, respectively (effect difference of -8.1%, P < 0.05), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €15 845 per additional percentage increase of the healthy live birth rate. Mean costs per healthy live birth event were €15 932 in the intervention group and €15 912 in the control group. Exploratory scenario analyses showed that after changing the effectiveness outcome to all live births conceived within 24 months, irrespective of delivery within or after 24 months, cost-effectiveness of the lifestyle intervention improved. Using this effectiveness outcome, the probability that lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment was cost-effective in anovulatory women was 40%, in completers of the lifestyle intervention 39%, and in women ≥36 years 29%., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: In contrast to the study protocol, we were not able to perform the analysis from a societal perspective. Besides the primary outcome of the LIFEstyle study, we performed exploratory analyses using outcomes observed at longer follow-up times and we evaluated subgroups of women; the trial was not powered on these additional outcomes or subgroup analyses., Wider Implications of the Findings: Cost-effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention is more likely for longer follow-up times, and with live births conceived within 24 months as the effectiveness outcome. This effect was most profound in anovulatory women, in completers of the lifestyle intervention and in women ≥36 years old. This result indicates that the follow-up period of lifestyle interventions in obese infertile women is important. The scenario analyses performed in this study suggest that offering and reimbursing lifestyle intervention programmes in certain patient categories may be cost-effective and it provides directions for future research in this field., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The study was supported by a grant from ZonMw, the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (50-50110-96-518). The department of obstetrics and gynaecology of the UMCG received an unrestricted educational grant from Ferring pharmaceuticals BV, The Netherlands. B.W.J.M. is a consultant for ObsEva, Geneva., Trial Registration Number: The LIFEstyle RCT was registered at the Dutch trial registry (NTR 1530). http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC = 1530., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com)

Study Question: Are there treatment selection markers that could aid in identifying couples, with unexplained or mild male subfertility, who would have better chances of a healthy child with IVF with single embryo transfer (IVF-SET) than with IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS)?, Summary Answer: We did not find any treatment selection markers that were associated with better chances of a healthy child with IVF-SET instead of IUI-OS in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility., What Is Known Already: A recent trial, comparing IVF-SET to IUI-OS, found no evidence of a difference between live birth rates and multiple pregnancy rates. It was suggested that IUI-OS should remain the first-line treatment instead of IVF-SET in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and female age between 18 and 38 years. The question remains whether there are some couples that may have higher pregnancy chances if treated with IVF-SET instead of IUI., Study Design, Size, Duration: We performed our analyses on data from the INeS trial, where couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis for natural conception were randomly allocated to IVF-SET, IVF in a modified natural cycle or IUI-OS. In view of the aim of this study, we only used data of the comparison between IVF-SET (201 couples) and IUI-OS (207 couples)., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: We pre-defined the following baseline characteristics as potential treatment selection markers: female age, ethnicity, smoking status, type of subfertility (primary/secondary), duration of subfertility, BMI, pre-wash total motile count and Hunault prediction score. For each potential treatment selection marker, we explored the association with the chances of a healthy child after IVF-SET and IUI-OS and tested if there was an interaction with treatment. Given the exploratory nature of our analysis, we used a P-value of 0.1., Main Results and the Role of Chance: None of the markers were associated with higher chances of a healthy child from IVF-SET compared to IUI-OS (P-value for interaction >0.10)., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: Since this is the first large study that looked at potential treatment selection markers for IVF-SET compared to IUI-OS, we had no data on which to base a power calculation. The sample size was limited, making it difficult to detect any smaller associations., Wider Implications of the Findings: We could not identify couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility who would have had higher chances of a healthy child from immediate IVF-SET than from IUI-OS. As in the original trial IUI-OS had similar effectiveness and was less costly compared to IVF-SET, IUI-OS should remain the preferred first-line treatment in these couples., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The study was supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, and a grant from the Netherlands' association of health care insurers. There are no conflicts of interest., Trial Registration Number: The trial was registered at the Dutch trial registry (NTR939)., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com)

Study Question: To what extent are BRCA mutation carriers and their partners in the Netherlands aware about preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and prenatal diagnosis (PND) as reproductive options and what is their attitude towards these options?, Summary Answer: Awareness of PGD (66%) and PND (61%) among BRCA mutation carriers and their partners is relatively high and 80% and 26%, respectively, of BRCA carriers and their partners find offering PGD and PND for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) acceptable., What Is Known Already: Internationally, awareness of PGD among persons with a genetic cancer predisposition appears to be relatively low (35%) and although acceptability is generally high (71%), only a small proportion of mutation carriers would consider using PGD (36%). However, for HBOC, there are no studies available that investigated the perspective of individuals with a confirmed BRCA1/2 mutation and their partners about PGD and PND including demographic and medical correlates of awareness and acceptability., Study Design, Size, Duration: A cross-sectional survey was completed by 191 participants between July 2012 and June 2013. Participants were recruited through patient organizations (88%) and the databases of two Clinical Genetics departments in the Netherlands (12%)., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Male and female BRCA carriers and their partners completed an online survey, which assessed demographic and medical characteristics, and awareness, knowledge, acceptability and consideration of PGD and PND as main outcomes. Correlations between demographic and medical characteristics and the main outcomes were investigated., Main Results and Role of Chance: The majority of respondents were female (87%), of reproductive age (86%) and about half reported a desire for a child in the future. About two-thirds (66%) were aware of PGD and 61% of PND for HBOC. PGD knowledge was moderate (5.5 on a 9-point scale) and acceptability of PGD and PND for HBOC was 80% and 26%, respectively. A minority would personally consider using PGD (39%) or PND (20%). Individuals with a higher educational level were more likely to be aware of PGD (P < 0.001) and PND (P < 0.001) and persons with a more immediate child wish were more often aware of PGD (P = 0.044) and had more knowledge about PGD (P = 0.001). PGD acceptability was positively associated with knowledge about PGD (P = 0.047), and PND acceptability was higher among partners in comparison to carriers (P = 0.001). Participants with a history of cancer and with a higher perceived seriousness of breast and ovarian cancer were more likely to consider using PGD (P = 0.003 and P < 0.001 respectively) or PND (P = 0.021 and P = 0.017 respectively)., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: The response rate (23%) of participants invited by the clinical genetics departments was low, probably related to a simultaneous study that used a similar recruitment strategy within the same target group, which may have resulted in selection bias. Moreover, PGD knowledge was measured with an instrument that is not yet validated since to date such an instrument is not available in the literature. Finally, the cross-sectional design of this study limits us from drawing any causal conclusions., Wider Implications of the Findings: Improvement of information provision remains needed, in order to timely inform all couples with HBOC about the available reproductive options and enable them to make a balanced reproductive decision. This may limit the risk of negative psychological impact due to decisional conflict and possible regret., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The Dutch breast cancer foundation Stichting Pink Ribbon (grant number 2010.PS11.C74). None of the authors have competing interests to declare., Trial Registration Number: Not applicable., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com)

Study Question: Do age, ovulatory status, severity of obesity and body fat distribution affect the effectiveness of lifestyle intervention in obese infertile women?, Summary Answer: We did not identify a subgroup in which lifestyle intervention increased the healthy live birth rate however it did increase the natural conception rate in anovulatory obese infertile women., What Is Known Already: Obese women are at increased risk of infertility and are less likely to conceive after infertility treatment. We previously demonstrated that a 6-month lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment did not increase the rate of healthy live births (vaginal live birth of a healthy singleton at term) within 24 months of follow-up as compared to prompt infertility treatment in obese infertile women. Natural conceptions occurred more frequently in women who received a 6-month lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment., Study Design, Size, Duration: This is a secondary analysis of a multicentre RCT (randomized controlled trial), the LIFEstyle study. Between 2009 and 2012, 577 obese infertile women were randomly assigned to a 6-month lifestyle intervention followed by infertility treatment (intervention group) or to prompt infertility treatment (control group). Subgroups were predefined in the study protocol, based on frequently used cut-off values in the literature: age (≥36 or <36 years), ovulatory status (anovulatory or ovulatory), BMI (≥35 or <35 kg/m 2 ) and waist-hip (WH) ratio (≥0.8 or <0.8)., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Data of 564 (98%) randomized women who completed follow-up were analyzed. We studied the effect of the intervention program in various subgroups on healthy live birth rate within 24 months, as well as the rate of overall live births (live births independent of gestational age, mode of delivery and health) and natural conceptions within 24 months. Live birth rates included pregnancies resulting from both treatment dependent and natural conceptions. Logistic regression models with randomization group, subgroup and the interaction between randomization group and subgroup were used. Significant interaction was defined as a P-value <0.1., Main Results and the Role of Chance: Neither maternal age, ovulatory status nor BMI had an impact on the healthy live birth rate within 24 months, nor did they influence the overall live birth rate within 24 months after randomization. WH ratio showed a significant interaction with the effect of lifestyle intervention on healthy live birth rate (P = 0.05), resulting in a lower healthy live birth rate in women with a WH ratio <0.8. WH ratio had no interaction regarding overall live birth rate (P = 0.27) or natural conception rate (P = 0.38). In anovulatory women, the effect of lifestyle intervention resulted in more natural conceptions compared to ovulatory women (P-value for interaction = 0.02). There was no interaction between other subgroups and the effect of the intervention on the rate of natural conception., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: Since this was a subgroup analysis of a RCT and sample size determination of the trial was based on the primary outcome of the study, the study was not powered for analyses of all subgroups., Wider Implications of the Findings: Our finding that lifestyle intervention leads to increased natural conception in anovulatory obese women could be used in the counselling of these women, but requires further research using an appropriately powered study in order to confirm this result., Study Funding/competing Interests: The study was supported by a grant from ZonMw, the Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development (50-50110-96-518). The Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the UMCG received an unrestricted educational grant from Ferring pharmaceuticals BV, The Netherlands. Ben Mol is a consultant for ObsEva, Geneva. Annemieke Hoek received a speaker's fee for a postgraduate education from MSD pharmaceutical company, outside the submitted work., Trial Registration Number: The LIFEstyle study was registered at the Dutch trial registry (NTR 1530)., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Study Question: How do couples with a BRCA1/2 mutation decide on preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and prenatal diagnosis (PND) for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC)?, Summary Answer: BRCA couples primarily classify PGD and/or PND as reproductive options based on the perceived severity of HBOC and moral considerations, and consequently weigh the few important advantages of PGD against numerous smaller disadvantages., What Is Known Already: Awareness of PGD is generally low among persons at high risk for hereditary cancers. Most persons with HBOC are in favour of offering PGD for BRCA1/2 mutations, although only a minority would consider this option for themselves. Studies exploring the motivations for using or refraining from PGD among well-informed BRCA carriers of reproductive age are lacking. We studied the reproductive decision-making process by interviewing a group of well-informed, reproductive aged couples carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation, regarding their decisional motives and considerations., Study Design, Size, Duration: This exploratory, qualitative study investigated the motives and considerations taken into account by couples with a BRCA1/2 mutation and who have received extensive counselling on PGD and PND and have made a well-informed decision regarding this option. Eighteen couples took part in focus group and dyadic interviews between January and September 2012., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Semi-structured focus groups were conducted containing two to four couples, assembled based on the reproductive method the couple had chosen: PGD (n = 6 couples) or conception without testing (n = 8 couples). Couples who had chosen PND for BRCA (n = 4) were interviewed dyadically. Two of the women, of whom one had chosen PND and the other had chosen no testing, had a history of breast cancer., Main Results and the Role of Chance: None of the couples who opted for PGD or conception without testing found the use of PND, with possible pregnancy termination, acceptable. PND users chose this method because of decisive, mainly practical reasons (natural conception, high chance of favourable outcome). Motives and considerations regarding PGD largely overlapped between PGD users, PND users and non-users, all mentioning some significant advantages (e.g. protecting the child and family from the mutation) and many smaller disadvantages (e.g. the necessity of in vitro fertilization (IVF), low chance of pregnancy by IVF/PGD). For female carriers, the safety of hormonal stimulation and the time required for PGD before undergoing preventive surgeries were important factors in the decision. Non-users expressed doubts about the moral justness of their decision afterwards and emphasized the impact the decision still had on their lives., Limitations, Reason for Caution: The interviewed couples were at different stages in their chosen trajectory, up to 3 years after completion. This may have led to recall bias of original motives and considerations. Couples who did not actively seek information about PGD were excluded. Therefore the results may not be readily generalizable to all BRCA couples., Wider Implications of the Findings: The perceived severity of HBOC and, for female carriers, the safety of hormonal stimulation and the time frames for PGD planning before preventive surgeries are essential items BRCA couples consider in reproductive decision-making. The emotional impact of this decision should not be underestimated; especially non-users may experience feelings of doubt or guilt up to several years afterwards. PGD counselling with tailored information addressing these items and decisional support in order to guarantee well-informed decision-making is needed., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This study was funded by the Dutch breast cancer foundation Stichting Pink Ribbon, grant number 2010.PS11.C74. None of the authors have competing interests to declare., Trial Registration Number: Not applicable.