Search

Research Question: What is the cost-effectiveness of gonadotrophins compared with clomiphene citrate in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian stimulation under strict cancellation criteria?, Design: A cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Between July 2013 and March 2016, 738 couples were randomized to gonadotrophins (369) or clomiphene citrate (369) in a multicentre RCT in the Netherlands. The direct medical costs of both strategies were compared. Direct medical costs included costs of medication, cycle monitoring, insemination and, if applicable, pregnancy monitoring. Non-parametric bootstrap resampling was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in estimates. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed according to intention-to-treat. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between gonadotrophins and clomiphene citrate for ongoing pregnancy and live birth was assessed., Results: The mean costs per couple were €1534 for gonadotrophins and €1067 for clomiphene citrate (mean difference of €468; 95% confidence interval [CI] €464-472). As ongoing pregnancy rates were 31% in women allocated to gonadotrophins and 26% in women allocated to clomiphene citrate (relative risk 1.16, 95% CI 0.93-1.47), the ICER was €21,804 (95% CI €11,628-31,980) per additional ongoing pregnancy with gonadotrophins and €17,044 (95% CI €8998-25,090) per additional live birth with gonadotrophins., Conclusions: Gonadotrophins are more expensive compared with clomiphene citrate in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with adherence to strict cancellation criteria, without being significantly more effective., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of low doses of gonadotropins and gonadotropins combined with oral compounds compared with high doses of gonadotropins in ovarian stimulation regimens in terms of ongoing pregnancy per fresh IVF attempt in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment., Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies that evaluate the effectiveness of low dosing of gonadotropins alone or combined with oral compounds compared with high doses of gonadotropins in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment., Setting: Not applicable., Patient(s): Subfertile women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment., Intervention(s): We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and the Clinical Trials Registry using medical subject headings and free text terms up to June 2016, without language or year restrictions. We included randomized controlled studies (RCTs) enrolling subfertile women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment and comparing low doses of gonadotropins and gonadotropins combined with oral compounds versus high doses of gonadotropins. We assessed the risk of bias using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. We pooled the results by meta-analysis using the fixed and random effects model., Main Outcomes Measure(s): The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy rate (PR) per woman randomized., Result(s): We retrieved 787 records. Fourteen RCTs (N = 2,104 women) were included in the analysis. Five studies (N = 717 women) compared low doses of gonadotropins versus high doses of gonadotropins. There was no evidence of a difference in ongoing PR (2 RCTs: risk rate 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.62-1.57, I 2 = 0). Nine studies (N = 1,387 women) compared ovarian stimulation using gonadotropins combined with the oral compounds letrozole (n = 6) or clomiphene citrate (CC) (n = 3) versus high doses of gonadotropins. There was no evidence of a difference in ongoing PR (3 RCTs: risk rate 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.63-1.27, I 2 = 0)., Conclusion(s): We found no evidence of a difference in pregnancy outcomes between low doses of gonadotropins and gonadotropins combined with oral compounds compared with high doses of gonadotropins in ovarian stimulation regimens. Whether low doses of gonadotropins or gonadotropins combined with oral compounds is to be preferred is unknown, as they have never been compared head to head. A health economic analysis to test the hypothesis that an ovarian stimulation with low dosing is more cost-effective than high doses of gonadotropins is needed., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42016041301., (Copyright © 2017 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To study the effectiveness of an intrauterine insemination (IUI) program compared to no treatment in subfertile couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis on natural conception., Study Design: A retrospective matched cohort study in which ongoing pregnancy rates in 72 couples who voluntarily dropped out of treatment with IUI were compared to ongoing pregnancy rates in 144 couples who continued treatment with IUI. Couples with unexplained subfertility, mild male subfertility or cervical factor subfertility who started treatment with IUI between January 2000 and December 2008 were included. Couples were matched on hospital, age, duration of subfertility, primary or secondary subfertility and diagnosis. Primary outcome was cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate after three years. Time to pregnancy was censored at the moment couples were lost to follow up or when their child wish ended and, for the no-treatment group, when couples re-started treatment., Results: After three years, there were 18 pregnancies in the stopped treatment group (25%) versus 41 pregnancies in the IUI group (28%) (RR 1.1 (0.59-2.2)(p=0.4)). The cumulative pregnancy rate after three years was 40% in both groups, showing no difference in time to ongoing pregnancy (shared frailty model p=0.86)., Conclusions: In couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, treatment with IUI does not to add to expectant management. There is need for a randomized clinical trial comparing IUI with expectant management in these couples., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Clomiphene citrate (CC) is generally considered first-line treatment in women with anovulation due to polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Ovulation induction with follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH; gonadotrophins) is second-line treatment for women who do not ovulate or conceive while taking CC. Metformin may increase the effectiveness of ovulation induction with gonadotrophins and may promote safety by preventing multiple pregnancy., Objectives: To determine the effectiveness and safety of metformin co-treatment during ovulation induction with gonadotrophins with respect to rates of live birth and multiple pregnancy in women with PCOS., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group specialised register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAH) on 8 June 2016, and the reference lists of included and other relevant studies. We searched ongoing trials registries in the World Health Organization (WHO) portal and on clinicaltrials.gov on 4 September 2016., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting data on comparison of clinical outcomes in women with PCOS undergoing ovulation induction with gonadotrophins plus metformin versus gonadotrophins alone or gonadotrophins plus placebo., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary review outcomes were live birth rate and multiple pregnancy rate. Secondary outcomes were ovulation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate, miscarriage rate, cycle cancellation rate and adverse effects., Main Results: We included five RCTs (with 264 women) comparing gonadotrophins plus metformin versus gonadotrophins. The gonadotrophin used was recombinant FSH in four studies and highly purified FSH in one study. Evidence was of low quality: The main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods and blinding of participants and outcome assessors. Live birth Metformin plus FSH was associated with a higher cumulative live birth rate when compared with FSH (odds ratio (OR) 2.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 4.34; two RCTs, n = 180; I 2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth after FSH is assumed to be 27%, then the chance after addition of metformin would be between 32% and 60%. Other pregnancy outcomes Metformin use was associated with a higher ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.46; four RCTs, n = 232; I 2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) and a higher clinical pregnancy rate (OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.31; five RCTs, n = 264; I 2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Multiple pregnancy Results showed no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rates between metformin plus FSH and FSH (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.95; four RCTs, n = 232; I 2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) and no evidence of a difference in rates of miscarriage or OHSS. Other adverse effects Evidence was inadequate as the result of limited available data on adverse events after metformin compared with after no metformin (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.39 to 8.09; two RCTs, n = 91; I 2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: Preliminary evidence suggests that metformin may increase the live birth rate among women undergoing ovulation induction with gonadotrophins. At this moment, evidence is insufficient to show an effect of metformin on multiple pregnancy rates and adverse events. Additional trials are necessary before we can provide further conclusions that may affect clinical practice.

Objective: To compare dropout rates in couples undergoing conventional in vitro fertilization with single embryo transfer (IVF-SET), in vitro fertilization in a modified natural cycle (IVF-MNC) or intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS)., Study Design: Secondary analysis of a multicentre randomized controlled trial between January 2009 and February 2012. 602 couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility, allocated to IVF-SET (N=201), IVF-MNC (N=194) and IUI-OS (N=207)., Main Outcome Measures: Dropouts, defined as couples who discontinued their allocated three cycles of IVF-SET, six cycles of IVF-MNC or IUI-OS, without having achieved a pregnancy. We classified dropouts as "following medical advice" or "patient initiated"., Result(s): Thirty couples (15%) allocated to IVF-SET dropped out and 45 couples (23%) allocated to IVF-MNC, compared to 26 couples (13%) allocated to IUI-OS; relative risk (RR) 1.2 (95%CI; 0.73-1.9) for IVF-SET and 1.9 (95%CI; 1.2-2.9) for IVF-MNC, both compared to IUI-OS. Nine couples (4.5%) allocated to IVF-SET, 14 (7.2%) allocated to IVF-MNC and 14 (6.8%) allocated to IUI-OS dropped out following medical advice; RR of 0.51 (95%CI; 0.21-1.2) for IVF-SET and 0.84 (95%CI; 0.39-1.80) for IVF-MNC, both versus IUI-OS. Twenty-one couples (10%) allocated to IVF-SET were patient initiated dropouts, as were 31 (16%) allocated to IVF-MNC and 12 (5.8%) allocated to IUI-COS; RR 1.8 (95%CI; 0.91-3.6) for IVF-SET and 2.8 (95%CI; 1.5-5.2) for IVF-MNC both versus IUI-OS., Conclusion(s): IVF-SET and IUI-OS result in comparable drop-out rates, while drop-out rates after IVF-MNC are almost twice as high, mainly driven by patient preferences., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Available treatment options in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility are intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (IUI-COH) and in vitro fertilisation (IVF). IUI-COH is a less invasive treatment that is often used before proceeding with IVF. Yet as the IVF success rates might be higher and time to pregnancy shorter, expedited access to IVF might be the preferred option. To identify couples that could benefit from immediate IVF over IUI-COH, we assessed whether female age, duration of subfertility or prewash total motile count (TMC) can help to identify couples that would benefit from IVF over IUI-COH., Study Design: We performed a secondary data-analysis of a multicentre open-label randomised controlled trial in three university and six teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. 116 couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility were randomised to one cycle of IVF with elective single embryo transfer with subsequent frozen-thawed embryo transfers or 3 cycles of IUI-COH. The primary outcome was an ongoing pregnancy within 4 months after randomisation. Our aim was to explore a possible differential effect of specific markers on the effectiveness of treatment. We chose to therefore assess female age, duration of subfertility and TMC as these have previously been identified as predictors. For each prognostic factor we developed a logistic regression model to predict ongoing pregnancy with that prognostic factor, treatment and a factor-by-treatment interaction term., Results: Female age and duration of subfertility were not associated with better ongoing pregnancy chances after IVF compared to IUI-COH (p-value for interaction=0.65 and 0.26, respectively). Only when TMC was lower than 110 (×10(6)spermatozoa/mL), the probability of ongoing pregnancy was higher in women allocated to IVF (p-value for interaction=0.06)., Conclusion: In couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility, a low TMC might lead to higher pregnancy rates after IVF than after IUI-COH. This finding needs to be validated in a larger trial before it can be applied in clinical practice., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Many media are commercially available for culturing pre-implantation human embryos in assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles. It is unknown which culture medium leads to the best success rates after ART., Objectives: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of different human pre-implantation embryo culture media in used for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the National Research Register, the Medical Research Council's Clinical Trials Register and the NHS Center for Reviews and Dissemination databases from January 1985 to March 2015. We also examined the reference lists of all known primary studies, review articles, citation lists of relevant publications and abstracts of major scientific meetings., Selection Criteria: We included all randomised controlled trials which randomised women, oocytes or embryos and compared any two commercially available culture media for human pre-implantation embryos in an IVF or ICSI programme., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected the studies, assessed their risk of bias and extracted data. We sought additional information from the authors if necessary. We assessed the quality of the evidence using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods. The primary review outcome was live birth or ongoing pregnancy., Main Results: We included 32 studies in this review. Seventeen studies randomised women (total 3666), three randomised cycles (total 1018) and twelve randomised oocytes (over 15,230). It was not possible to pool any of the data because each study compared different culture media.Only seven studies reported live birth or ongoing pregnancy. Four of these studies found no evidence of a difference between the media compared, for either day three or day five embryo transfer. The data from the fifth study did not appear reliable.Six studies reported clinical pregnancy rate. One of these found a difference between the media compared, suggesting that for cleavage-stage embryo transfer, Quinn's Advantage was associated with higher clinical pregnancy rates than G5 (odds ratio (OR) 1.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 2.16; 692 women). This study was available only as an abstract and the quality of the evidence was low.With regards to adverse effects, three studies reported multiple pregnancies and six studies reported miscarriage. None of them found any evidence of a difference between the culture media used. None of the studies reported on the health of offspring.Most studies (22/32) failed to report their source of funding and none described their methodology in adequate detail. The overall quality of the evidence was rated as very low for nearly all comparisons, the main limitations being imprecision and poor reporting of study methods., Authors' Conclusions: An optimal embryo culture medium is important for embryonic development and subsequently the success of IVF or ICSI treatment. There has been much controversy about the most appropriate embryo culture medium. Numerous studies have been performed, but no two studies compared the same culture media and none of them found any evidence of a difference between the culture media used. We conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of any specific culture medium. Properly designed and executed randomised trials are necessary.

Objective: Acute fertility preservation for women is an interdisciplinary treatment that requires adequate information provision and early referral. This quality management project aimed to improve fertility preservation care by using a practical tool: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis., Study Design: Quality management project was executed between May 2011 and July 2013. This project has been executed in a university affiliated IVF-clinic in cooperation with two oncological sites and used a four-step strategy: (1) monitoring baseline referral process, (2) exploring baseline fertility preservation program by Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats' (SWOT)-analysis, (3) setting up a new fertility preservation program and (4) evaluating the new fertility preservation program by means of SWOT-analysis., Results: During the three-months monitoring period, fertility preservation was requested for a total of 126 women. The mean age of the women was 33.8 years old (range 1-42 years old). Most requests came from women who wanted to cryopreserve oocytes because of age-related decline of fertility (n=90; 71%). Most requests for acute fertility preservation concerned women with breast cancer (n=16; 57%). Information leaflets and pre-consultation questionnaires for women improved the quality of first fertility preservation consultation as evaluated by final SWOT-analysis. Collaboration with oncological centres and information about fertility preservation improved the referral process., Conclusions: SWOT-analysis proved useful for setting up a new fertility preservation-program and can be recommended as a tool to improve the management and organisation of new types of reproductive care., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To study the value of a population view in assessing assisted reproductive technology (ART) multiple-gestation infants., Design: Descriptive comparison of ART treatment and population statistics in seven developed countries (United States [U.S.], South Korea, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Australia, Belgium, Denmark) with varying ART utilization and single-embryo transfer (SET) rates., Setting: Not applicable., Patient(s): Not applicable., Intervention(s): None., Main Outcome Measure(s): The contribution of ART multiple-gestation infants to the total number of multiple-gestation infants in a population was calculated in relation to utilization of ART and SET rates., Result(s): The number of ART treatments leading to embryo transfer varied from 304 per million inhabitants in the U.S. to 1,518 in Denmark. The percentage of ART cycles that utilized SET varied from 8.8% in South Korea to 53.3% in Australia. Reflecting both utilization rates and SET rates, the percentage of multiple-gestation infants in the population attributed to ART ranged from 14.7% in South Korea to 29.0% in Denmark., Conclusion(s): In seven countries, the contribution of ART multiple-gestation infants to all multiple-gestation infants varies from 14.7% to 29.0%, a percentage that was influenced by both the SET rate per cycle and ART utilization rates. In the monitoring of safety and efficacy of fertility treatment, registration of the percentage of SET cycles alone might not be sufficient., (Copyright © 2015 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) is routinely used for final oocyte maturation triggering in in vitro fertilisation (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles, but the use of HCG for this purpose may have drawbacks. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists present an alternative to HCG in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) treatment regimens in which the cycle has been down-regulated with a GnRH antagonist. This is an update of a review first published in 2010., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of GnRH agonists in comparison with HCG for triggering final oocyte maturation in IVF and ICSI for women undergoing COH in a GnRH antagonist protocol., Search Methods: We searched databases including the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and trial registers for published and unpublished articles (in any language) on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists versus HCG for oocyte triggering in GnRH antagonist IVF/ICSI treatment cycles. The search is current to 8 September 2014., Selection Criteria: RCTs that compared the clinical outcomes of GnRH agonist triggers versus HCG for final oocyte maturation triggering in women undergoing GnRH antagonist IVF/ICSI treatment cycles were included., Data Collection and Analysis: Two or more review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed study risk of bias. Treatment effects were summarised using a fixed-effect model, and subgroup analyses were conducted to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Treatment effects were expressed as mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes and as odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes, together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Primary outcomes were live birth and rate of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) per women randomised. Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods were used to assess the quality of the evidence for each comparison., Main Results: We included 17 RCTs (n = 1847), of which 13 studies assessed fresh autologous cycles and four studies assessed donor-recipient cycles. In fresh autologous cycles, GnRH agonists were associated with a lower live birth rate than was seen with HCG (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70; five RCTs, 532 women, I(2) = 56%, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 31% chance of achieving live birth with the use of HCG, the chance of a live birth with the use of an GnRH agonist would be between 12% and 24%.In women undergoing fresh autologous cycles, GnRH agonists were associated with a lower incidence of mild, moderate or severe OHSS than was HCG (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.47; eight RCTs, 989 women, I² = 42%, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 5% risk of mild, moderate or severe OHSS with the use of HCG, the risk of OHSS with the use of a GnRH agonist would be between nil and 2%.In women undergoing fresh autologous cycles, GnRH agonists were associated with a lower ongoing pregnancy rate than was seen with HCG (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.91; 11 studies, 1198 women, I(2) = 59%, low-quality evidence) and a higher early miscarriage rate (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.75; 11 RCTs, 1198 women, I² = 1%, moderate-quality evidence). However, the effect was dependent on the type of luteal phase support provided (with or without luteinising hormone (LH) activity); the higher rate of pregnancies in the HCG group applied only to the group that received luteal phase support without LH activity (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.62; I(2) = 73%, five RCTs, 370 women). No evidence was found of a difference between groups in risk of multiple pregnancy (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.30 to 30.47; two RCTs, 62 women, I(2) = 0%, low-quality evidence).In women with donor-recipient cycles, no evidence suggested a difference between groups in live birth rate (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.61; one RCT, 212 women) or ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.32; three RCTs, 372 women, I² = 0%). We found evidence of a lower incidence of OHSS in the GnRH agonist group than in the HCG group (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.28; three RCTs, 374 women, I² = 0%).The main limitation in the quality of the evidence was risk of bias associated with poor reporting of methods in the included studies., Authors' Conclusions: Final oocyte maturation triggering with GnRH agonist instead of HCG in fresh autologous GnRH antagonist IVF/ICSI treatment cycles prevents OHSS to the detriment of the live birth rate. In donor-recipient cycles, use of GnRH agonists instead of HCG resulted in a lower incidence of OHSS, with no evidence of a difference in live birth rate.Evidence suggests that GnRH agonist as a final oocyte maturation trigger in fresh autologous cycles is associated with a lower live birth rate, a lower ongoing pregnancy rate (pregnancy beyond 12 weeks) and a higher rate of early miscarriage (less than 12 weeks). GnRH agonist as an oocyte maturation trigger could be useful for women who choose to avoid fresh transfers (for whatever reason), women who donate oocytes to recipients or women who wish to freeze their eggs for later use in the context of fertility preservation.

The selection of embryos based on morphology is still the core of daily laboratory practice in IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. At present, the selection of embryos is primarily based on experience and local protocols. Since an evidence-based ranking strategy for embryos on day 3 is currently lacking, this work constructed a multivariable prediction model to rank embryos according to their implantation potential. A total of 6021 fresh embryo transfers between January 2004 and July 2009 were included, eight potential predictive factors were evaluated and a prediction model was developed using multivariable logistic regression. The model was externally validated with data from couples treated between August 2009 and September 2011 in the same clinic. Five factors were included in the final prediction model: early cleavage, number of blastomeres on days 2 and 3 and morphological score and presence of morula on day 3. With validation, the model showed moderate discriminative capacity (c-statistic 0.70) and calibrated well and was able to distinguish embryos with high ongoing implantation potential from embryos with moderate or low ongoing implantation potential. The model can be used by embryologists as an objective tool to rank embryos according to implantation potential, thereby aiding the selection of embryos for transfer., (Copyright © 2014 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Couples with unexplained subfertility are often treated with intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian stimulation, which carries the risk of multiple pregnancies. An explorative randomized controlled trial was performed comparing one cycle of IVF with elective single-embryo transfer (eSET) versus three cycles of IUI-ovarian stimulation in couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, to assess the economic burden of the treatment modalities. The main outcome measures were ongoing pregnancy rates and costs. This study randomly assigned 58 couples to IVF-eSET and 58 couples to IUI-ovarian stimulation. The ongoing pregnancy rates were 24% in with IVF-eSET versus 21% with IUI-ovarian stimulation, with two and three multiple pregnancies, respectively. The mean cost per included couple was significantly different: €2781 with IVF-eSET and €1876 with IUI-ovarian stimulation (P<0.01). The additional costs per ongoing pregnancy were €2456 for IVF-eSET. In couples with unexplained subfertility, one cycle of IVF-eSET cost an additional €900 per couple compared with three cycles of IUI-ovarian stimulation, for no increase in ongoing pregnancy rates or decrease in multiple pregnancies. When IVF-eSET results in higher ongoing pregnancy rates, IVF would be the preferred treatment. Couples that have been trying to conceive unsuccessfully are often treated with intrauterine insemination (IUI) and medication to improve egg production (ovarian stimulation). This treatment carries the risk of multiple pregnancies like twins. We performed an explorative study among those couples that had a poor prognosis for natural conception. One cycle of IVF with transfer of one selected embryo (elective single-embryo transfer, eSET) was compared with three cycles of IUI-ovarian stimulation. The aim of this study was to assess the economic burden of both treatments. The Main outcome measures were number of good pregnancies above 12weeks and costs. We randomly assigned 58 couples to IVF-eSET and 58 couples to IUI-ovarian stimulation. The ongoing pregnancy rates were comparable: 24% with IVF-eSET versus 21% with IUI-ovarian stimulation. There were two multiple pregnancies with IVF-eSET and three multiple pregnancies with IUI-ovarian stimulation. The mean cost per included couple was significantly different, €2781 with IVF-eSET and €1876 with IUI-ovarian stimulation. The additional costs per ongoing pregnancy were €2456 for IVF-eSET. In couples with unexplained subfertility, one cycle of IVF-eSET costed an additional €900 per couple compared to three cycles of IUI-ovarian stimulation, for no increase in ongoing pregnancy rates or decrease in multiple pregnancies. We conclude that IUI-ovarian stimulation is the preferred treatment to start with. When IVF-eSET results in a higher ongoing pregnancy rate (>38%), IVF would be the preferred treatment., (Copyright © 2013 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists reduce ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) at the price of a small reduction in effectiveness compared to GnRH agonists. The aim of this study was to investigate patients' preferences on effectiveness, safety and burden of GnRH analogs., Methods: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) and a trade-off question were designed. Patients embarking on assisted reproductive technique treatment were asked to choose between two hypothetical medications which differed in effectiveness, safety and burden., Results: A total of 172 questionnaires were analyzed. All attributes of the DCE had a statistically significant impact on the preference of the respondents. Respondents were willing to trade off 0.87 and 0.81% effectiveness for a decrease in OHSS risk and for fewer side effects, respectively. Respondents were not willing to trade off effectiveness for 'importance of compliance' (trade-off 0.40%) or a shorter 'duration of treatment' (trade-off 0.26%). The trade-off questions showed that already at a 2.0% increase in pregnancy rate in favor of the agonists, the majority of the respondents changed their preference from antagonists to agonists (2.0%, 95% CI 1.7-2.1)., Conclusion: Safety and burden are important to patients, but are not important enough to make up for a small decrease in pregnancy rate., (© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Study Question: Can modified natural cycle IVF or ICSI (MNC) be a cost-effective alternative for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation IVF or ICSI (COH)?, Summary Answer: The comparison of simulated scenarios indicates that a strategy of three to six cycles of MNC with minimized medication is a cost-effective alternative for one cycle of COH with strict application of single embryo transfer (SET)., What Is Known Already: MNC is cheaper per cycle than COH but also less effective in terms of live birth rate (LBR). However, strict application of SET in COH cycles reduces effectiveness and up to three MNC cycles can be performed at the same costs as one COH cycle., Study Design, Size, Duration: The cost-effectiveness of MNC versus COH was evaluated in three simulated treatment scenarios: three cycles of MNC versus one cycle of COH with SET or double embryo transfer (DET) and subsequent transfer of cryopreserved embryos (Scenario 1); six cycles of MNC versus one cycle of COH with strictly SET and subsequent transfer of cryopreserved embryos (Scenario 2); six cycles of MNC with minimized medication (hCG ovulation trigger only) versus one cycle of COH with SET or DET and subsequent transfer of cryopreserved embryos (Scenario 3). We used baseline data obtained from two retrospective cohorts of consecutive patients (2005-2008) undergoing MNC in the University Medical Center Groningen (n = 499, maximum six cycles per patient) or their first COH cycle with subsequent transfer of cryopreserved embryos in the Academic Medical Center Amsterdam (n = 392)., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Data from 1994 MNC cycles (958 MNC-IVF and 1036 MNC-ICSI) and 392 fresh COH cycles (one per patient, 196 COH-IVF and 196 COH-ICSI) with subsequent transfer of cryopreserved embryos (n = 72 and n = 94 in MNC and COH cycles, respectively) in ovulatory, subfertile women <36 years of age served as baseline for the three simulated scenarios. To compare the scenarios, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, defined as the ratio of the difference in IVF costs up to 6 weeks postpartum to the difference in LBR. Live birth was the primary outcome measure and was defined as the birth of at least one living child after a gestation of ≥25 weeks., Main Results and the Role of Chance: In the baseline data, MNC was not cost-effective, as COH dominated MNC with a higher cumulative LBR (27.0 versus 24.0%) and lower cost per patient (€3694 versus €5254). The simulations showed that in scenario 1 three instead of six cycles lowered the costs of MNC to below the level of COH (€3390 versus €3694, respectively), but also lowered the LBR per patient (from 24.0 to 16.2%, respectively); Scenario 2: COH with strict SET was less effective than six cycles MNC (LBR 17.5 versus 24.0%, respectively), but also less expensive per patient (€2908) than MNC (€5254); Scenario 3: improved the cost-effectiveness of MNC but COH still dominated MNC when medication was minimized in terms of costs, i.e. €855 difference in favor of COH and 3% difference in LBR in favor of COH (ICER: €855/-3.0%)., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: Owing to the retrospective nature of the study, the analyses required some assumptions, for example regarding the costs of pregnancy and delivery, which had to be based on the literature rather than on individual data. Furthermore, costs of IVF treatment were based on tariffs and not on actual costs. Although this may limit the external generalizability of the results, the limitations will influence both treatments equally, and would therefore not bias the comparison of MNC versus COH., Wider Implications of the Findings: The combined results suggest that MNC with minimized medication might be a cost-effective alternative for COH with strict SET. The scenarios reflect realistic alternatives for daily clinical practice. A preference for MNC depends on the willingness to trade off effectiveness in terms of LBR against the benefits of a milder stimulation regimen, including a very low rate of multiple pregnancies and hyperstimulation syndrome and ensuing lower costs per live birth., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The study was supported by research grants from Merck Serono and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. The authors declare no conflicts of interest., Trial Registration Number: Not applicable.

Background: Prognostic models in reproductive medicine can help to identify subfertile couples who would benefit from fertility treatment. Expectant management in couples with a good chance of natural conception, i.e., tailored expectant management (TEM), prevents unnecessary treatment and is therefore recommended in international fertility guidelines. However, current implementation is not optimal, leaving room for improvement. Based on barriers and facilitators for TEM that were recently identified among professionals and subfertile couples, we have developed a multifaceted implementation strategy. The goal of this study is to assess the effects of this implementation strategy on the guideline adherence on TEM., Methods/design: In a cluster randomized trial, 25 clinics and their allied practitioners units will be randomized between the multifaceted implementation strategy and care as usual. Randomization will be stratified for in vitro fertilization (IVF) facilities (full licensed, intermediate/no IVF facilities). The effect of the implementation strategy, i.e., the percentage guideline adherence on TEM, will be evaluated by pre- and post-randomization data collection. Furthermore, there will be a process and cost evaluation of the strategy. The implementation strategy will focus on subfertile couples and their care providers i.e., general practitioners (GPs), fertility doctors, and gynecologists. The implementation strategy addresses three levels: patient level: education materials in the form of a patient information leaflet and a website; professional level: audit and feedback, educational outreach visit, communication training, and access to a digital version of the prognostic model of Hunault on a website; organizational level: providing a protocol based on the guideline. The primary outcome will be the percentage guideline adherence on TEM. Additional outcome measures will be treatment-, patient-, and process-related outcome measures., Discussion: This study will provide evidence about the effectiveness and costs of a multifaceted implementation strategy to improve guideline adherence on TEM., Trial Registration: http://www.trialregister.nlNTR3405. This study is sponsored by ZonMW.

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

Objective: To evaluate the role of corifollitropin alfa, a newly developed weekly administrated long-acting recombinant FSH (rFSH), as an alternative for daily rFSH administration in women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation in GnRH antagonist down-regulated in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment cycles., Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials., Setting: University and private centers., Patient(s): Infertile women undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment., Intervention(s): Comparing long-acting rFSH corifollitropin alfa versus standard daily administrated rFSH in GnRH antagonist IVF/ICSI cycles., Main Outcome Measure(s): Ongoing pregnancy rate, live birth rate, clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, duration of stimulation, amount of FSH, number of retrieved oocytes, number of mature oocytes, number of embryos obtained, fertilization rate, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) incidence, and adverse events. Searches (of literature through November 2011) were conducted in Medline, Embase, Science Direct, the Cochrane Library, and databases of abstracts., Result(s): Four randomized trials involving 2,326 women were included. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in ongoing pregnancy rate for corifollitropin alfa versus rFSH. There was evidence of increased ovarian response and risk of OHSS in corifollitropin alfa., Conclusion(s): In view of its equivalence and safety profile, corifollitropin alfa in combination with daily GnRH antagonist seems to be an alternative for daily rFSH injections in normal responder patients undergoing ovarian stimulation in IVF/ICSI treatment cycles., (Copyright © 2012 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of IVF with elective single embryo transfer (IVF-eSET) vs. IUI with controlled ovarian stimulation (IUI-COS) as an alternative treatment to reduce the risk for a multiple pregnancy., Design: Randomized pilot trial., Setting: Three academic and six teaching hospitals in the Netherlands., Patient(s): Couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and an unfavorable prognosis for natural conception., Intervention(s): One cycle of IVF-eSET or three cycles of IUI-COS., Main Outcome Measure(s): Ongoing pregnancy per couple., Result(s): We randomly allocated 116 women to IVF-eSET (n = 58) or IUI-COH (n = 58). There were 14 ongoing pregnancies (24%) in the IVF-eSET group and 12 pregnancies (21%) in the IUI-COS group (relative ratio 1.17; 95% confidence interval 0.60-2.30). There were two twin pregnancies in the IVF-eSET group (14%) and two twin pregnancies and one triplet pregnancy in the IUI-COH group (25%)., Conclusion(s): In patients with unexplained or mild male subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, one cycle of IVF-eSET might be as effective as three cycles of IUI-COS as primary treatment. Elective single embryo transfer does not seem an effective strategy in preventing multiple pregnancies in this particular population. In the future a strict SET policy (i.e., compulsory SET) might be an option. Our trial provides evidence for the feasibility and highlights the importance of a large definitive trial to determine the effectiveness and side effects of both strategies., (Copyright © 2011 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the cost effectiveness of ovarian reserve testing in in vitro fertilization (IVF)., Design: A Markov decision model based on data from the literature and original patient data., Setting: Decision analytic framework., Patient(s): Computer-simulated cohort of subfertile women aged 20 to 45 years who are eligible for IVF., Intervention(s): [1] No treatment, [2] up to three cycles of IVF limited to women under 41 years and no ovarian reserve testing, [3] up to three cycles of IVF with dose individualization of gonadotropins according to ovarian reserve, and [4] up to three cycles of IVF with ovarian reserve testing and exclusion of expected poor responders after the first cycle, with no treatment scenario as the reference scenario., Main Outcome Measure(s): Cumulative live birth over 1 year, total costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios., Result(s): The cumulative live birth was 9.0% in the no treatment scenario, 54.8% for scenario 2, 70.6% for scenario 3 and 51.9% for scenario 4. Absolute costs per woman for these scenarios were €0, €6,917, €6,678, and €5,892 for scenarios 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for scenarios 2, 3, and 4 were €15,166, €10,837, and €13,743 per additional live birth. Sensitivity analysis showed the model to be robust over a wide range of values., Conclusion(s): Individualization of the follicle-stimulating hormone dose according to ovarian reserve is likely to be cost effective in women who are eligible for IVF, but this effectiveness needs to be confirmed in randomized clinical trials., (Copyright © 2011 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

To optimize success rates of IVF, selection of the most viable embryo(s) for transfer has always been essential, as embryos that are cryopreserved are thought to have a reduced chance of implanting after thawing. Recent developments challenge this concept. Evidence is accumulating that all embryos can now be cryopreserved and transferred in subsequent cycles without impairing pregnancy rates or maybe even with an improvement in pregnancy rates. In such a scenario no selection method will ever lead to improved live birth rates, as, by definition, the live birth rate per stimulated IVF cycle can never be improved when all embryos are serially transferred. In fact, selection could then only lower the live birth rate after IVF. The only parameter that could possibly be improved by embryo selection would be time to pregnancy, if embryos with the highest implantation potential are transferred first.

Background: Several systematic reviews compared recombinant gonadotrophin with urinary gonadotrophins (HMG, purified FSH, highly purified FSH) for ovarian hyperstimulation in IVF and ICSI cycles and these reported conflicting results. Each of these reviews used different inclusion and exclusion criteria for trials. Our aim in producing this review is to bring together all randomised studies in this field under common inclusion criteria with consistent and valid statistical methods., Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of recombinant gonadotrophin (rFSH) with the three main types of urinary gonadotrophins (i.e. HMG, FSH-P and FSH-HP) for ovarian stimulation in women undergoing IVF or ICSI treatment cycles., Search Strategy: An extended search was done according to Cochrane guidelines including the Menstrual Disorders & Subfertility Group's Specialised Register of controlled trials, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (1966 to May 2010), EMBASE (1980 to May 2010), CINAHL (1982 to May 2010), National Research Register, and Current Controlled Trials., Selection Criteria: All randomised controlled trials reporting data comparing clinical outcomes for women undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles and using recombinant FSH in comparison with HMG or highly purified HMG, purified urinary FSH (FSH-P), and highly purified urinary FSH (FSH-HP) for ovarian hyperstimulation in IVF or ICSI cycles were included., Data Collection and Analysis: Primary outcome measure was live birth rate and OHSS per randomised woman.Binary outcomes were analysed using odds ratios and also reported in absolute terms. Grouped analyses were carried out for all outcomes to explore whether relative effects differed due to key features of the trials., Main Results: We included 42 trials with a total of 9606 couples. Comparing rFSH to any of the other gonadotrophins irrespective of the down-regulation protocol used, did not result in any evidence of a statistically significant difference in live birth rate (28 trials, 7339 couples, odds ratio 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.08). This suggests that for a group with a 25% live birth rate using urinary gonadotrophins the rate would be between 22.5% and 26.5% using rFSH. There was also no evidence of a difference in the OHSS rate (32 trials, 7740 couples, OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.61). This means that for a group with 2% risk of OHSS using urinary gonadotrophins, the risk would be between 1.7% and 3.2% using rFSH., Authors' Conclusions: Clinical choice of gonadotrophin should depend on availability, convenience and costs. Further research on these comparisons is unlikely to identify substantive differences in effectiveness or safety.

Background: Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocols for pituitary down regulation in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) allow the use of GnRH agonists for triggering final oocyte maturation. Currently, human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) is still the standard medication for this purpose. The effectiveness of triggering with a GnRH agonist compared to HCG measured as pregnancy and ovarian hyperstimulation(OHSS) rates are unknown., Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of a GnRH agonist with HCG for triggering final oocyte maturation in IVF and ICSI patients undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in a GnRH antagonist protocol followed by embryo transfer. , Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE , EMBASE, the National Research Register, the Medical Research Council's Clinical Trials Register, and the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database. We also examined the reference lists of all known primary studies and review articles, citation lists of relevant publications and abstracts of major scientific meetings., Selection Criteria: All randomised controlled studies (RCTs) reporting data comparing clinical outcomes for women undergoing IVF and ICSI cycles and using a GnRH agonist in comparison with HCG for final oocyte maturation triggering., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data., Main Results: We identified 11 RCTs (n = 1055). Eight studies assessed fresh autologous cycles and three studies assessed donor-recipient cycles. In fresh-autologous cycles, GnRH agonist was less effective than HCG in terms of the live birth rate per randomised woman (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.68; 4 RCTs) and ongoing pregnancy rate per randomised woman (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.65; 8 RCTs). For a group with a 30% live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate using HCG, the rate would be between 12% and 22% using an GnRH agonist. Moderate to severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) incidence per randomised woman was significantly lower in the GnRH agonist group compared to the HCG group (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82; 5 RCTs). For a group with a 3% OHSS rate using HCG the rate would be between 0% and 2.6% using GnRH agonist. In donor recipient cycles, there was no evidence of a statistical difference in the live birth rate per randomised woman (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.61; 1 RCT)., Authors' Conclusions: We do not recommend that GnRH agonists be routinely used as a final oocyte maturation trigger in fresh autologous cycles because of lowered live birth rates and ongoing pregnancy rates. An exception could be made for women with high risk of OHSS, after appropriate counselling.

Background: Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocols for pituitary down regulation in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) allow the use of GnRH agonists for triggering final oocyte maturation. Currently, human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) is still the standard medication for this purpose. The effectiveness of triggering with a GnRH agonist compared to HCG measured as pregnancy and ovarian hyperstimulation(OHSS) rates are unknown., Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of a GnRH agonist with HCG for triggering final oocyte maturation in IVF and ICSI patients undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in a GnRH antagonist protocol followed by embryo transfer. , Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE , EMBASE, the National Research Register, the Medical Research Council's Clinical Trials Register, and the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database. We also examined the reference lists of all known primary studies and review articles, citation lists of relevant publications and abstracts of major scientific meetings., Selection Criteria: All randomised controlled studies (RCTs) reporting data comparing clinical outcomes for women undergoing IVF and ICSI cycles and using a GnRH agonist in comparison with HCG for final oocyte maturation triggering., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data., Main Results: We identified 11 RCTs (n = 1055). Eight studies assessed fresh autologous cycles and three studies assessed donor-recipient cycles. In fresh-autologous cycles, GnRH agonist was less effective than HCG in terms of the live birth rate per randomised woman (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.68; 4 RCTs) and ongoing pregnancy rate per randomised woman (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.65; 8 RCTs). For a group with a 30% live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate using HCG, the rate would be between 12% and 22% using an GnRH agonist. Moderate to severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) incidence per randomised woman was significantly lower in the GnRH agonist group compared to the HCG group (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82; 5 RCTs). For a group with a 3% OHSS rate using HCG the rate would be between 0% and 2.6% using GnRH agonist. In donor recipient cycles, there was no evidence of a statistical difference in the live birth rate per randomised woman (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.61; 1 RCT)., Authors' Conclusions: We do not recommend that GnRH agonists be routinely used as a final oocyte maturation trigger in fresh autologous cycles because of lowered live birth rates and ongoing pregnancy rates. An exception could be made for women with high risk of OHSS, after appropriate counselling.

Background: Pregnancies induced by in vitro fertilisation (IVF) often result in twin gestations, which are associated with both maternal and perinatal complications. An effective way to reduce the number of IVF twin pregnancies is to decrease the number of embryos transferred from two to one. The interpretation of current studies is limited because they used live birth as outcome measure and because they applied limited time horizons. So far, research on long-term outcomes of IVF twins and singletons is scarce and inconclusive. The objective of this study is to investigate the short (1-year) and long-term (5 and 18-year) costs and health outcomes of IVF singleton and twin children and to consider these in estimating the cost-effectiveness of single embryo transfer compared with double embryo transfer, from a societal and a healthcare perspective., Methods/design: A multi-centre cohort study will be performed, in which IVF singletons and IVF twin children born between 2003 and 2005 of whom parents received IVF treatment in one of the five participating Dutch IVF centres, will be compared. Data collection will focus on children at risk of health problems and children in whom health problems actually occurred. First year of life data will be collected in approximately 1,278 children (619 singletons and 659 twin children). Data up to the fifth year of life will be collected in approximately 488 children (200 singletons and 288 twin children). Outcome measures are health status, health-related quality of life and costs. Data will be obtained from hospital information systems, a parent questionnaire and existing registries. Furthermore, a prognostic model will be developed that reflects the short and long-term costs and health outcomes of IVF singleton and twin children. This model will be linked to a Markov model of the short-term cost-effectiveness of single embryo transfer strategies versus double embryo transfer strategies to enable the calculation of the long-term cost-effectiveness., Discussion: This is, to our knowledge, the first study that investigates the long-term costs and health outcomes of IVF singleton and twin children and the long-term cost-effectiveness of single embryo transfer strategies versus double embryo transfer strategies.

Cryopreservation of spermatozoa and embryos has been a standard procedure in Dutch fertility laboratories for several decades. Until recently, oocyte cryopreservation was rarely performed because of the low chance of survival. 'Vitrification' is a promising new technique for the freezing of oocytes. This ultra-quick freezing method can be used when no spermatozoa, or no viable spermatozoa, could be obtained during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), and for patients with cancer who have to undergo potentially damaging oncology treatment. The Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam has performed oocyte vitrification for 20 patients in the period March 2006 - October 2009. Ten of these patients have undergone ICSI treatment; this resulted in three pregnancies and the birth of two healthy babies from two of these pregnancies.

Background: Multiple pregnancies are high risk pregnancies with higher chances of maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity. In the past decades the number of multiple pregnancies has increased. This trend is partly due to the fact that women start family planning at an increased age, but also due to the increased use of ART.Couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility generally receive intrauterine insemination IUI with controlled hormonal stimulation (IUI COH). The cumulative pregnancy rate is 40%, with a 10% multiple pregnancy rate.This study aims to reveal whether alternative treatments such as IVF elective Single Embryo Transfer (IVF e SET) or Modified Natural Cycle IVF (MNC IVF) can reduce the number of multiple pregnancy rates, but uphold similar pregnancy rates as IUI COH in couples with mild male or unexplained subfertility. Secondly, the aim is to perform a cost effective analyses and assess treatment preference of these couples., Methods/design: We plan a multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial in the Netherlands comparing six cycles of intra-uterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation or six cycles of Modified Natural Cycle (MNC) IVF or three cycles with IVF-elective Single Embryo Transfer (eSET) plus cryo-cycles within a time frame of 12 months.Couples with unexplained subfertility or mild male subfertility and a poor prognosis for treatment independent pregnancy will be included. Women with anovulatory cycles, severe endometriosis, double sided tubal pathology or serious endocrine illness will be excluded.Our primary outcome is the birth of a healthy singleton. Secondary outcomes are multiple pregnancy, treatment costs, and patient experiences in each treatment arm. The analysis will be performed according tot the intention to treat principle. We will test for non-inferiority of the three arms with respect to live birth. As we accept a 12.5% loss in pregnancy rate in one of the two IVF arms to prevent multiple pregnancies, we need 200 couples per arm (600 couples in total)., Discussion: Determining the safest and most cost-effective treatment will ensure optimal chances of pregnancy for subfertile couples with substantially diminished perinatal and maternal complications. Should patients find the most cost-effective treatment acceptable or even preferable, this could imply the need for a world wide shift in the primary treatment., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 52843371.

The techniques of vitrification of oocytes and the subsequent warming process being used today are now producing results far superior to the results that are obtained with slow-freezing techniques, and it would seem that this is the method of female fertility preservation that will be widely used in the near future. The reported success of the use of this method should stimulate a renewed debate on oocyte storage for fertility preservation without a medical indication.

Background: Human preimplantation embryos generated through in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatments show a variable rate of numerical chromosome abnormalities or aneuploidies. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) has been designed to screen for aneuploidies in high risk patients, with the aim of improving live birth rates in IVF/ICSI. We assessed whether the effect of PGS on live births rates differs in women of advanced maternal age with variable risks for embryonic aneuploidy, and weighed these effects against the results obtained after IVF/ICSI without PGS., Methods: The effect of PGS on live birth rates was compared between groups defined by maternal age, number of previous miscarriages, semen quality, total amount of recombinant FSH (rFSH) administered during ovarian stimulation and total number of top-quality embryos, using data from a randomized controlled trial among women of advanced maternal age (35-41 years)., Results: There was no significant differential effect of PGS in groups based on maternal age (P-value of interaction 0.16), the number of previous miscarriages (P-value of interaction 0.93), semen quality (P-value of interaction 0.26), rFSH dose (P-value of interaction 0.15) or the number of top-quality embryos (P-value of interaction 0.59). Live birth rates after IVF/ICSI with PGS were lower in all groups when compared with live birth rates after IVF/ICSI without PGS., Conclusions: The paradigm that the effect of PGS is determined by a woman's risk for embryonic aneuploidy seems incorrect. In fact, PGS has no clinical benefit over standard IVF/ICSI in women of advanced maternal age regardless of their risk for embryonic aneuploidy.

Objective: To assess the predictive capacity of male and female characteristics on in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcome in couples with male subfertility and to construct an IVF prediction model., Study Design: We performed a cohort study including all couples with male subfertility undergoing IVF. The main outcome measure was an ongoing pregnancy after IVF. The baseline characteristics from a couple including parameters of the semen-analysis were included in a univariable and multivariable analysis to construct a prediction model (model I). The addition of antisperm antibodies (ASA) and post-wash total motile count (TMC) to models I, II and III, respectively, were analyzed., Results: We included 275 couples with male subfertility who underwent 473 IVF cycles with an ongoing pregnancy rate of 19% per cycle. A prediction model containing female age, secondary subfertility, percentage progressively motile sperm, percentage sperm with normal morphology, prewash total motile sperm count, bilateral tubal pathology, history of intrauterine insemination and cycle number was constructed (model I). Prediction with model I resulted in the selection of 95 couples, of whom 55 conceived (pregnancy rate of 28% per cycle). Use of the model with n ASA (Model II) resulted in the selection of 79 couples, of whom still 55 conceived (30% per cycle)., Conclusion: In couples with male subfertility, the use of a prediction model including ASA improves the efficiency of IVF.

Background: Since the most recent Cochrane review on hMG versus rFSH for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation following a long down-regulation protocol, several new trials have emerged., Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing the effectiveness of hMG versus rFSH following a long down-regulation protocol in IVF-ICSI cycles, on the primary outcome of live birth per woman randomized, as well as several other secondary outcomes. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Direct, Cochrane Library and databases of abstracts (last search January 2007)., Results: Seven randomized trials, consisting of a total of 2159 randomized women, were identified. A meta-analysis of these trials showed a significant increase in live birth rate with hMG when compared with rFSH (relative risk, RR = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.02-1.38, P = 0.03). The heterogeneity test was non-significant (P = 0.97), suggesting that there was no statistical inconsistency between the seven studies. The pooled risk difference (RD) for the outcome of live birth rate was 4% (95% CI: 1-7%) for these study populations. There was an increase in clinical pregnancy rates with hMG when compared with rFSH (RR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.03-1.34). No significant differences were noted for gonadotrophin use, spontaneous abortion, multiple pregnancy, cancellation and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rates., Conclusions: For the populations in the randomized trials, hMG was associated with a pooled 4% increase in live birth rate when compared with rFSH in IVF-ICSI treatment following a long down-regulation protocol.

With identical pregnancy rates after elective single embryo transfer (ET) and double ET strategies consisting of three cycles of IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) plus transfers of thawed/frozen embryos if available, 46% of the women undergoing IVF/ICSI favor elective single ET. If elective single ET lowers pregnancy chances with 1%, 3%, or 5%, the percentage of women preferring elective single ET drops to 34%, 24%, and 15%, respectively. If four, five, or six cycles with elective single ET are needed to match the success rate of three cycles with double ET, the percentage of women with a preference for elective single ET drops from 46% to 40%, 36%, and 35% respectively.

Objective: Although the primary goal of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) is to increase pregnancy rates in women undergoing IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment, it has been suggested that it may also be used as an alternative to prenatal testing for Down syndrome., Design: Trade-off questionnaires., Setting: Two university centers for reproductive medicine., Patient(s): Two hundred forty-four subfertile women., Intervention(s): Scenarios with different pregnancy chances after PGS and with different risk reductions of a Down syndrome pregnancy were presented., Main Outcome Measure(s): Willingness to have PGS performed in the various scenarios., Result(s): In case PGS would discover all Down syndrome embryos without affecting pregnancy chances, 83% of the women would have PGS performed. If PGS lowered pregnancy chances from one in five to one in seven, 36% of the women preferred to have PGS performed. If PGS reduced the chance of a Down syndrome pregnancy with 80% without affecting pregnancy chances, 75% of the women would have PGS performed, and 31% of them would refrain from prenatal testing afterward., Conclusion(s): Most women favor PGS for Down syndrome screening, even if it is not 100% sensitive. The acceptability depends on the effect PGS has on pregnancy chances, and, to a lower extent on its sensitivity to detect Down syndrome embryos.

Patients' preferences for intrauterine insemination (IUI) relative to IVF were assessed using trade-off interviews, and the number of IUI cycles they would undergo before changing to IVF. A total of 73 couples undergoing IUI with a total of 111 interviews were included. Scenarios were offered where pregnancy chance after IUI was varied against a fixed pregnancy rate after IVF. The impact of multiple pregnancy risk on the couple's preference was also investigated. Interviews were held before starting IUI, after three or four IUI cycles and after six IUI cycles. With decreasing probability of ongoing pregnancy after IUI, an increasing number of couples switched their preference from IUI to IVF. This switch occurred after six cycles at a significantly higher (P = 0.01) mean cumulative pregnancy rate (53%) compared with other groups (31%). With increasing risk of multiple pregnancy, preference for IUI declined only slightly, with mean risks of 73, 78 and 83% of a multiple pregnancy for the three groups respectively. In conclusion, at baseline and after three cycles of IUI the majority of couples undergoing IUI preferred continuation of IUI over IVF. A clear shift in preference towards IVF occurred after six cycles. Risk of multiple pregnancy did not affect preference for IUI with ovarian stimulation.

Background: Pregnancy rates in women of advanced maternal age undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) are disappointingly low. It has been suggested that the use of preimplantation genetic screening of cleavage-stage embryos for aneuploidies may improve the effectiveness of IVF in these women., Methods: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial comparing three cycles of IVF with and without preimplantation genetic screening in women 35 through 41 years of age. The primary outcome measure was ongoing pregnancy at 12 weeks of gestation. The secondary outcome measures were biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth., Results: Four hundred eight women (206 assigned to preimplantation genetic screening and 202 assigned to the control group) underwent 836 cycles of IVF (434 cycles with and 402 cycles without preimplantation genetic screening). The ongoing-pregnancy rate was significantly lower in the women assigned to preimplantation genetic screening (52 of 206 women [25%]) than in those not assigned to preimplantation genetic screening (74 of 202 women [37%]; rate ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.93). The women assigned to preimplantation genetic screening also had a significantly lower live-birth rate (49 of 206 women [24%] vs. 71 of 202 women [35%]; rate ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.92)., Conclusions: Preimplantation genetic screening did not increase but instead significantly reduced the rates of ongoing pregnancies and live births after IVF in women of advanced maternal age. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN76355836 [controlled-trials.com].)., (Copyright 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Sixteen vignettes of subfertile couples were constructed by varying fertility history, post-coital test, sperm motility, FSH concentration and Chlamydia antibody titre (CAT). Thirty-five gynaecologists estimated probabilities of treatment-independent pregnancy, intrauterine insemination (IUI) and IVF. Thereafter, they chose IUI, IVF or no treatment. The relative contribution of each factor to probability estimates and to subsequent treatment decisions was calculated. Duration of subfertility and maternal age were the most important contributors for gynaecologists' estimates of treatment-independent pregnancy [relative contribution (RC) 41, 26%]. Maternal age and FSH concentration were the most important contributors in the estimates for IUI (RC: 51, 25%) and for IVF (RC: 64, 31%). The decision to start IVF was mainly determined by maternal age, duration of subfertility, FSH concentration and CAT. The relative contribution of maternal age and duration of subfertility was in concordance with existing prediction models, whereas previous pregnancy and FSH concentration were under- and overestimated respectively. In conclusion, maternal age, duration of subfertility and FSH concentration are the main factors in clinical decision-making in subfertility. Gynaecologists overestimate the importance of FSH concentration, but underestimate that of a previous pregnancy, as compared with their importance reported in prediction models and guidelines.

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of three different times of onset of luteal phase support on ongoing pregnancy rate in infertile patients undergoing treatment with GnRH down-regulated IVF and embryo transfer (IVF/ET)., Materials and Methods: All consecutive eligible patients planned to undergo their first IVF treatment cycle were randomly allocated to receive vaginal progesterone as luteal support at three different time points, that is, after HCG administration for final oocyte maturation (HCG group), at the day of oocyte retrieval (OR group) or at the day of ET (ET group). The primary endpoint of this study was ongoing pregnancy rate., Results: A total of 385 women were randomized, 130 were allocated to the HCG group, 128 to the OR group and 127 to the ET group. An ongoing pregnancy rate of 20.8% was found in the HCG group versus 22.7 and 23.6% in the OR group and ET group, respectively. The mean number and quality of the retrieved oocytes and the transferred embryos did not differ., Conclusion: Based on this data, an 18% difference in ongoing pregnancy rate between the three different times of onset of luteal phase support in GnRH agonist down-regulated IVF/ET cycles can be refuted. Smaller clinically meaningful differences may be present.

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of hMG and recombinant FSH after down-regulation for ovulation stimulation in assisted reproductive cycles., Design: Meta-analysis., Setting: Infertility centers providing assisted reproductive techniques., Patient(s): Two thousand thirty women undergoing IVF or ICSI., Interventions: Ovarian hyperstimulation with hMG or recombinant FSH after down-regulation., Main Outcome Measure(s): Clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy/live birth rate, gonadotropin dose used, oocytes retrieved, implantation rate, miscarriage rate, and multiple pregnancy rate., Result(s): Six randomized controlled trials were included. In all trials, the group of women treated with hMG had higher pregnancy rates. Pooling the five trials that used a long GnRH agonist protocol resulted in a higher clinical pregnancy rate for hMG compared with recombinant FSH (relative risk, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.03 to 1.44]). However, there was no evidence of a difference in rates of ongoing pregnancy or live birth per woman between hMG recipients and recombinant FSH recipients (relative risk, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.99 to 1.45]). No differences were found in gonadotropin dose used, oocytes retrieved, miscarriage rate, or multiple pregnancy rate., Conclusion(s): Use of hMG resulted in higher clinical pregnancy rates than did use of recombinant FSH in IVF/ICSI cycles after GnRH agonist down-regulation in a long protocol.

Objective: To evaluate the capacity of baseline characteristics and total motile sperm count (TMC) to predict total fertilization failure (TFF) in patients undergoing IVF., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Setting: University hospital., Patient(s): Eight hundred ninety-two couples with a total of 1,569 consecutive IVF cycles., Intervention(s): Prewash and postwash TMC during fertility workup and at the time of ovum pickup (OPU)., Main Outcome Measure(s): Analysis of logistic regression and the receiver operating characteristic curve were used to determine which variables could be used to predict TFF., Result(s): The area under the curve (AUC) for prewash TMC during fertility workup was 0.72, similar to a combination of pre- and postwash TMC. At the time of OPU, both pre- and postwash TMC had an AUC of 0.73. A model based on selected baseline characteristics (male age, number of IVF cycles, indication for IVF, and prewash TMC during fertility workup) had an AUC of 0.75. A model at the time of OPU, including the number of oocytes, had an AUC of 0.80., Conclusion(s): The use of both models, one before start of the IVF cycle and one at the time of OPU, allows an accurate prediction of the chance of TFF and is useful in counseling patients on whether to opt for IVF or ICSI.

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

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Although chromosomal mosaicism in human preimplantation embryos has been described for almost two decades, its exact prevalence is still unknown. The prevalence of mosaicism is important in the context of preimplantation genetic screening in which the chromosomal status of an embryo is determined by the analysis of a single cell from that embryo. METHODS Here we report a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the chromosomal constitution of human preimplantation embryos. In 36 studies, out of 2117 citations that met our search criteria, data were provided extensively enough to allow classification of each analysed embryo with prespecified criteria for its chromosomal makeup. The main outcome of this classification was the prevalence of chromosomal mosaicism in human preimplantation embryos. RESULTS A total of 815 embryos could be classified. Of these, 177 (22%) were diploid, 599 (73%) were mosaic, of which 480 (59% of the total number of embryos) were diploid–aneuploid mosaic and 119 (14% of the total number of embryos) were aneuploid mosaic, and 39 (5%) contained other numerical chromosomal abnormalities. The distribution of the embryos over these categories was associated with the developmental stage of the embryos, the method used for analysis and the number of chromosomes analysed. CONCLUSIONS Diploid–aneuploid mosaicism is by far the most common chromosomal constitution in spare human preimplantation embryos after IVF. This undermines the reliable determination of the ploidy status of a cleavage-stage embryo based on the analysis of a single cell. Future research should determine the origin and developmental potential of mosaic embryos. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Recently, dopamine agonists were proposed as a prophylactic treatment for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in women at high risk in IVF/ICSI treatment cycles. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article offers information on a study which developed in vitro propagation of human spermatogonial stem cells from small testicular biopsies to derive an adequate number of cells for successful transplantation. Testis material donated by six adult men who undergone orchidectomy as part of prostate cancer treatment was utilized during the duration of the study from April 2007 to July 2009. To determine the presence of spermatogonia and spermatogonial markers, reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction and immunofluorescence were applied, respectively. Main outcome measure was the propagation of spermatogonial stem cells. Also presented in details are the research findings.

Background: For most tubal ectopic pregnancies (EP) surgery is the treatment of first choice. Whether surgical treatment should be performed conservatively (salpingostomy) or radically (salpingectomy) in women wishing to preserve their reproductive capacity, is subject to debate. Salpingostomy preserves the tube, but bears the risks of both persistent trophoblast and repeat ipsilateral tubal EP. Salpingectomy, avoids these risks, but leaves only one tube for reproductive capacity. This study aims to reveal the trade-off between both surgical options: whether the potential advantage of salpingostomy, i.e. a better fertility prognosis as compared to salpingectomy, outweighs the potential disadvantages, i.e. persistent trophoblast and an increased risk for a repeat EP. Methods/Design: International multi centre randomised controlled trial comparing salpingostomy versus salpingectomy in women with a tubal EP without contra lateral tubal pathology. Hemodynamically stable women with a presumptive diagnosis of tubal EP, scheduled for surgery, are eligible for inclusion. Patients pregnant after in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and/or known documented tubal pathology are excluded. At surgery, a tubal EP must be confirmed. Only women with a tubal EP amenable to both interventions and a healthy contra lateral tube are included. Salpingostomy and salpingectomy are performed according to standard procedures of participating hospitals. Up to 36 months after surgery, women will be contacted to assess their fertility status at six months intervals starting form the day of the operation. The primary outcome measure is the occurrence of spontaneous viable intra uterine pregnancy. Secondary outcome measures are persistent trophoblast, repeat EP, all pregnancies including those resulting from IVF and financial costs. The analysis will be performed according to the intention to treat principle. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed within a decision analysis framework, based on costs per live birth, including IVF treatment whenever a spontaneous pregnancy does not occur. Patients' preferences will be assessed using a discrete choice experiment. Discussion: This trial will provide evidence on the trade off between salpingostomy and salpingectomy for tubal EP in view of the pros and cons of both interventions and will offer guidance to clinicians in making the right treatment choice. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37002267 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]