Search

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

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

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

STUDY QUESTIONS The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment of women suffering from pain due to an ovarian endometrioma when compared to treatment with medication (analgesia and/or hormones). The primary outcome is defined as successful pain reduction (−30% reduction of pain) measured by the numeric rating scale (NRS) after 6 months. Secondary outcomes include successful pain reduction after 12 and 18 months, quality of life, affective symptoms, cost-effectiveness, recurrence rate, need of adjuvant medication after surgery, ovarian reserve, adjuvant surgery and budget impact. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Evidence suggests that both medication and surgical treatment of an ovarian endometrioma are effective in reducing pain and improving quality of life. However, there are no randomised studies that compare surgery to treatment with medication. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This study will be performed in a research network of university and teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. A multicentre randomised controlled trial and parallel prospective cohort study in patients with an ovarian endometrioma, with the exclusion of patients with deep endometriosis, will be conducted. After obtaining informed consent, eligible patients will be randomly allocated to either treatment arm (medication or surgery) by using web-based block randomisation stratified per centre. A successful pain reduction is set at a 30% decrease on the NRS at 6 months after randomisation. Based on a power of 80% and an alpha of 5% and using a continuity correction, a sample size of 69 patients in each treatment arm is needed. Accounting for a drop-out rate of 25% (i.e. loss to follow up), we need to include 92 patients in each treatment arm, i.e. 184 in total. Simultaneously, a cohort study will be performed for eligible patients who are not willing to be randomised because of a distinct preference for one of the two treatment arms. We intend to include 100 women in each treatment arm to enable standardization by inverse probability weighting, which means 200 patients in total. The expected inclusion period is 24 months with a follow-up of 18 months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Premenopausal women (age ≥ 18 years) with pain (dysmenorrhoea, pelvic pain or dyspareunia) and an ovarian endometrioma (cyst diameter ≥ 3 cm) who visit the outpatient clinic will make up the study population. Patients with signs of deep endometriosis will be excluded. The primary outcome is successful pain reduction, which is defined as a 30% decrease of pain on the NRS at 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include successful pain reduction after 12 and 18 months, quality of life and affective symptoms, cost-effectiveness (from a healthcare and societal perspective), number of participants needing additional surgery, need of adjuvant medication after surgery, ovarian reserve and recurrence rate of endometriomas. Measurements will be performed at baseline, 6 weeks and 6, 12 and 18 months after randomisation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study is funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development, project number 80-85200-98-91041. The Department of Reproductive Medicine of the Amsterdam UMC location VUmc has received several research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck KGaA and Ferring not related to the submitted work. B.W.J. Mol is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet. V. Mijatovic reports grants from Guerbet, grants from Merck and grants from Ferring outside the submitted work. All authors declare that they have no competing interests concerning this publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Dutch Trial Register (NTR 7447, http://www.trialregister.nl). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 2 January 2019 DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT First inclusion in randomised controlled trial October 4, 2019. First inclusion in cohort May 22, 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For patients with endometrioma it is unclear what treatment: surgery and/or medication, is more effective in reducing pain and improving quality of life (QoL). This systematic review and meta- analysis aimed to provide an overview of the existing evidence on the effects of surgery and/or medication (i.e. analgesics and/or hormonal medication) on pain and QoL. A search through CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase was conducted. The study population had to be women treated for endometrioma. Retrospective or prospective studies reporting about QoL and/or the following types of pain were reviewed: dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, chronic pelvic pain, and pain that was not well defined in the included article (referred to as pain). We performed a meta-analysis on mean visual analogue scale (VAS) scores and proportions of patients experiencing different types of pain over time. QoL was described narratively. Out of 11.515 articles, 76 studies including 7148 patients were included for the systematic review. The meta-analysis consisted of 52 studies including 4556 patients. No studies compared medication with surgery. And there were no studies on analgesics. Meta-analysis showed that surgery and/or medication often reduced VAS scores and proportions of all types of pain over time. Surgery and medication combined seems more effective in reducing VAS scores of pain compared to surgery alone, but not to medication alone (estimated mean difference = 0.17, p < 0.0001 and -0.98, p = 0.0339). QoL improved after medication (follow up ≤ 12 months) and QoL was unchanged or worsened after surgery and medication combined (follow up ≤ 24 months). However, these were results from a total of 5 studies. Both surgery and medication reduce endometriosis-related pain in patients with endometrioma. However, there is lack of uniform, good quality data comparing surgery with medication to draw firm conclusions. For better-informed treatment decisions, further studies including a standardized core-outcome set at fixed follow-up times, are necessary., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Endometrial ablation is a frequently performed treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding, but detailed information about recovery to help inform patients is lacking., Objective: To gain more insight into the short-term recovery after NovaSure® endometrial ablation, with the goal of improving preprocedural counselling., Materials and Methods: A total of 61 women who underwent endometrial ablation between March 2019 and November 2021 in a teaching hospital in the Netherlands were included in this prospective cohort study., Main Outcome Measures: Short-term recovery was investigated through questionnaires in the first week after the procedure. The primary outcome was the Recovery Index (RI-10). Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), pain intensity, use of analgesics, nausea, vaginal discharge, capability of performing activities (domestic chores, sports, work), self-rated health (EQ-VAS) and the feeling of full recovery., Results: A total of 33 women underwent the procedure under local anaesthesia and 28 women under procedural sedation. The RI-10 increased in the first week; median scores on day one, two and seven were 34 (IQR 28.5-41.5), 38.5 (IQR 31-47), and 42 (IQR 37.5-48), respectively. The median time for full recovery was five days. However, 23% of all women were not fully recovered within seven days. Women needed a median time of two days for returning to their work and 5.5 days for sporting activities. There were no differences in recovery between both anaesthesia techniques., Conclusions: Women undergoing endometrial ablation can be informed that most will fully recover within the first week of the procedure and that there is no difference in expected recovery time according to whether the procedure is undertaken with local anaesthesia or conscious sedation., What Is New?: The short-term recovery after endometrial ablation has been mapped in this trial. This information can be used in counselling women with heavy menstrual bleeding.

Study Question: Is a single endometrial scratch prior to the second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment cost-effective compared to no scratch, when evaluated over a 12-month follow-up period?, Summary Answer: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for an endometrial scratch was €6524 per additional live birth, but due to uncertainty regarding the increase in live birth rate this has to be interpreted with caution., What Is Known Already: Endometrial scratching is thought to improve the chances of success in couples with previously failed embryo implantation in IVF/ICSI treatment. It has been widely implemented in daily practice, despite the lack of conclusive evidence of its effectiveness and without investigating whether scratching allows for a cost-effective method to reduce the number of IVF/ICSI cycles needed to achieve a live birth., Study Design, Size, Duration: This economic evaluation is based on a multicentre randomized controlled trial carried out in the Netherlands (SCRaTCH trial) that compared a single scratch prior to the second IVF/ICSI treatment with no scratch in couples with a failed full first IVF/ICSI cycle. Follow-up was 12 months after randomization.Economic evaluation was performed from a healthcare and societal perspective by taking both direct medical costs and lost productivity costs into account. It was performed for the primary outcome of biochemical pregnancy leading to live birth after 12 months of follow-up as well as the secondary outcome of live birth after the second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment (i.e. the first after randomization). To allow for worldwide interpretation of the data, cost level scenario analysis and sensitivity analysis was performed., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: From January 2016 until July 2018, 933 women with a failed first IVF/ICSI cycle were included in the trial. Data on treatment and pregnancy were recorded up until 12 months after randomization, and the resulting live birth outcomes (even if after 12 months) were also recorded.Total costs were calculated for the second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment and for the full 12 month period for each participant. We included costs of all treatments, medication, complications and lost productivity costs. Cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out by calculating ICERs for scratch compared to control. Bootstrap resampling was used to estimate the uncertainty around cost and effect differences and ICERs. In the sensitivity and scenario analyses, various unit costs for a single scratch were introduced, amongst them, unit costs as they apply for the United Kingdom (UK)., Main Results and the Role of Chance: More live births occurred in the scratch group, but this also came with increased costs over a 12-month period. The estimated chance of a live birth after 12 months of follow-up was 44.1% in the scratch group compared to 39.3% in the control group (risk difference 4.8%, 95% CI -1.6% to +11.2%). The mean costs were on average €283 (95% CI: -€299 to €810) higher in the scratch group so that the point average ICER was €5846 per additional live birth. The ICER estimate was surrounded with a high level of uncertainty, as indicated by the fact that the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) showed that there is an 80% chance that endometrial scratching is cost-effective if society is willing to pay ∼€17 500 for each additional live birth., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: There was a high uncertainty surrounding the effects, mainly in the clinical effect, i.e. the difference in the chance of live birth, which meant that a single straightforward conclusion could not be ascertained as for now., Wider Implications of the Findings: This is the first formal cost-effectiveness analysis of endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment. The results presented in this manuscript cannot provide a clear-cut expenditure for one additional birth, but they do allow for estimating costs per additional live birth in different scenarios once the clinical effectiveness of scratching is known. As the SCRaTCH trial was the only trial with a follow-up of 12 months, it allows for the most complete estimation of costs to date., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This study was funded by ZonMW, the Dutch organization for funding healthcare research. A.E.P.C., F.J.M.B., E.R.G. and C.B. L. reported having received fees or grants during, but outside of, this trial., Trial Registration Number: Netherlands Trial Register (NL5193/NTR 5342)., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Study Question: Does endometrial scratching in women with one failed IVF/ICSI treatment affect the chance of a live birth of the subsequent fresh IVF/ICSI cycle?, Summary Answer: In this study, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch group, with a likely certainty range between -0.7% and +9.9%., What Is Known Already: Since the first suggestion that endometrial scratching might improve embryo implantation during IVF/ICSI, many clinical trials have been conducted. However, due to limitations in sample size and study quality, it remains unclear whether endometrial scratching improves IVF/ICSI outcomes., Study Design, Size, Duration: The SCRaTCH trial was a non-blinded randomised controlled trial in women with one unsuccessful IVF/ICSI cycle and assessed whether a single endometrial scratch using an endometrial biopsy catheter would lead to a higher live birth rate after the subsequent IVF/ICSI treatment compared to no scratch. The study took place in 8 academic and 24 general hospitals. Participants were randomised between January 2016 and July 2018 by a web-based randomisation programme. Secondary outcomes included cumulative 12-month ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth rate., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Women with one previous failed IVF/ICSI treatment and planning a second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment were eligible. In total, 933 participants out of 1065 eligibles were included (participation rate 88%)., Main Results and the Role of Chance: After the fresh transfer, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch compared to control group (110/465 versus 88/461, respectively, risk ratio (RR) 1.24 [95% CI 0.96-1.59]). These data are consistent with a true difference of between -0.7% and +9.9% (95% CI), indicating that while the largest proportion of the 95% CI is positive, scratching could have no or even a small negative effect. Biochemical pregnancy loss and miscarriage rate did not differ between the two groups: in the scratch group 27/153 biochemical pregnancy losses and 14/126 miscarriages occurred, while this was 19/130 and 17/111 for the control group (RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.71-2.07) and RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.38-1.40), respectively). After 12 months of follow-up, 5.1% more live births were observed in the scratch group (202/467 versus 178/466), of which the true difference most likely lies between -1.2% and +11.4% (95% CI)., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: This study was not blinded. Knowledge of allocation may have been an incentive for participants allocated to the scratch group to continue treatment in situations where they may otherwise have cancelled or stopped. In addition, this study was powered to detect a difference in live birth rate of 9%., Wider Implications of the Findings: The results of this study are an incentive for further assessment of the efficacy and clinical implications of endometrial scratching. If a true effect exists, it may be smaller than previously anticipated or may be limited to specific groups of women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Studying this will require larger sample sizes, which will be provided by the ongoing international individual participant data-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42017079120). At present, endometrial scratching should not be performed outside of clinical trials., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This study was funded by ZonMW, the Dutch organisation for funding healthcare research. J.S.E. Laven reports grants and personal fees from AnshLabs (Webster, Tx, USA), Ferring (Hoofddorp, The Netherlands) and Ministry of Health (CIBG, The Hague, The Netherlands) outside the submitted work. A.E.P. Cantineau reports 'other' from Ferring BV, personal fees from Up to date Hyperthecosis, 'other' from Theramex BV, outside the submitted work. E.R. Groenewoud reports grants from Titus Health Care during the conduct of the study. A.M. van Heusden reports personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees from Ferring, personal fees from Goodlife, outside the submitted work. F.J.M. Broekmans reports personal fees as Member of the external advisory board for Ferring BV, The Netherlands, personal fees as Member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, The Netherlands, personal fees as Member of the external advisory for Gedeon Richter, Belgium, personal fees from Educational activities for Ferring BV, The Netherlands, grants from Research support grant Merck Serono, grants from Research support grant Ferring, personal fees from Advisory and consultancy work Roche, outside the submitted work. C.B. Lambalk reports grants from Ferring, grants from Merck, grants from Guerbet, outside the submitted work., Trial Registration Number: Registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NL5193/NTR 5342)., Trial Registration Date: 31 July 2015., Date of First Patient’s Enrolment: 26 January 2016., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Study Question: What is the cost-effectiveness of in vitro fertilization (IVF) with conventional ovarian stimulation, single embryo transfer (SET) and subsequent cryocycles or IVF in a modified natural cycle (MNC) compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (IUI-COH) as a first-line treatment in couples with unexplained subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis on natural conception?., Summary Answer: Both IVF strategies are significantly more expensive when compared with IUI-COH, without being significantly more effective. In the comparison between IVF-MNC and IUI-COH, the latter is the dominant strategy. Whether IVF-SET is cost-effective depends on society's willingness to pay for an additional healthy child., What Is Known Already: IUI-COH and IVF, either after conventional ovarian stimulation or in a MNC, are used as first-line treatments for couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility. As IUI-COH is less invasive, this treatment is usually offered before proceeding to IVF. Yet, as conventional IVF with SET may lead to higher pregnancy rates in fewer cycles for a lower multiple pregnancy rate, some have argued to start with IVF instead of IUI-COH. In addition, IVF in the MNC is considered to be a more patient friendly and less costly form of IVF., Study Design, Size, Duration: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized noninferiority trial. Between January 2009 and February 2012, 602 couples with unexplained infertility and a poor prognosis on natural conception were allocated to three cycles of IVF-SET including frozen embryo transfers, six cycles of IVF-MNC or six cycles of IUI-COH. These couples were followed until 12 months after randomization., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: We collected data on resource use related to treatment, medication and pregnancy from the case report forms. We calculated unit costs from various sources. For each of the three strategies, we calculated the mean costs and effectiveness. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH and for IVF-MNC compared with IUI-COH. Nonparametric bootstrap resampling was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in our estimates., Main Results and the Role of Chance: There were 104 healthy children (52%) born in the IVF-SET group, 83 (43%) the IVF-MNC group and 97 (47%) in the IUI-COH group. The mean costs per couple were €7187 for IVF-SET, €8206 for IVF-MNC and €5070 for IUI-COH. Compared with IUI-COH, the costs for IVF-SET and IVF-MNC were significantly higher (mean differences €2117; 95% CI: €1544-€2657 and €3136, 95% CI: €2519-€3754, respectively).The ICER for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH was €43 375 for the birth of an additional healthy child. In the comparison of IVF-MNC to IUI-COH, the latter was the dominant strategy, i.e. more effective at lower costs., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: We only report on direct health care costs. The present analysis is limited to 12 months., Wider Implications of the Findings: Since we found no evidence in support of offering IVF as a first-line strategy in couples with unexplained and mild subfertility, IUI-COH should remain the treatment of first choice., Study Funding/competing Interests: The study was supported by a grant from ZonMw, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, (120620027) and a grant from Zorgverzekeraars Nederland, the Netherlands' association of health care insurers (09-003)., Trial Registration Number: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52843371; Nederlands Trial Register NTR939., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer or in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle with that of intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in terms of a healthy child., Design: Multicentre, open label, three arm, parallel group, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial., Setting: 17 centres in the Netherlands., Participants: Couples seeking fertility treatment after at least 12 months of unprotected intercourse, with the female partner aged between 18 and 38 years, an unfavourable prognosis for natural conception, and a diagnosis of unexplained or mild male subfertility., Interventions: Three cycles of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer (plus subsequent cryocycles), six cycles of in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, or six cycles of intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation within 12 months after randomisation., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was birth of a healthy child resulting from a singleton pregnancy conceived within 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were live birth, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, time to pregnancy, complications of pregnancy, and neonatal morbidity and mortality, Results: 602 couples were randomly assigned between January 2009 and February 2012; 201 were allocated to in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer, 194 to in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, and 207 to intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Birth of a healthy child occurred in 104 (52%) couples in the in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer group, 83 (43%) in the in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle group, and 97 (47%) in the intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation group. This corresponds to a risk, relative to intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation, of 1.10 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.34) for in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer and 0.91 (0.73 to 1.14) for in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle. These 95% confidence intervals do not extend below the predefined threshold of 0.69 for inferiority. Multiple pregnancy rates per ongoing pregnancy were 6% (7/121) after in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer, 5% (5/102) after in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, and 7% (8/119) after intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation (one sided P=0.52 for in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer compared with intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation; one sided P=0.33 for in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation)., Conclusions: In vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer and in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle were non-inferior to intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in terms of the birth of a healthy child and showed comparable, low multiple pregnancy rates.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52843371; Nederlands Trial Register NTR939., (© Bensdorp et al 2015.)