Intracervical insemination versus intrauterine insemination with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle: a randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION: Is intracervical insemination (ICI) non-inferior to IUI with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle in terms of live birth? SUMMARY ANSWER: ICI with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle was inferior to IUI in terms of live birth. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Both ICI and IUI in the natural cycle are performed as first-line treatments in women who are eligible for donor sperm treatment. High-quality data on the effectiveness of ICI versus IUI with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle in terms of live birth is lacking. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an open-label multicentre randomized non-inferiority trial in the Netherlands and Belgium. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We randomly allocated women who were eligible for donor sperm treatment with cryopreserved donor semen to six cycles of ICI in the natural cycle or six cycles of IUI in the natural cycle. The primary outcome was conception within 8 months after randomization leading to a live birth. Secondary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and time to conception leading to live birth. We calculated relative risks (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% CI. Non-inferiority would be shown if the lower limit of the 95% RD CI was <-12%. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between June 2014 and February 2019, we included 421 women, of whom 211 women were randomly allocated to ICI and 210 to IUI. Of the 211 women allocated to ICI, 2 women were excluded, 126 women completed treatment according to protocol and 75 women did not complete 6 treatment cycles. Of the 210 women allocated to IUI, 3 women were excluded, 140 women completed treatment according to protocol and 62 women did not complete 6 treatment cycles. Mean female age was 34 years (SD ±4) in both interventions. Conception leading to live birth occurred in 51 women (24%) allocated to ICI and in 81 women (39%) allocated to IUI (RR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.84). This corresponds to an absolute RD of -15%; 95% CI: -24% to -6.9%, suggesting inferiority of ICI. ICI also resulted in a lower live birth rate over time (hazard ratio 0.58, 95% CI: 0.41-0.82). Our per-protocol analysis showed that, within the 8 months treatment horizon, 48 women (38%) had live births after ICI and 79 women (56%) had live births after IUI (RR 0.68, 95% CI: 0.52-0.88; RD -18%, 95% CI: -30% to -6%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was non-blinded owing to the nature of the interventions. We consider it unlikely that this has introduced performance bias, since pregnancy outcomes are objective outcome measures. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since ICI in the natural cycle was inferior to IUI in the natural cycle with cryopreserved donor sperm in terms of live birth rate, IUI is the preferred treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This trial received funding from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw project number 837002407). B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437), reports consultancy for ObsEva and has received research funding from Guerbet, Ferring and Merck. The other authors do not declare a COI. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4462. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 11 March 2014. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT: 03 June 2014

Intracervical insemination versus intrauterine insemination with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle: a randomized controlled trial

Vol. 37(6) pp 1175-1182STUDY QUESTION: Is intracervical insemination (ICI) non-inferior to IUI with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle in terms of live birth? SUMMARY ANSWER: ICI with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle was inferior to IUI in terms of live birth. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Both ICI and IUI in the natural cycle are performed as first-line treatments in women who are eligible for donor sperm treatment. High-quality data on the effectiveness of ICI versus IUI with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle in terms of live birth is lacking. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an open-label multicentre randomized non-inferiority trial in the Netherlands and Belgium. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We randomly allocated women who were eligible for donor sperm treatment with cryopreserved donor semen to six cycles of ICI in the natural cycle or six cycles of IUI in the natural cycle. The primary outcome was conception within 8 months after randomization leading to a live birth. Secondary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and time to conception leading to live birth. We calculated relative risks (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% CI. Non-inferiority would be shown if the lower limit of the 95% RD CI was < 12%. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between June 2014 and February 2019, we included 421 women, of whom 211 women were randomly allocated to ICI and 210 to IUI. Of the 211 women allocated to ICI, 2 women were excluded, 126 women completed treatment according to protocol and 75 women did not complete 6 treatment cycles. Of the 210 women allocated to IUI, 3 women were excluded, 140 women completed treatment according to protocol and 62 women did not complete 6 treatment cycles. Mean female age was 34 years (SD §4) in both interventions. Conception leading to live birth occurred in 51 women (24%) allocated to ICI and in 81 women (39%) allocated to IUI (RR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.84). This corresponds to an absolute RD of -15%; 95% CI: -24% to -6.9%, suggesting inferiority of ICI. ICI also resulted in a lower live birth rate over time (hazard ratio 0.58, 95% CI: 0.41–0.82). Our per-protocol analysis showed that, within the 8 months treatment horizon, 48 women (38%) had live births after ICI and 79 women (56%) had live births after IUI (RR 0.68, 95% CI: 0.52–0.88; RD -18%, 95% CI: -30% to -6%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was non-blinded owing to the nature of the interventions. We consider it unlikely that this has introduced performance bias, since pregnancy outcomes are objective outcome measures. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since ICI in the natural cycle was inferior to IUI in the natural cycle with cryopreserved donor sperm in terms of live birth rate, IUI is the preferred treatment.P.A.L. Kop, M. van Wely, A. Nap, A.T. Soufan, A.A. de Melker, B.W.J. Mol, R.E. Bernardus, M. De Brucker, P.M.W. Janssens, J.J.P.M. Pieters, S. Repping, F. van der Veen, and M.H. Mochta

Does initiation of GnRH antagonists on cycle day 2 result in a more favourable follicular phase endocrine profile compared to initiation on cycle day 6

Cervix cance

Simultaneous initiation of GnRH antagonist co-treatment and recFSH for ovarian hyperstimulation in IVF does not affect clinical outcome: a randomized controlled trial

Cervix cance

Elevated early follicular progesterone levels and IVF outcomes: a prospective intervention study and meta-analysis

Cervix cance

Elevated early follicular progesterone levels and in vitro fertilization outcomes: a prospective intervention study and meta-analysis

Item does not contain fulltextOBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of elevated early follicular progesterone (P) levels in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist cycles on clinical outcome using prospective data in combination with a systematic review and meta-analysis. DESIGN: Nested study within a multicenter randomized controlled trial and a systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: Reproductive medicine center in an university hospital. PATIENT(S): 158 in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF-ICSI) patients. INTERVENTION(S): Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) (150-225 IU) administered daily from cycle day 2 onward; GnRH antagonist treatment randomly started on cycle day 2 or 6; assignment into two groups according to P level on cycle day 2: normal or elevated (>4.77 nmol/L or >1.5 ng/mL, respectively). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) per started cycle. RESULT(S): The incidence of elevated P was 13.3%. A non-statistically-significant difference in OPR was present between the normal and elevated P groups (27.0% vs. 19.0%). No differential impact of early or late GnRH antagonist initiation on the effect of elevated or normal P on OPR was observed. A systematic search of Medline and EMBASE from 1972-2013 was performed to identify studies analyzing elevated early P levels in GnRH antagonists. The meta-analysis (n=1,052) demonstrated that elevated P levels statistically significantly decreased the OPR with 15% (95% CI -23, -7 %). Heterogeneity across the studies, presumably based on varying protocols, may have modulated the effect of elevated P. CONCLUSION(S): From the present meta-analysis it appears that early elevated P levels are associated with a lower OPR in GnRH antagonists. The incidence of such a condition, however, is low. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00866034

Elevated early follicular progesterone levels and in vitro fertilization outcomes: a prospective intervention study and meta-analysis

Item does not contain fulltextOBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of elevated early follicular progesterone (P) levels in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist cycles on clinical outcome using prospective data in combination with a systematic review and meta-analysis. DESIGN: Nested study within a multicenter randomized controlled trial and a systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: Reproductive medicine center in an university hospital. PATIENT(S): 158 in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF-ICSI) patients. INTERVENTION(S): Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) (150-225 IU) administered daily from cycle day 2 onward; GnRH antagonist treatment randomly started on cycle day 2 or 6; assignment into two groups according to P level on cycle day 2: normal or elevated (>4.77 nmol/L or >1.5 ng/mL, respectively). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) per started cycle. RESULT(S): The incidence of elevated P was 13.3%. A non-statistically-significant difference in OPR was present between the normal and elevated P groups (27.0% vs. 19.0%). No differential impact of early or late GnRH antagonist initiation on the effect of elevated or normal P on OPR was observed. A systematic search of Medline and EMBASE from 1972-2013 was performed to identify studies analyzing elevated early P levels in GnRH antagonists. The meta-analysis (n=1,052) demonstrated that elevated P levels statistically significantly decreased the OPR with 15% (95% CI -23, -7 %). Heterogeneity across the studies, presumably based on varying protocols, may have modulated the effect of elevated P. CONCLUSION(S): From the present meta-analysis it appears that early elevated P levels are associated with a lower OPR in GnRH antagonists. The incidence of such a condition, however, is low. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00866034

17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate for the prevention of adverse neonatal outcome in multiple pregnancies

OBJECTIVE: To estimate whether administration of 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate can prevent neonatal morbidity in multiple pregnancies by reducing the preterm birth rate. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial in 55 obstetric clinics in the Netherlands. Women with a multiple pregnancy were randomized to weekly injections of either 250 mg 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate or placebo, starting between 16 and 20 weeks of gestation and continuing until 36 weeks of gestation. The main outcome measure was adverse neonatal outcome. Secondary outcome measures were gestational age at delivery and delivery before 28, 32, and 37 weeks of gestation. RESULTS: We randomized 671 women. A composite measure of adverse neonatal outcome was present in 110 children (16%) born to mothers in the 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate group, and in 80 children (12%) of mothers in the placebo group (relative risk [RR] 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-1.89). The mean gestational age at delivery was 35.4 weeks for the 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate group and 35.7 weeks for the placebo group (P =.32). Treatment with 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate did not reduce the delivery rate before 28 weeks (6% in the 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate group compared with 5% in the placebo group, RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.56-1.94), 32 weeks (14% compared with 10%, RR 1.37; 95% CI 0.91-2.05), or 37 weeks of gestation (55% compared with 50%, RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.97-1.28). CONCLUSION: 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate does not prevent neonatal morbidity or preterm birth in multiple pregnancies

Comparison of early versus late initiation of GnRH antagonist co-treatment for controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF: a randomized controlled trial

Study question: Whatis the impact of initiatingGnRHantagonist co-treatment for in vitro fertilization (IVF) on cycle day (CD) 2 compared with CD 6 on live birth rate (LBR) per started cycle and on the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR)? Summary answer: Early initiation of GnRH antagonist does not appear to improve clinical outcomes of IVF compared with midfollicular initiation. What is known already: During ovarian stimulation for IVF, GnRH antagonist co-treatment is usually administered from the midfollicular phase onwards. Earlier initiation may improve the follicular phase hormonal milieu and therefore overall clinical outcomes. Study design, size, duration: This open-label, multicentre randomized controlled trial was conducted between September 2009 and July 2011. A web-based program was used for randomization and 617 IVF-intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) patients were included. Participants/materials, setting,methods: Recombinant FSH(150–225 IU) wasadministered daily fromCD2 onwards in both groups. The study group (CD2; n ¼ 308) started GnRH antagonist co-treatment on CD 2, whereas the control group (CD6; n ¼ 309) started on CD 6. Main results and the role of chance: There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the two groups. A non-significant trend towards a higher LBR per started cycle and CLBR was observed in the CD6 group compared with the CD2 group (LBR: 24.0 versus 21.5%, P ¼ 0.5; CLBR: 29.9 versus 26.7%, P ¼ 0.6). Limitations, reasons for caution: The study was terminated prematurely because no significant difference was observed in clinical outcomes after 617 inclusions. A much larger study population would be needed to detect a small significant difference in favour of either study arm, which raises the question of whether this would be relevant for clinical practice. Wider implications of the findings: The present study shows that the additional treatment burden and costs of starting GnRH antagonist on CD 2 instead of on CD 6 are not justified, as early initiation of GnRH antagonist does not improve LBRs. Study funding/competing interest(s): This study was partially supported by a grant fromMerck Serono. O.H., M.J.C.E, A.V., P.A.D., R.E.B., G.J.E.O., C.A.G.H., G.C.D.M., H.J.V., P.F.M.H. and A.B. have nothing to declare. F.J.B. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Merck Serono, MSD and Roche. B.J.C. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Ferring, Merck Serono and MSD. C.B.L has received fees and grant support fromthe following companies (in alphabetic order): Auxogen, Ferring, Merck Serono and MSD. B.C.J.M.F. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Andromed, Ardana, Ferring, Genovum, Merck Serono, MSD, Organon, Pantharei Bioscience, PregLem, Schering, Schering Plough, Serono andWyeth. J.S.E.L. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Ferring, Gennovum, MSD, Merck Serono, Organon, Schering Plough and Serono. N.S.M. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Anecova, Ferring, Merck Serono, MSD, Organon and Serono

Comparison of early versus late initiation of GnRH antagonist co-treatment for controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF: a randomized controlled trial

study question: what is the impact of initiating GnRH antagonist co-treatment for in vitro fertilization (IVF) on cycle day (CD) 2 compared with CD 6 on live birth rate (LBR) per started cycle and on the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR)?Summary answer: early initiation of GnRH antagonist does not appear to improve clinical outcomes of IVF compared with midfollicular initiation.What is known already: during ovarian stimulation for IVF, GnRH antagonist co-treatment is usually administered from the midfollicular phase onwards. Earlier initiation may improve the follicular phase hormonal milieu and therefore overall clinical outcomes.Study design, size, duration: this open-label, multicentre randomized controlled trial was conducted between September 2009 and July 2011. A web-based program was used for randomization and 617 IVF-intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) patients were included.Participants/materials, setting, methods: recombinant FSH (150–225 IU) was administered daily from CD 2 onwards in both groups. The study group (CD2; n = 308) started GnRH antagonist co-treatment on CD 2, whereas the control group (CD6; n = 309) started on CD 6.Main results and the role of chance: there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the two groups. A non-significant trend towards a higher LBR per started cycle and CLBR was observed in the CD6 group compared with the CD2 group (LBR: 24.0 versus 21.5%, P = 0.5; CLBR: 29.9 versus 26.7%, P = 0.6).Limitations, reasons for caution: the study was terminated prematurely because no significant difference was observed in clinical outcomes after 617 inclusions. A much larger study population would be needed to detect a small significant difference in favour of either study arm, which raises the question of whether this would be relevant for clinical practice.Wider implications of the findings: the present study shows that the additional treatment burden and costs of starting GnRH antagonist on CD 2 instead of on CD 6 are not justified, as early initiation of GnRH antagonist does not improve LBRs.Study funding/competing interests: this study was partially supported by a grant from Merck Serono. O.H., M.J.C.E, A.V., P.A.D., R.E.B., G.J.E.O., C.A.G.H., G.C.D.M., H.J.V., P.F.M.H. and A.B. have nothing to declare. F.J.B. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Merck Serono, MSD and Roche. B.J.C. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Ferring, Merck Serono and MSD. C.B.L has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Auxogen, Ferring, Merck Serono and MSD. B.C.J.M.F. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Andromed, Ardana, Ferring, Genovum, Merck Serono, MSD, Organon, Pantharei Bioscience, PregLem, Schering, Schering Plough, Serono and Wyeth. J.S.E.L. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Ferring, Gennovum, MSD, Merck Serono, Organon, Schering Plough and Serono. N.S.M. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Anecova, Ferring, Merck Serono, MSD, Organon and Seron