A blended preconception lifestyle programme for couples undergoing IVF:lessons learned from a multicentre randomized controlled trial

Study question: What is the effect of a blended preconception lifestyle programme on reproductive and lifestyle outcomes of couples going through their first 12 months of IVF as compared to an attention control condition?Summery answer:This randomized controlled trial (RCT) was stopped prematurely because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic but the available data did not suggest that a blended preconception lifestyle programme could meaningfully affect time to ongoing pregnancy or other reproductive and lifestyle outcomes.What is know already:Increasing evidence shows associations between a healthy lifestyle and IVF success rates. Lifestyle programmes provided through a mobile phone application have yet to be evaluated by RCTs in couples undergoing IVF.Study design, size, duration:A multicentre RCT (1:1) was carried out. The RCT started in January 2019 and was prematurely stopped because of the Covid-19 pandemic, leading to a reduced sample size (211 couples initiating IVF) and change in primary outcome (cumulative ongoing pregnancy to time to ongoing pregnancy).Participants/materials, setting, methods:Heterosexual couples initiating IVF in five fertility clinics were randomized between an attention control arm and an intervention arm for 12 months. The attention control arm received treatment information by mobile phone in addition to standard care. The intervention arm received the blended preconception lifestyle (PreLiFe)-programme in addition to standard care. The PreLiFe-programme included a mobile application, offering tailored advice and skills training on diet, physical activity and mindfulness, in combination with motivational interviewing over the telephone. The primary outcome was 'time to ongoing pregnancy'. Secondary reproductive outcomes included the Core Outcome Measures for Infertility Trials and IVF discontinuation. Changes in the following secondary lifestyle outcomes over 3 and 6 months were studied in both partners: diet quality, fruit intake, vegetable intake, total moderate to vigorous physical activity, sedentary behaviour, emotional distress, quality of life, BMI, and waist circumference. Finally, in the intervention arm, acceptability of the programme was evaluated and actual use of the mobile application part of the programme was tracked. Analysis was according to intention to treat.Main results and the role of chance:A total of 211 couples were randomized (105 control arm, 106 intervention arm). The hazard ratio of the intervention for time to ongoing pregnancy was 0.94 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.4). Little to no effect on other reproductive or lifestyle outcomes was identified. Although acceptability of the programme was good (6/10), considerable proportions of men (38%) and 9% of women did not actively use all the modules of the mobile application (diet, physical activity, or mindfulness).Limitations, reasons for caution:The findings of this RCT should be considered exploratory, as the Covid-19 pandemic limited its power and the actual use of the mobile application was low.Wider implications of the findings:This is the first multicentre RCT evaluating the effect of a blended preconception lifestyle programme for women and their partners undergoing IVF on both reproductive and lifestyle outcomes. This exploratory RCT highlights the need for further studies into optimal intervention characteristics and actual use of preconception lifestyle programmes, as well as RCTs evaluating effectiveness.Study fonding/competing intrest(s):Supported by the Research foundation Flanders (Belgium) (FWO-TBM; reference: T005417N). No competing interests to declare.Trial registration number:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03790449TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 31 December 2018DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT 2 January 201

The experiences of women with breast cancer who undergo fertility preservation

STUDY QUESTION: How do women, who have just been diagnosed with breast cancer, experience oocyte or embryo banking? SUMMARY ANSWER: Fertility preservation was a challenging yet welcome way to take action when confronted with breast cancer. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Fertility preservation for women with breast cancer is a way to safeguard future chances of having children. Women who have just been diagnosed with breast cancer report stress, as do women who have to undergo IVF treatment. How women experience the collision of these two stressfull events, has not yet been studied. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a multicenter qualitative study with a phenomenological approach including 21 women between March and July 2014. Women were recruited from two university-based fertility clinics. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women with breast cancer who banked oocytes or embryos 1-15 months before study participation were eligible. We conducted in-depth, face-to-face interviews with 21 women, which was sufficient to reach data saturation. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The 21 women interviewed had a mean age of 32 years. Analysis of the 21 interviews revealed three main experiences: The burden of fertility preservation, the new identity of a fertility patient and coping with breast cancer through fertility preservation. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Interviewing women after, rather than during, fertility preservation might have induced recall bias. Translation of quotes was not carried out by a certified translator. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The insights gained from this study of the experiences of women undergoing fertility preservation while being newly diagnosed with breast cancer could be used as a starting point for adapting the routine psychosocial care provided by fertility clinic staff. Future studies are necessary to investigate whether adapting routine psychosocial care improves women's wellbeing

The acceptability of stem cell-based fertility treatments for different indications

STUDY QUESTION: What is the acceptability of using stem cell-based fertility treatments (SCFT) for different indications according to gynaecologists and the general public? SUMMARY ANSWER: The majority of gynaecologists and the general public accept SCFT for the indications female or male infertility in young heterosexual couples, and female infertility in single women and same-sex couples. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: SCFT could result in genetic parenthood for intended parents with indications that cannot be treated using currently available methods, such as being in a same-sex relationship or female post-menopausal age. It is unclear whether the acceptability of SCFT differs between indications for treatment and whether gynaecologists and the general public differ in their assessments. STUDY DESIGN SIZE, DURATION: In November 2015, a cross-sectional survey was disseminated among 179 gynaecologists and a panel of 1250 respondents comprising a representative sample of the Dutch general public. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The potential indications for future SCFT to achieve genetic parenthood were identified by literature review. A questionnaire was developed, reviewed by experts from different disciplines and tested among the general public. The questionnaire asked whether treating eight groups of intended parents with SCFT was acceptable or not. Regression analysis examined whether demographic characteristics influenced choices and whether the general public and gynaecologists differed in opinion. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 82 (46%) gynaecologists and 772 (62%) members of the general public completed the survey. The acceptability of using SCFT varied according to both gynaecologists and the general public between the eight groups of intended parents (P <0.001). The majority of the Dutch general public accepts SCFT for six out of eight possible indications, namely female infertility in young heterosexual couples (94%), male infertility in young heterosexual couples (94%), unexplained infertility in young heterosexual couples (83%), female infertility in single women (69%), lesbian couples (68%) and gay couples (62%). The majority of gynaecologists also found treating these groups acceptable, except for the indication of unexplained infertility, which was only accepted by a minority of gynaecologists (43%). A minority of both the general public and gynaecologists accepted SCFT for fertile women who want a child that is genetically only her own (27 and 6%, respectively) and for female infertility in heterosexual couples in which the woman is over 50 years of age (17% and 26%, respectively). Attaching low importance to religion, having progressive political preferences, not having a university degree, having experienced infertility, being a woman, being older and not being of European ethnicity were positively associated with considering using SCFT acceptable for one or multiple indications. LARGE SCALE DATA: N/A. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The generalizability of our findings to future decades or other countries might be limited as opinions about novel technologies change over time and might vary across cultures. Support among gynaecologists and the general public is interesting but not proof of ethical acceptability. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Once proven safe and effective, fear of limited acceptability by the general public is unwarranted, and thus should not stop gynaecologists from offering SCFT to single infertile women and same-sex couples in addition to young infertile heterosexual couple

Broad support for regulating the clinical implementation of future reproductive techniques

Do gynaecologists, infertile patients and the general public, consider that regulation of the clinical implementation of stem cell-based fertility treatments is required? There is broad support from gynaecologists, patients and the general public for regulating the clinical implementation of future stem cell-based fertility treatments. There is debate on the need to regulate the clinical implementation of novel techniques. Regulation may hinder their swift adoption and delay benefits for patients, but may prevent the implementation of ineffective or harmful techniques. Stem cell-based fertility treatments, which involve creating oocytes or spermatozoa by manipulating stem cells, are likely to be implemented in clinical practice in the near future and will probably impact future generations as well as the current one. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among gynaecologists working in fertility clinics (n = 179), patients with severe infertility (n = 348) and a representative sample of the general public (n = 1250). The questionnaire was disseminated in the Netherlands in the winter of 2015-2016. The newly developed questionnaire was reviewed by experts and tested among the general public. The questionnaire assessed whether participants wanted each of nine potential negative consequences of the clinical implementation of stem cell-based fertility treatments to be regulated. In addition, the importance of all negative and positive potential consequences, the appropriate regulatory body and its need to consult with advisors from various backgrounds was questioned. In total, 958 respondents completed the questionnaire (response rate: 54%). A large majority of each participant group (> 85%) wanted regulation, for at least one potential negative consequence of the clinical implementation of stem cell-based fertility treatments. The majority of all participant groups wanted regulation for serious health risks for intended parents, serious health risks for children and the disposal of human embryos. Regulation for out-of-pocket costs and the burden of treatment received little support. The majority of gynaecologists and the general public, but not the patients, requested regulation for the risk of minor congenital abnormalities, the success rates and the naturalness of treatments. Nevertheless, the majority of patients did consider the former two potential negative consequences important. The majority of all groups preferred a national bioethics committee as the regulatory body. This committee should consult with advisors from various backgrounds and should consider the broader context of potential consequences of the stem cell-based fertility treatments. This empirical study focuses on only three stakeholder groups. This study reports on the perspective of the majority and this is not per definition the morally right perspective. The transferability of our findings to other cultures and other techniques remains unclear. A national bioethics committee, consulting with advisors from various backgrounds, should regulate the clinical implementation of future stem cell-based fertility treatments. Whether this broad support for regulation applies to novel techniques from other fields of medicine should be examined. The Young Academy of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. None of the authors has any conflict of interest to declare. Not applicabl

Ongoing pregnancy qualifies best as the primary outcome measure of choice in trials in reproductive medicine: an opinion paper

Abstract not availableMiriam Braakhekke, Esme I. Kamphuis, Eline A. Dancet, Femke Mol, Fulco van der Veen, Ben W. Mo

Patient evaluation of infertility management in an ISO 9001:2008-certified centre for reproductive medicine

Item does not contain fulltextQuality management according to ISO 9001:2008 guidelines includes infertility care quality assessment and improvement. This study aimed to describe the development process of a questionnaire for infertility management. A literature review, qualitative interviews with experts and patients resulted in a content-valid and face-valid questionnaire. Three cross-sectional surveys were performed in 2004, 2007 and 2008 in a tertiary university infertility centre. First (2004), the questionnaire - measuring eight a-priori dimensions of infertility management - was tested. Second (2007), improvement projects for infertility management were evaluated. Third (2008), factor analysis was performed and internal consistency was documented. The developed patient questionnaire to evaluate infertility management and pre-set desired levels of agreement served to set targets for and assess quality improvement projects. The final patient questionnaire to evaluate infertility management within an ISO framework was valid and reliable and contained 14 items covering four dimensions of infertility management: Telephone Access, Reception, Information and Patient-centeredness. ISO 9001:2008-certified infertility centres can evaluate infertility management with this 14-item questionnaire. This top-down approach to evaluate the patients' perspective on quality aspects selected by health professionals can be complementary to the bottom-up approach evaluating the patients' complete experiences of quality of care

Reproductive choices and outcomes after freezing oocytes for medical reasons: a follow-up study

What reproductive choices do women make after they have cryopreserved oocytes for medical reasons? Women who had cryopreserved oocytes for medical reasons and tried to become pregnant, either attempted natural conception or resorted to assisted reproduction with fresh oocytes. Women confronted with a risk of premature ovarian insufficiency, due to gonadotoxic therapy, ovarian surgery or genetic predisposition, have an indication to cryopreserve oocytes. Many of these women will retain ovarian function, thus will retain the possibility of natural conception. The added value of cryopreserved oocytes to reproductive outcomes is unknown as there is a lack of follow-up of women who have cryopreserved oocytes for medical reasons. This follow-up study included a cohort of 85 women who cryopreserved their oocytes for medical reasons between 2009 and 2012. Medical data from women who cryopreserved their oocytes at the Centre for Reproductive Medicine in the Academic Medical Centre in Amsterdam were extracted and self-report questionnaires were disseminated. The collected data considered demographics, outcomes of ovarian stimulation, fertility-threatening treatments, menstrual cycle changes, pregnancy attempts and outcomes and intended plans for the cryopreserved oocytes. A total of 68 women, followed up for an average 25.3 months, returned the questionnaire (response rate: 80%). None of the women had used her cryopreserved oocytes although 16 women had tried to conceive. Of these women, eight were trying to conceive naturally, five had conceived naturally within 2 months and three had conceived with assisted reproduction not requiring cryopreserved oocytes (two women with conventional IVF because of tubal pathology and endometriosis and one woman with IUI because of polycystic ovary syndrome). Three out of the eight pregnancies had resulted in live births, two resulted in miscarriages and three were ongoing. Most women (71%) intended to conceive with their cryopreserved oocytes as a last resource option. Transferability of our findings is challenged by the small sample but positively affected by our high response rate. As the time span between cryopreservation of oocytes and follow-up was short, follow-up of the cohort should be repeated in 2 years. After a mean follow-up of 2 years, none of the women with a medical reason to cryopreserve oocytes had used her oocytes. Women who were trying to conceive during follow-up were doing so without using their stored oocytes. It is unclear whether starting assisted reproduction while having cryopreserved oocytes is the most appropriate clinical decision. Our findings emphasize the relevance of taking the chances of natural conception into account in counselling women about cryopreservation of oocytes. This study was not externally funded. There are no conflicts of interest to declar

"Patient-centered fertility treatment": what is required?

Corrected by: Erratum: Patient-centered fertility treatment: What is required? (in Fertil Steril (2014) 102(5):1499). There were errors in the listing of the authors' names in the print version of the article, “Patient-centered fertility treatment: what is required?” (Fertil Steril 2014;101(4):924–6). The authors should be listed as Eline Anke Dancet, Thomas Maria D'Hooghe, Fulco van der Veen, Patrick Bossuyt, Walter Sermeus, Ben-Willem Mol, and Sjoerd Repping.Eline Anke Dancet, Thomas Maria D'Hooghe, Fulco van der Veen, Patrick Bossuyt, Walter Sermeus, Ben-Willem Mol, and Sjoerd Reppin