Endometriosis centers of expertise in the Netherlands:Development toward regional networks of multidisciplinary care

Contains fulltext : 251798.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access

The long-term costs and effects of tubal flushing with oil-based versus water-based contrast during hysterosalpingography

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all the participating women, the hospitals and their staff, the research nurses and the staff of the Nationwide Consortium for Women's Health Research (NVOG Consortium; www.zorgevaluatienederland.nl ) for logistical support. Thanks also go to the H2Oil study group collaborators: Nan van Geloven, Jos W. R. Twisk, Peter M. van de Ven and Peter G. A. Hompes for their contributions to this study. The original H2Oil RCT was an investigator-initiated study that was funded by the two academic institutions (AMC and VUmc) of the Amsterdam UMC. The long-term follow-up study and economic analysis, both investigator-initiated studies, were funded by a research grant from Guerbet, France. The funders had no role in study design or collection, analysis or interpretation of the data. Declaration of interest: C.T.P. has received consultancy fees for external work from Guerbet, France. K.D. reports receiving travel and speakers fee from Guerbet. H.R.V. reports receiving consultancy fees from Ferring. M.G. works at the Department of Reproductive Medicine of the Amsterdam UMC (location AMC and location VUmc). Location VUmc has received several research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring. C.B.L. reports speakers fee from Ferring in the past, and his department receives research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. V.M. reports receiving travel and speakers fees as well as research grants from Guerbet. B.W.J.M. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). B.W.J.M. has received research grants from Merck and Guerbet. The other authors report no financial or commercial conflicts of interest.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Tubal flushing with oil-based or water-based contrast at hysterosalpingography for infertility:long-term reproductive outcomes of a randomized trial

Objective: To determine the impact of oil -based versus water -based contrast on pregnancy and live birth rates <5 years after hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile women. Design: A 5 -year follow-up study of a multicenter randomized trial. Setting: Hospitals. Patient(s): Infertile women with an ovulatory cycle, 18 - 39 years of age, and having a low risk of tubal pathology. Intervention(s): Use of oil -based versus water -based contrast during HSG. Main Outcome Measure(s): Ongoing pregnancy, live births, time to ongoing pregnancy, second ongoing pregnancy. Result(s): A total of 1,119 women were randomly assigned to HSG with oil -based contrast (n = 557) or water -based contrast (n = 562). After 5 years, 444 of 555 women in the oil group (80.0%) and 419 of 559 women in the water group (75.0%) had an ongoing pregnancy (relative risk [RR] 1.07; 95% con fi dence interval [CI] 1.00 - 1.14), and 415 of 555 women in the oil group (74.8%) and 376 of 559 women in the water group (67.3%) had live births (RR 1.11; 95% CI 1.03 - 1.20). In the oil group, 228 pregnancies (41.1%) were conceived naturally versus 194 (34.7%) pregnancies in the water group (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.02 - 1.38). The time to ongoing pregnancy was signi fi cantly shorter in the oil group versus the water group (10.0 vs. 13.7 months; hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% CI 1.09 - 1.43). No difference was found in the occurrence of a second ongoing pregnancy. Conclusion(s): During a 5 -year time frame, ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates are higher after tubal fl ushing with oil -based contrast during HSG compared with water -based contrast. More pregnancies are naturally conceived and time to ongoing pregnancy is shorter after HSG with oil -based contrast. Clinical Trial Registration Number: Netherlands Trial Register (NTR) 3270 and NTR6577(www.trialregister.nl). (Fertil Steril (R) 2020;114:155-62. (C) 2020 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Cumulative live birth rates in low-prognosis women

No external funds were obtained for the present study. The OPTIMIST study was funded by The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMW number 171102020).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Individualized versus standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF/ICSI:An RCT. Part 1: The predicted poor responder

STUDY QUESTION: Does an increased FSH dose result in higher cumulative live birth rates in women with a predicted poor ovarian response, apparent from a low antral follicle count (AFC), scheduled for IVF or ICSI? SUMMARY ANSWER: In women with a predicted poor ovarian response (AFC <11) undergoing IVF/ICSI, an increased FSH dose (225/450 IU/day) does not improve cumulative live birth rates as compared to a standard dose (150 IU/day). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In women scheduled for IVF/ICSI, an ovarian reserve test (ORT) can predict ovarian response to stimulation. The FSH starting dose is often adjusted based on the ORT from the belief that it will improve live birth rates. However, the existing RCTs on this topic, most of which show no benefit, are underpowered. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Between May 2011 and May 2014, we performed an open-label multicentre RCT in women with an AFC <11 (Dutch Trial Register NTR2657). The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy achieved within 18 months after randomization and resulting in a live birth. We needed 300 women to assess whether an increased dose strategy would increase the cumulative live birth rate from 25 to 40% (two-sided alpha-error 0.05, power 80%). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women with an AFC ≤ 7 were randomized to an FSH dose of 450 IU/day or 150 IU/day, and women with an AFC 8–10 were randomized to 225 IU or 150 IU/day. In the standard group, dose adjustment was allowed in subsequent cycles based on pre-specified criteria. Both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the strategies were evaluated from an intention-to-treat perspective. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In total, 511 women were randomized, 234 with an AFC ≤ 7 and 277 with an AFC 8–10. The cumulative live birth rate for increased versus standard dosing was 42.4% (106/250) versus 44.8% (117/261), respectively [relative risk (RR): 0.95 (95%CI, 0.78–1.15), P = 0.58]. As an increased dose strategy was more expensive [delta costs/woman: €1099 (95%CI, 562–1591)], standard FSH dosing was the dominant strategy in our economic analysis. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Despite our training programme, the AFC might have suffered from inter-observer variation. As this open study permitted small dose adjustments between cycles, potential selective cancelling of cycles in women treated with 150 IU could have influenced the cumulative results. However, since first cycle live birth rates point in the same direction we consider it unlikely that the open design masked a potential benefit for the individualized strategy. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since an increased dose in women scheduled for IVF/ICSI with a predicted poor response (AFC <11) does not improve live birth rates and is more expensive, we recommend using a standard dose of 150 IU/day in these women

The OPTIMIST study: optimisation of cost effectiveness through individualised FSH stimulation dosages for IVF treatment. A randomised controlled trial

Contains fulltext : 109739.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)ABSTRACT: 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

A picture of medically assisted reproduction activities during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe

STUDY QUESTION: How did coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) impact on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) services in Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic (March to May 2020)? SUMMARY ANSWER: MAR services, and hence treatments for infertile couples, were stopped in most European countries for a mean of 7 weeks. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: With the outbreak of COVID-19 in Europe, non-urgent medical care was reduced by local authorities to preserve health resources and maintain social distancing. Furthermore, ESHRE and other societies recommended to postpone ART pregnancies as of 14 March 2020. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A structured questionnaire was distributed in April among the ESHRE Committee of National Representatives, followed by further information collection through email. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The information was collected through the questionnaire and afterwards summarised and aligned with data from the European Centre for Disease Control on the number of COVID-19 cases per country. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: By aligning the data for each country with respective epidemiological data, we show a large variation in the time and the phase in the epidemic in the curve when MAR/ART treatments were suspended and restarted. Similarly, the duration of interruption varied. Fertility preservation treatments and patient supportive care for patients remained available during the pandemic. LARGE SCALE DATA: N/A. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Data collection was prone to misinterpretation of the questions and replies, and required further follow-up to check the accuracy. Some representatives reported that they, themselves, were not always aware of the situation throughout the country or reported difficulties with providing single generalised replies, for instance when there were regional differences within their country. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The current article provides a basis for further research of the different strategies developed in response to the COVID-19 crisis. Such conclusions will be invaluable for health authorities and healthcare professionals with respect to future similar situations.peer-reviewe

Endometriosis and the effects of dietary interventions: what are we looking for?

Endometriosis is the most prevalent benign gynaecologic disease with invalidating effects on the quality of life and decreased economic productivity. As pharmacologic and surgical treatment are only partially effective, women look for self-management strategies in order to control their symptoms. Many dietary interventions have been claimed successful. But it is unclear whether these effects are caused by the idea of taking control of the symptoms by adhering to a diet or by the dietary intervention itself. In order to gain more evidence with regard to the mechanisms behind the effect of dietary intervention in the management of endometriosis, a number of issues need to be addressed for future studies. First, we need clearly defined endpoints in our studies. Secondly, we have to be aware of the difference between the effects of diet on the risk of developing endometriosis and the effects of diet on symptoms in women with already established endometriosis. Thirdly, it may be difficult to strictly define the intervention diet and the control or placebo diet. Fourthly, we have to define endometriosis-related as well as patient-related factors that may influence the success of a dietary intervention. Fifthly, we have to understand the biological mechanisms behind the perceived effects of dietary interventions. These issues will be addressed in this opinion paper