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

Individualized versus standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF/ICSI:An RCT. Part 2: The predicted hyper responder

STUDY QUESTION: Does a reduced FSH dose in women with a predicted hyper response, apparent from a high antral follicle count (AFC), who are scheduled for IVF/ICSI lead to a different outcome with respect to cumulative live birth rate and safety? SUMMARY ANSWER: Although in women with a predicted hyper response (AFC > 15) undergoing IVF/ICSI a reduced FSH dose (100 IU per day) results in similar cumulative live birth rates and a lower occurrence of any grade of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) as compared to a standard dose (150 IU/day), a higher first cycle cancellation rate and similar severe OHSS rate were observed. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Excessive ovarian response to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for IVF/ICSI may result in increased rates of cycle cancellation, the occurrence of OHSS and suboptimal live birth rates. In women scheduled for IVF/ICSI, an ovarian reserve test (ORT) can be used to predict response to COS. No consensus has been reached on whether ORT-based FSH dosing improves effectiveness and safety in women with a predicted hyper response. STUDY DESIGN SIZE, DURATION: Between May 2011 and May 2014, we performed an open-label, multicentre RCT in women with regular menstrual cycles and an AFC > 15. Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (Rotterdam criteria) were excluded. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy achieved within 18 months after randomization and resulting in a live birth. Secondary outcomes included the occurrence of OHSS and cost-effectiveness. Since this RCT was embedded in a cohort study assessing over 1500 women, we expected to randomize 300 predicted hyper responders. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women with an AFC > 15 were randomized to an FSH dose of 100 IU or 150 IU/day. In both groups, dose adjustment was allowed in subsequent cycles (maximum 25 IU in the reduced and 50 IU in the standard group) based on pre-specified criteria. Both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness were evaluated from an intention-to-treat perspective. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We randomized 255 women to a daily FSH dose of 100 IU and 266 women to a daily FSH dose of 150 IU. The cumulative live birth rate was 66.3% (169/255) in the reduced versus 69.5% (185/266) in the standard group (relative risk (RR) 0.95 [95%CI, 0.85-1.07], P = 0.423). The occurrence of any grade of OHSS was lower after a lower FSH dose (5.2% versus 11.8%, RR 0.44 [95%CI, 0.28-0.71], P = 0.001), but the occurrence of severe OHSS did not differ (1.3% versus 1.1%, RR 1.25 [95%CI, 0.38-4.07], P = 0.728). As dose reduction was not less expensive (€4.622 versus €4.714, delta costs/woman €92 [95%CI, -479-325]), there was no dominant strategy in the economic analysis. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Despite our training programme, the AFC might have suffered from inter-observer variation. Although strict cancellation criteria were provided, selective cancelling in the reduced dose group (for poor response in particular) cannot be excluded as observers were not blinded for the FSH dose and small dose adjustments were allowed in subsequent cycles. However, as first cycle live birth rates did not differ from the cumulative results, the open design probably did not mask a potential benefit for the reduced dosing group. As this RCT was embedded in a larger cohort study, the power in this study was unavoidably lower than it should be. Participants had a relatively low BMI from an international perspective, which may limit generalization of the findings. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: In women with a predicted hyper response scheduled for IVF/ICSI, a reduced FSH dose does not affect live birth rates. A lower FSH dose did reduce the incidence of mild and moderate OHSS, but had no impact on severe OHSS. Future research into ORT-based dosing in women with a predicted hyper response should compare various safety management strategies and should be powered on a clinically relevant safety outcome while assessing non-inferiority towards live birth rates. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This trial was funded by The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMW, Project Number 171102020). SCO, TCvT and HLT received an unrestricted research grant from Merck Serono (the Netherlands). CBL receives grants from Merck, Ferring and Guerbet. BWJM is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for OvsEva, Merck and Guerbet. FJMB receives monetary compensation as a member of the external advisory board for Ferring pharmaceutics BV and Merck Serono for consultancy work for Gedeon Richter (Belgium) and Roche Diagnostics (Switzerland) and for a research cooperation with Ansh Labs (USA). All other authors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registered at the ICMJE-recognized Dutch Trial Registry (www.trialregister.nl). Registration number: NTR2657. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 20 December 2010. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT: 12 May 2011

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

Oocyte and ovarian tissue cryopreservation in European countries : statutory background, practice, storage and use

STUDY QUESTION: What is known in Europe about the practice of oocyte cryopreservation (OoC), in terms of current statutory background, funding conditions, indications (medical and ‘non-medical’) and specific number of cycles? SUMMARY ANSWER: Laws and conditions for OoC vary in Europe, with just over half the responding countries providing this for medical reasons with state funding, and none providing funding for ‘non-medical’ OoC. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: The practice of OoC is a well-established and increasing practice in some European countries, but data gathering on storage is not homogeneous, and still sparse for use. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OtC) is only practiced and registered in a few countries. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, AND DURATION: A transversal collaborative survey on OoC and OtC, was designed, based on a country questionnaire containing information on statutory or professional background and practice, as well as available data on ovarian cell and tissue collection, storage and use. It was performed between January and September 2015. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING AND METHODS: All ESHRE European IVF Monitoring (EIM) consortium national coordinators were contacted, as well as members of the ESHRE committee of national representatives, and sent a questionnaire. The form included national policy and practice details, whether through current existing law or code of practice, criteria for freezing (age, health status), availability of funding and the presence of a specific register. The questionnaire also included data on both the number of OoC cycles and cryopreserved oocytes per year between 2010 and 2014, specifically for egg donation, fertility preservation for medical disease, ‘other medical’ reasons as part of an ART cycle, as well as for ‘non-medical reasons’ or age-related fertility decline. Another question concerning data on freezing and use of ovarian tissue over 5 years was added and sent after receiving the initial questionnaire. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Out of 34 EIM members, we received answers regarding OoC regulations and funding conditions from 27, whilst 17 countries had recorded data for OoC, and 12 for OtC. The specific statutory framework for OoC and OtC varies from absent to a strict frame. A total of 34 705 OoC cycles were reported during the 5-year-period, with a continuous increase. However, the accurate description of numbers was concentrated on the year 2013 because it was the most complete. In 2013, a total of 9126 aspirations involving OoC were reported from 16 countries. Among the 8885 oocyte aspirations with fully available data, the majority or 5323 cycles (59.9%) was performed for egg donation, resulting in the highest yield per cycle, with an average of 10.4 oocytes frozen per cycle. OoC indication was ‘serious disease’ such as cancer in 10.9% of cycles, other medical indications as ‘part of an ART cycle’ in 16.1%, and a non-medical reason in 13.1%. With regard to the use of OoC, the number of specifically recorded frozen oocyte replacement (FOR) cycles performed in 2013 for all medical reasons was 14 times higher than the FOR for non-medical reasons, using, respectively, 8.0 and 8.4 oocytes per cycle. Finally, 12 countries recorded storage following OtC and only 7 recorded the number of grafted frozen/thawed tissues. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Not all countries have data regarding OoC collection, and some data came from voluntary collaborating centres, rather than a national authority or register. Furthermore, the data related to use of OoC were not included for two major players in the field, Italy and Spain, where numbers were conflated for medical and non-medical reasons. Finally, the number of cycles started with no retrieval is not available. Data are even sparser for OtC. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: There is a need for ART authorities and professional bodies to record precise data for practice and use of OoC (and OtC), according to indications and usage, in order to reliably inform all stakeholders including women about the efficiency of both methods. Furthermore, professional societies should establish professional standards for access to and use of OoC and OtC, and give appropriate guidance to all involved. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was supported by ESHRE. There are no conflicts of interest.peer-reviewe

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

ART in Europe, 2017: results generated from European registries by ESHRE.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the data on ART and IUI cycles, and fertility preservation (FP) interventions reported in 2017 as compared to previous years, as well as the main trends over the years? SUMMARY ANSWER: The 21st ESHRE report on ART and IUI shows the continual increase in reported treatment cycle numbers in Europe, with a decrease in the proportion of transfers with more than one embryo causing an additional slight reduction of multiple delivery rates (DR) as well as higher pregnancy rates (PR) and DR after frozen embryo replacement (FER) compared to fresh IVF and ICSI cycles, while the number of IUI cycles increased and their outcomes remained stable. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Since 1997, ART aggregated data generated by national registries, clinics or professional societies have been gathered and analyzed by the European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) and communicated in a total of 20 manuscripts published in Human Reproduction and Human Reproduction Open. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: Data on European medically assisted reproduction (MAR) are collected by EIM for ESHRE on a yearly basis. The data on treatments performed between 1 January and 31 December 2017 in 39 European countries were provided by either National Registries or registries based on personal initiatives of medical associations and scientific organizations. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Overall, 1382 clinics offering ART services in 39 countries reported a total of 940 503 treatment cycles, including 165 379 with IVF, 391 379 with ICSI, 271 476 with FER, 37 303 with preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), 69 378 with egg donation (ED), 378 with IVM of oocytes, and 5210 cycles with frozen oocyte replacement (FOR). A total of 1273 institutions reported data on 207 196 IUI cycles using either husband/partner's semen (IUI-H; n = 155 794) or donor semen (IUI-D; n = 51 402) in 30 countries and 25 countries, respectively. Thirteen countries reported 18 888 interventions for FP, including oocyte, ovarian tissue, semen and testicular tissue banking in pre- and postpubertal patients. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In 21 countries (20 in 2016) in which all ART clinics reported to the registry, 473 733 treatment cycles were registered for a total population of approximately 330 million inhabitants, allowing a best-estimate of a mean of 1435 cycles performed per million inhabitants (range: 723-3286).Amongst the 39 reporting countries, the clinical PR per aspiration and per transfer in 2017 were similar to those observed in 2016 (26.8% and 34.6% vs 28.0% and 34.8%, respectively). After ICSI the corresponding rates were also similar to those achieved in 2016 (24% and 33.5% vs 25% and 33.2% in 2016). When freeze all cycles were removed, the clinical PRs per aspiration were 30.8% and 27.5% for IVF and ICSI, respectively.After FER with embryos originating from own eggs the PR per thawing was 30.2%, which is comparable to 30.9% in 2016, and with embryos originating from donated eggs it was 41.1% (41% in 2016). After ED the PR per fresh embryo transfer was 49.2% (49.4% in 2016) and per FOR 43.3% (43.6% in 2016).In IVF and ICSI together, the trend towards the transfer of fewer embryos continues with the transfer of 1, 2, 3 and ≥4 embryos in 46.0%, 49.2%, 4.5% and in 0.3% of all treatments, respectively (corresponding to 41.5%, 51.9%. 6.2% and 0.4% in 2016). This resulted in a reduced proportion of twin DRs of 14.2% (14.9% in 2016) and stable triplet DR of 0.3%. Treatments with FER in 2017 resulted in a twin and triplet DR of 11.2% and 0.2%, respectively (vs 11.9% and 0.2% in 2016).After IUI, the DRs remained similar at 8.7% after IUI-H (8.9% in 2016) and at 12.4% after IUI-D (12.4.0% in 2016). Twin and triplet DRs after IUI-H were 8.1% and 0.3%, respectively (in 2016: 8.8% and 0.3%) and 6.9% and 0.2% after IUI-D (in 2016: 7.7% and 0.4%). Amongst 18 888 FP interventions in 13 countries, cryopreservation of ejaculated sperm (n = 11 112 vs 7877 from 11 countries in 2016) and of oocytes (n = 6588 vs 4907 from eight countries in 2016) were the most frequently reported. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: As the methods of data collection and levels of reporting vary amongst European countries, interpretation of results should remain cautious. Some countries were unable to deliver data about the number of initiated cycles and deliveries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The 21st ESHRE report on ART, IUI and FP interventions shows a continuous increase of reported treatment numbers and MAR-derived livebirths in Europe. Being already the largest data collection on MAR in Europe, efforts should continue to optimize data collection and reporting with the perspective of improved quality control, transparency and vigilance in the field of reproductive medicine. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study has received no external funding and all costs are covered by ESHRE. There are no competing interests

Long-Term Risk of Ovarian Cancer and Borderline Tumors after Assisted Reproductive Technology

Background: Long-term effects of assisted reproductive technology (ART) on ovarian tumor risk are unknown. Methods: This nationwide cohort study comprises 30 625 women who received ovarian stimulation for ART in 1983-2000 and 9988 subfertile women not treated with ART. Incident invasive and borderline ovarian tumors were ascertained through linkage with the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Pathology Registry until July 2018. Ovarian tumor risk in ART-treated women was compared with risks in the general population and the subfertile non-ART group. Statistical tests were 2-sided. Results: After a median follow-up of 24 years, 158 invasive and 100 borderline ovarian tumors were observed. Ovarian cancer risk in the ART group was increased compared with the general population (standardized incidence ratio [SIR] = 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.18 to 1.71) but not when compared with the non-ART group (age- and parity-adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.70 to 1.50). Risk decreased with higher parity and with a larger number of successful ART cycles (resulting in childbirth, Ptrend =. 001) but was not associated with the number of unsuccessful ART cycles. Borderline ovarian tumor risk was increased in ART-treated women compared with the general population (SIR = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.66 to 2.86) and with non-ART women (HR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.08 to 3.14). Risk did not increase with more ART cycles or longer follow-up time. Conclusions: Increased ovarian cancer risk in ART-treated women compared with the general population is likely explained by nulliparity rather than ART treatment. The increased risk of borderline ovarian tumors after ART must be interpreted with caution because no dose-response relationship was observed.</p