Driving factors in treatment decision-making of patients seeking medical assistance for infertility: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: ART differs in effectiveness, side-effects, administration, and costs. To improve the decision-making process, we need to understand what factors patients consider to be most important. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: We conducted this systematic review to assess which aspects of ART treatment (effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, and genetic parenthood) are most important in the decision-making of patients with an unfulfilled wish to have a child. SEARCH METHODS: We searched studies indexed in Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL prior to November 2023. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs), surveys, interviews, and conjoint analyses (CAs) about ART were included. Studies were included if they described two or more of the following attributes: effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, and genetic parenthood.Participants were men and women with an unfulfilled wish to have a child. From each DCE/CA study, we extracted the beta-coefficients and calculated the relative importance of treatment attributes or, in case of survey studies, extracted results. We assessed the risk of bias using the rating developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. Attributes were classified into effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, genetic parenthood, and others. OUTCOMES: The search identified 938 studies of which 20 were included: 13 DCEs, three survey studies, three interview studies, and one conjoint analysis, with a total of 12 452 patients. Per study, 47-100% of the participants were women. Studies were assessed as having moderate to high risk of bias (critical: six studies, serious: four studies, moderate: nine studies, low: one study). The main limitation was the heterogeneity in the questionnaires and methodology utilized. Studies varied in the number and types of assessed attributes. Patients' treatment decision-making was mostly driven by effectiveness, followed by safety, burden, costs, and patient-centeredness. Effectiveness was rated as the first or second most important factor in 10 of the 12 DCE studies (83%) and the relative importance of effectiveness varied between 17% and 63%, with a median of 34% (moderate certainty of evidence). Of eight studies evaluating safety, five studies valued safety as the first or second most important factor (63%), and the relative importance ranged from 8% to 35% (median 23%) (moderate certainty of evidence). Cost was rated as first or second most important in five of 10 studies, and the importance relative to the other attributes varied between 5% and 47% (median 23%) (moderate certainty of evidence). Burden was rated as first or second by three of 10 studies (30%) and the relative importance varied between 1% and 43% (median 13%) (low certainty of evidence). Patient-centeredness was second most important in one of five studies (20%) and had a relative importance between 7% and 24% (median 14%) (low certainty of evidence). Results suggest that patients are prepared to trade-off some effectiveness for more safety, or less burden and patient-centeredness. When safety was evaluated, the safety of the child was considered more important than the mother's safety. Greater burden (cycle cancellations, number of injections, number of hospital visits, time) was more likely to be accepted by patients if they gained effectiveness, safety, or lower costs. Concerning patient-centeredness, information provision and physician attitude were considered most important, followed by involvement in decision-making, and treatment continuity by the same medical professional. Non-genetic parenthood did not have a clear impact on decision-making. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: The findings of this review can be used in future preference studies and can help healthcare professionals in guiding patients' decision-making and enable a more patient-centered approach.

'Doing' kinship: heterosexual parents' experiences of non-genetic parenthood through donor conception.

RESEARCH QUESTION: How do Dutch heterosexual parents who achieved parenthood through donor conception navigate non-genetic parenthood and kinship? DESIGN: A qualitative in-depth semi-structured interview study was performed between September 2018 and January 2019 with both partners of 13 Dutch heterosexual couples where the male partner suffered from infertility and who conceived a child with the help of a sperm donor. Interview questions were based on literature and clinical experiences of experts in the field of donor conception. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: All parents navigated non-genetic parenthood through 'doing' kinship: they negotiated the importance of nature versus nurture with regards to donor conception and non-genetic parenthood. Most parents perceived genetics as irrelevant for experiencing parenthood, bonding with their children and the preferred role of the donor in their future lives. Yet most of them found genetics relevant for generating similarities between the father and the child, and for wanting the same donor for all their children to ensure a full genetic relation among them. Additionally, based on the donor's genetic bond with the child, some men were anxious about the donor's role in the child's future life and the consequences for their position as a non-genetic father. A few women perceived genetics as relevant in terms of possible inherited illnesses from the donor. CONCLUSIONS: Parents experienced several ambiguities regarding the role of genetics in donor conception and navigated 'doing' kinship in various ways. These aspects need to be taken into consideration during the counselling of prospective parents planning to conceive with donor conception.

Unmet support needs in donor sperm treatment: consequences for parents and their donor-children.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Are unmet needs for psychosocial counselling, peer support and friends/family support in parents directly and/or indirectly related to the mental health of parents and their donor-children? DESIGN: A cross-sectional sample of 214 parents participated in this quantitative study via an online questionnaire. The sample comprised mothers and fathers in a heterosexual relationship (n = 85), mothers in a lesbian relationship (n = 67) and single mothers (n = 62). Parents were recruited via three Dutch fertility clinics and four network organizations. Unmet support needs were measured with an adapted version of the Unmet Needs for Parenting Support questionnaire, changing the original items into items about donor conception. The items were derived from a qualitative study and checked by experts in donor conception. The parents' mental health was measured with the Adult Self Report and the donor-children's mental health with the Child Behaviour Checklist. A multigroup mediation analysis was conducted to explore relationships between parents' unmet support needs and their child's mental health, with the parents' mental health as a possible mediator. RESULTS: There were no direct relations between parents' unmet support needs and the mental health of donor-children. Unmet needs for psychosocial counselling, peer support and friends/family support for parents and children's mental health were indirectly related through the mental health of the parents: 0.074 (CI 95%  = 0.013-0.136; P = 0.017), 0.085 (CI 95% = 0.018-0.151; P = 0.036) and 0.063 (CI 95% = 0.019-0.106; P = 0.013), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that fertility clinics, network organizations and authorities for infertility counsellors make their support available to parents for extended periods after their treatment. Further qualitative studies are necessary to assess how to relieve unmet support needs during donor sperm treatment.

Donor sperm treatment: the role of semen parameters in intracervical insemination, a retrospective cohort study.

Donor sperm treatment is advised to be performed with frozen-thawed donor semen. A disadvantage of frozen-thawed semen is lower pregnancy rates compared to inseminations with fresh semen. Semen parameters affect ongoing pregnancy rates in intracervical inseminations with frozen-thawed donor semen. In an attempt to translate this into clinical relevance, cohort studies have tried to find cut-off values for semen parameters after thawing for intracervical insemination, but these studies assessed only one semen parameter per study, thereby overlooking the intricate interplay between all semen parameters. We performed a retrospective cohort study and tried to calculate thresholds for all semen parameters that lead to the best possible ongoing pregnancy rates in intracervical insemination with frozen-thawed donor semen. Between April 1999 and December 2015, data from 1,186 women who underwent 7,103 cycles of intracervical insemination with donor semen from 129 sperm donors were available for analysis. Our results showed that total motility and total motile count (TMC) after thawing were associated with ongoing pregnancy rate. The best possible ongoing pregnancy chances after intracervical insemination were obtained at a total motility of ≥20% and a total motile count (TMC) of ≥8 × 106 after thawing.

Treatment Strategies for Unexplained Infertility.

Unexplained infertility is a common diagnosis among couples with infertility. Pragmatic treatment options in these couples are directed at trying to improve chances to conceive, and consequently intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian stimulation and in vitro fertilization (IVF) are standard clinical practice, while expectant management remains an important alternative. While evidence on IVF or IUI with ovarian stimulation versus expectant management was inconclusive, these interventions seem more effective in couples with a poor prognosis of natural conception. Strategies such as strict cancellation criteria and single-embryo transfer aim to reduce multiple pregnancies without compromising cumulative live birth. We propose a prognosis-based approach to manage couples with unexplained infertility so as to expose less couples to unnecessary interventions and less mothers and children to the potential adverse effects of ovarian stimulation or laboratory procedures.

Psychosocial counselling in donor sperm treatment: unmet needs and mental health among heterosexual, lesbian and single women.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the unmet needs after psychosocial counselling and mental health of women who opt for donor sperm treatment (DST), and are unmet counselling needs related to their mental health? DESIGN: This quantitative study included women in a heterosexual relationship (n = 19), women in a lesbian relationship (n = 25) and single women (n = 51) who opted for DST. Women were included if they had passed the DST intake procedure at a Dutch fertility clinic, were not pregnant and had no previous donor-child. Unmet needs were measured by a self-developed questionnaire based on specific topics identified in a previous qualitative study with added items from experts in the field of DST. The Adult Self Report was used to measure mental health. Relationships between unmet counselling needs and mental health were explored by multiple regression analyses. RESULTS: Fifty-two women (55%) reported unmet counselling needs. Women in heterosexual relationships mostly had unmet counselling needs on the topics of the decision to opt for DST (n = 11, 58%) and non-genetic parenthood (n = 11, 58%); women in lesbian relationships (n = 10, 40%) and single women (n = 14, 27%) mostly had unmet needs on the topic of choosing a sperm donor. In general, women had good mental health, but 13 (14%) met the criteria for clinical mental health problems. Women with more unmet counselling needs also had more mental health problems. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based guidelines for psychosocial counselling in DST should be developed. Only then can counselling be improved and be fit for purpose.

Gonadotrophins or clomiphene citrate in couples with unexplained infertility undergoing intrauterine insemination: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the cost-effectiveness of gonadotrophins compared with clomiphene citrate in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian stimulation under strict cancellation criteria? DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Between July 2013 and March 2016, 738 couples were randomized to gonadotrophins (369) or clomiphene citrate (369) in a multicentre RCT in the Netherlands. The direct medical costs of both strategies were compared. Direct medical costs included costs of medication, cycle monitoring, insemination and, if applicable, pregnancy monitoring. Non-parametric bootstrap resampling was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in estimates. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed according to intention-to-treat. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between gonadotrophins and clomiphene citrate for ongoing pregnancy and live birth was assessed. RESULTS: The mean costs per couple were €1534 for gonadotrophins and €1067 for clomiphene citrate (mean difference of €468; 95% confidence interval [CI] €464-472). As ongoing pregnancy rates were 31% in women allocated to gonadotrophins and 26% in women allocated to clomiphene citrate (relative risk 1.16, 95% CI 0.93-1.47), the ICER was €21,804 (95% CI €11,628-31,980) per additional ongoing pregnancy with gonadotrophins and €17,044 (95% CI €8998-25,090) per additional live birth with gonadotrophins. CONCLUSIONS: Gonadotrophins are more expensive compared with clomiphene citrate in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with adherence to strict cancellation criteria, without being significantly more effective.

Interventions for unexplained infertility: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical management for unexplained infertility includes expectant management as well as active treatments, including ovarian stimulation (OS), intrauterine insemination (IUI), OS-IUI,  and in vitro fertilisation (IVF) with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).Existing systematic reviews have conducted head-to-head comparisons of these interventions using pairwise meta-analyses. As this approach allows only the comparison of two interventions at a time and is contingent on the availability of appropriate primary evaluative studies, it is difficult to identify the best intervention in terms of effectiveness and safety. Network meta-analysis compares multiple treatments simultaneously by using both direct and indirect evidence and provides a hierarchy of these treatments, which can potentially better inform clinical decision-making. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different approaches to clinical management (expectant management, OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF/ICSI) in couples with unexplained infertility. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We searched electronic databases including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL, up to 6 September 2018, as well as reference lists, to identify eligible studies. We also searched trial registers for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing at least two of the following clinical management options in couples with unexplained infertility: expectant management, OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF (or combined with ICSI). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts identified by the search strategy. We obtained the full texts of potentially eligible studies to assess eligibility and extracted data using standardised forms. The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of cumulative live birth or ongoing pregnancy, and the primary safety outcome was multiple pregnancy. We performed a network meta-analysis within a random-effects multi-variate meta-analysis model. We presented treatment effects by using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For the network meta-analysis, we used Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA) to evaluate the overall certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 RCTs (4349 couples) in this systematic review and 24 RCTs (3983 couples) in a subsequent network meta-analysis. Overall, the certainty of evidence was low to moderate: the main limitations were imprecision and/or heterogeneity.Ten RCTs including 2725 couples reported on live birth. Evidence of differences between OS, IUI, OS-IUI, or IVF/ICSI versus expectant management was insufficient (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.98; low-certainty evidence; OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.43; low-certainty evidence; OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.94; low-certainty evidence; OR 1.88, 95 CI 0.81 to 4.38; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following expectant management is assumed to be 17%, the chance following OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF would be 9% to 28%, 11% to 33%, 15% to 37%, and 14% to 47%, respectively. When only including couples with poor prognosis of natural conception (3 trials, 725 couples) we found OS-IUI and IVF/ICSI increased live birth rate compared to expectant management (OR 4.48, 95% CI 2.00 to 10.1; moderate-certainty evidence; OR 4.99, 95 CI 2.07 to 12.04; moderate-certainty evidence), while there was insufficient evidence of a difference between IVF/ICSI and OS-IUI (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.60; low-certainty evidence).Eleven RCTs including 2564 couples reported on multiple pregnancy. Compared to expectant management/IUI, OS (OR 3.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 9.41; low-certainty evidence) and OS-IUI (OR 3.34 95% CI 1.09 to 10.29; moderate-certainty evidence) increased the odds of multiple pregnancy, and there was insufficient evidence of a difference between IVF/ICSI and expectant management/IUI (OR 2.66, 95% CI 0.68 to 10.43; low-certainty evidence). These findings suggest that if the chance of multiple pregnancy following expectant management or IUI is assumed to be 0.6%, the chance following OS, OS-IUI, and IVF/ICSI would be 0.6% to 5.0%, 0.6% to 5.4%, and 0.4% to 5.5%, respectively.Trial results show insufficient evidence of a difference between IVF/ICSI and OS-IUI for moderate/severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (OR 2.50, 95% CI 0.92 to 6.76; 5 studies; 985 women; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of moderate/severe OHSS following OS-IUI is assumed to be 1.1%, the chance following IVF/ICSI would be between 1.0% and 7.2%. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence of differences in live birth between expectant management and the other four interventions (OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF/ICSI). Compared to expectant management/IUI, OS may increase the odds of multiple pregnancy, and OS-IUI probably increases the odds of multiple pregnancy. Evidence on differences between IVF/ICSI and expectant management for multiple pregnancy is insufficient, as is evidence of a difference for moderate or severe OHSS between IVF/ICSI and OS-IUI.

The AID study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of intrauterine insemination in the natural cycle compared with intracervical insemination in the natural cycle.

INTRODUCTION: At present, studies comparing intrauterine insemination in the natural cycle versus intracervical insemination in the natural cycle in women undergoing artificial insemination with donor sperm are scarce. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We perform a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial among five secondary and tertiary fertility clinics in the Netherlands and one tertiary fertility clinic in Belgium. Women eligible for artificial insemination with donor sperm are included. We perform six cycles of artificial insemination with donor sperm within a time horizon of 8 months comparing intrauterine insemination in the natural cycle with intracervical insemination in the natural cycle. The primary outcome is ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth conceived within eight months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, multiple pregnancy rate, pregnancy complications (preterm birth, birth weight <2500 g, pregnancy induced hypertension, (pre-) eclampsia, Hemolysis Elevated Liver enzymes Low Platelets (HELLP)), time to ongoing pregnancy, direct and indirect costs. To demonstrate the non-inferiority of intracervical insemination with a margin of 12%, we need 208 women per arm. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of the Academic Medical Centre and from the Dutch Central Committee on research involving human subjects (47330-018-13). The boards of the participating hospitals approved the study. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at international scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4462.

Cumulative live birth rates in low-prognosis women.

STUDY QUESTION: Do cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs) over multiple IVF/ICSI cycles confirm the low prognosis in women stratified according to the POSEIDON criteria? SUMMARY ANSWER: The CLBR of low-prognosis women is ~56% over 18 months of IVF/ICSI treatment and varies between the POSEIDON groups, which is primarily attributable to the impact of female age. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The POSEIDON group recently proposed a new stratification for low-prognosis women in IVF/ICSI treatment, with the aim to define more homogenous populations for clinical trials and stimulate a patient-tailored therapeutic approach. These new criteria combine qualitative and quantitative parameters to create four groups of low-prognosis women with supposedly similar biologic characteristics. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This study analyzed the data of a Dutch multicenter observational cohort study including 551 low-prognosis women, aged <44 years, who initiated IVF/ICSI treatment between 2011 and 2014 and were treated with a fixed FSH dose of 150 IU/day in the first treatment cycle. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Low-prognosis women were categorized into one of the POSEIDON groups based on their age (younger or older than 35 years), anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level (above or below 0.96 ng/ml), and the ovarian response (poor or suboptimal) in their first cycle of standard stimulation. The primary outcome was the CLBR over multiple complete IVF/ICSI cycles, including all subsequent fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfers, within 18 months of treatment. Cumulative incidence curves were obtained using an optimistic and a conservative analytic approach. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The CLBR of the low-prognosis women was on average ~56% over 18 months of IVF/ICSI treatment. Younger unexpected poor (n = 38) and suboptimal (n = 179) responders had a CLBR of ~65% and ~68%, respectively, and younger expected poor responders (n = 65) had a CLBR of ~59%. The CLBR of older unexpected poor (n = 41) and suboptimal responders (n = 102) was ~42% and ~54%, respectively, and of older expected poor responders (n = 126) ~39%. For comparison, the CLBR of younger (n = 164) and older (n = 78) normal responders with an adequate ovarian reserve was ~72% and ~58% over 18 months of treatment, respectively. No large differences were observed in the number of fresh treatment cycles between the POSEIDON groups, with an average of two fresh cycles per woman within 18 months of follow-up. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Small numbers in some (sub)groups reduced the precision of the estimates. However, our findings provide the first relevant indication of the CLBR of low-prognosis women in the POSEIDON groups. Small FSH dose adjustments between cycles were allowed, inducing therapeutic disparity. Yet, this is in accordance with current daily practice and increases the generalizability of our findings. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The CLBRs vary between the POSEIDON groups. This heterogeneity is primarily determined by a woman's age, reflecting the importance of oocyte quality. In younger women, current IVF/ICSI treatment reaches relatively high CLBR over multiple complete cycles, despite reduced quantitative parameters. In older women, the CLBR remains relatively low over multiple complete cycles, due to the co-occurring decline in quantitative and qualitative parameters. As no effective interventions exist to counteract this decline, clinical management currently relies on proper counselling. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No external funds were obtained for this study. J.A.L. is supported by a Research Fellowship grant and received an unrestricted personal grant from Merck BV. S.C.O., T.C.v.T., and H.L.T. received an unrestricted personal grant from Merck BV. C.B.L. received research grants from Merck, Ferring, and Guerbet. K.F. received unrestricted research grants from Merck Serono, Ferring, and GoodLife. She also received fees for lectures and consultancy from Ferring and GoodLife. A.H. declares that the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Centre Groningen received an unrestricted research grant from Ferring Pharmaceuticals BV, the Netherlands. J.S.E.L. has received unrestricted research grants from Ferring, Zon-MW, and The Dutch Heart Association. He also received travel grants and consultancy fees from Danone, Euroscreen, Ferring, AnshLabs, and Titus Healthcare. B.W.J.M. is supported by an National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy work for ObsEva, Merck, and Guerbet. He also received a research grant from Merck BV and travel support from Guerbet. F.J.M.B. received monetary compensation as a member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono (the Netherlands) and Ferring Pharmaceuticals BV (the Netherlands) for advisory work for Gedeon Richter (Belgium) and Roche Diagnostics on automated AMH assay development, and for a research cooperation with Ansh Labs (USA). All other authors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Do female age and body weight modify the effect of individualized FSH dosing in IVF/ICSI treatment? A secondary analysis of the OPTIMIST trial.

INTRODUCTION: The OPTIMIST trial revealed that for women starting in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment, no substantial differences exist in first cycle and cumulative live birth rates between an antral follicle count (AFC)-based individualized follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) dose and a standard dose. Female age and body weight have been suggested to cause heterogeneity in the effect of FSH dose individualization. The objective of the current study is to evaluate whether these patient characteristics modify the effect of AFC-based individualized FSH dosing in IVF/ICSI treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A secondary data-analysis of the OPTIMIST trial. Women initiating IVF/ICSI treatment were classified as predicted poor (AFC 0-7), suboptimal (AFC 8-10) or hyper responders (AFC >15), and randomly allocated to a standard FSH dose (150 IU/d) or an individualized FSH dose (450, 225 or 100 IU/d for predicted poor, suboptimal and hyper responders, respectively). In each predicted response category, logistic regression models with interaction terms were used to evaluate the presence of effect modification. The first cycle was analyzed, and the primary outcomes were first complete cycle live birth rate (including fresh plus frozen-thawed embryo transfers) and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) risks. RESULTS: No effect modification was revealed in the predicted poor (n = 234) and suboptimal (n = 277) responders. In the predicted hyper responders (n = 521), the effect of the individualized FSH dose on the first cycle live birth rate was modified by female age (P = 0.02) and the effect on OHSS risks was modified by body weight (P = 0.02). A dose reduction from 150 to 100 IU/d generally decreased the OHSS risks in predicted hyper responders, but also reduced the chance of a live birth in young women, and had no beneficial impact on OHSS risks in women with a relatively low body weight. CONCLUSIONS: In women with a predicted hyper response undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment, female age and body weight seem to modify the effect of FSH dose individualization. Although a reduced FSH starting dose generally decreases the OHSS risks, it may also reduce the chance of a live birth, specifically for young women. Future studies could consider these findings when investigating the optimal approach to reduce OHSS risks while maintaining the probability of a live birth for predicted hyper responders in IVF/ICSI treatment.

Being a donor-child: wishes for parental support, peer support and counseling.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed at exploring the wishes of Dutch donor-conceived offspring for parental support, peer support and counseling and sought to contribute to the improvement of health care for all parties involved with assisted reproductive technologies. METHODS: We held semi-structured in-depth interviews with 24 donor-conceived offspring (Mage = 26.9, range 17-41) born within father-mother, two-mother and single mother families. The majority of the donor offspring was conceived with semen of anonymous donors. All offspring were recruited by network organizations and snowball sampling. The interviews were fully transcribed and analyzed using the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Donor-conceived offspring wished that their parents had talked openly about donor conception and had missed parental support. They wished that their parents would have received counseling before donor sperm treatment on how to talk with their children about donor conception in several stages of life. They valued the availability of peer contact to exchange stories with other donor-conceived offspring and would have liked assistance in getting access to trustworthy information about characteristics and identifying information of their donor. Donor-conceived offspring wished to know where to find specialist counseling when needed. CONCLUSIONS: Peer support and counseling by professionals for donor-conceived offspring should be available for those who need it. The findings also support professional counseling for intended parents before treatment to improve parental support for donor-children.

Counsellors' practices in donor sperm treatment.

When intended parents choose to have donor sperm treatment (DST), this may entail wide-ranging and long-lasting psychosocial implications related to the social parent not having a genetic tie with the child, how to disclose donor-conception and future donor contact. Counselling by qualified professionals is recommended to help intended parents cope with these implications. The objective of this study is to present findings and insights about how counsellors execute their counselling practices. We performed a qualitative study that included 13 counsellors working in the 11 clinics offering DST in the Netherlands. We held a focus group discussion and individual face-to-face semi-structured interviews, which were fully transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. The counsellors combined screening for eligibility and guidance within one session. They acted according to their individual knowledge and clinical experience and had different opinions on the issues they discussed with intended parents, which resulted in large practice variations. The counsellors were dependent on the admission policies of the clinics, which were mainly limited to regulating access to psychosocial counselling, which also lead to a variety of counselling practices. This means that evidence-based guidelines on counselling in DST need to be developed to provide consistent counselling with less practice variation.

Low dosing of gonadotropins in in vitro fertilization cycles for women with poor ovarian reserve: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of low doses of gonadotropins and gonadotropins combined with oral compounds compared with high doses of gonadotropins in ovarian stimulation regimens in terms of ongoing pregnancy per fresh IVF attempt in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies that evaluate the effectiveness of low dosing of gonadotropins alone or combined with oral compounds compared with high doses of gonadotropins in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Subfertile women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment. INTERVENTION(S): We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and the Clinical Trials Registry using medical subject headings and free text terms up to June 2016, without language or year restrictions. We included randomized controlled studies (RCTs) enrolling subfertile women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment and comparing low doses of gonadotropins and gonadotropins combined with oral compounds versus high doses of gonadotropins. We assessed the risk of bias using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. We pooled the results by meta-analysis using the fixed and random effects model. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE(S): The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy rate (PR) per woman randomized. RESULT(S): We retrieved 787 records. Fourteen RCTs (N = 2,104 women) were included in the analysis. Five studies (N = 717 women) compared low doses of gonadotropins versus high doses of gonadotropins. There was no evidence of a difference in ongoing PR (2 RCTs: risk rate 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.62-1.57, I2 = 0). Nine studies (N = 1,387 women) compared ovarian stimulation using gonadotropins combined with the oral compounds letrozole (n = 6) or clomiphene citrate (CC) (n = 3) versus high doses of gonadotropins. There was no evidence of a difference in ongoing PR (3 RCTs: risk rate 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.63-1.27, I2 = 0). CONCLUSION(S): We found no evidence of a difference in pregnancy outcomes between low doses of gonadotropins and gonadotropins combined with oral compounds compared with high doses of gonadotropins in ovarian stimulation regimens. Whether low doses of gonadotropins or gonadotropins combined with oral compounds is to be preferred is unknown, as they have never been compared head to head. A health economic analysis to test the hypothesis that an ovarian stimulation with low dosing is more cost-effective than high doses of gonadotropins is needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016041301.

Intrauterine insemination versus intracervical insemination in donor sperm treatment.

BACKGROUND: The first-line treatment in donor sperm treatment consists of inseminations that can be done by intrauterine insemination (IUI) or by intracervical insemination (ICI). OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of intrauterine insemination (IUI) and intracervical insemination (ICI) in women who start donor sperm treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL in October 2016, checked references of relevant studies, and contacted study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, the Grey literature, and five trials registers on 15 December 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on IUI versus ICI in natural cycles or with ovarian stimulation, and RCTs comparing different cointerventions in IUI and ICI. We included cross-over studies if pre-cross-over data were available. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We collected data on primary outcomes of live birth and multiple pregnancy rates, and on secondary outcomes of clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and cancellation rates. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs (708 women analysed) on ICI and IUI in donor sperm treatment. Two studies compared IUI and ICI in natural cycles, two studies compared IUI and ICI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles, and two studies compared timing of IUI and ICI. There was very low-quality evidence; the main limitations were risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision.IUI versus ICI in natural cyclesThere was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any clear difference in live birth rate between IUI and ICI in natural cycles (odds ratio (OR) 3.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 87.13; 1 RCT, 26 women; very low-quality evidence). There was only one live birth in this study (in the IUI group). IUI resulted in higher clinical pregnancy rates (OR 6.18, 95% CI 1.91 to 20.03; 2 RCTs, 76 women; I² = 48%; very low-quality evidence).No multiple pregnancies or miscarriages occurred in this study.IUI versus ICI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cyclesThere was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any clear difference in live birth rate between IUI and ICI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles (OR 2.55, 95% CI 0.72 to 8.96; 1 RCT, 43 women; very low-quality evidence). This suggested that if the chance of a live birth following ICI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles was assumed to be 30%, the chance following IUI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles would be between 24% and 80%. IUI may result in higher clinical pregnancy rates than ICI (OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.78; 2 RCTs, 131 women; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). IUI may be associated with higher multiple pregnancy rates than ICI (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.00 to 7.69; 2 RCTs, 131 women; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). This suggested that if the risk of multiple pregnancy following ICI in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles was assumed to be 10%, the risk following IUI would be between 10% and 46%.We found insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any clear difference between the groups in miscarriage rates in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles (OR 1.97, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.04; 2 RCTs, overall 67 pregnancies; I² = 50%; very low-quality evidence).Timing of IUI and ICIWe found no studies that reported on live birth rates.We found a higher clinical pregnancy rate when IUI was timed one day after a rise in blood levels of luteinising hormone (LH) compared to IUI two days after a rise in blood levels of LH (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.53; 1 RCT, 351 women; low-quality evidence). We found insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any clear difference in clinical pregnancy rates between ICI timed after a rise in urinary levels of LH versus a rise in basal temperature plus cervical mucus scores (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.42 to 4.11; 1 RCT, 56 women; very low-quality evidence).Neither of these studies reported multiple pregnancy or miscarriage rates as outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a clear difference in live birth rates between IUI and ICI in natural or gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles in women who started with donor sperm treatment. There was insufficient evidence available for the effect of timing of IUI or ICI on live birth rates. Very low-quality data suggested that in gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles, ICI may be associated with a higher clinical pregnancy rate than IUI, but also with a higher risk of multiple pregnancy rate. We concluded that the current evidence was too limited to choose between IUI or ICI, in natural cycles or with ovarian stimulation, in donor sperm treatment.

Individualized FSH dosing based on ovarian reserve testing in women starting IVF/ICSI: a multicentre trial and cost-effectiveness analysis.

STUDY QUESTION: Is there a difference in live birth rate and/or cost-effectiveness between antral follicle count (AFC)-based individualized FSH dosing or standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF or ICSI treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER: In women initiating IVF/ICSI, AFC-based individualized FSH dosing does not improve live birth rates or reduce costs as compared to a standard FSH dose. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In IVF or ICSI, ovarian reserve testing is often used to adjust the FSH dose in order to normalize ovarian response and optimize live birth rates. However, no robust evidence for the (cost-)effectiveness of this practice exists. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Between May 2011 and May 2014 we performed a multicentre prospective cohort study with two embedded RCTs in women scheduled for IVF/ICSI. Based on the AFC, women entered into one of the two RCTs (RCT1: AFC < 11; RCT2: AFC > 15) or the cohort (AFC 11-15). The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy achieved within 18 months after randomization resulting in a live birth (delivery of at least one live foetus after 24 weeks of gestation). Data from the cohort with weight 0.5 were combined with both RCTs in order to conduct a strategy analysis. Potential half-integer numbers were rounded up. Differences in costs and effects between the two treatment strategies were compared by bootstrapping. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In both RCTs women were randomized to an individualized (RCT1:450/225 IU, RCT2:100 IU) or standard FSH dose (150 IU). Women in the cohort all received the standard dose (150 IU). Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) was measured to assess AMH post-hoc as a biomarker to individualize treatment. For RCT1 dose adjustment was allowed in subsequent cycles based on pre-specified criteria in the standard group only. For RCT2 dose adjustment was allowed in subsequent cycles in both groups. Both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the strategies were evaluated from an intention-to-treat perspective. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We included 1515 women, of whom 483 (31.9%) entered the cohort, 511 (33.7%) RCT1 and 521 (34.4%) RCT2. Live births occurred in 420/747 (56.3%) women in the individualized strategy and 447/769 (58.2%) women in the standard strategy (risk difference -0.019 (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.02), P = 0.39; a total of 1516 women due to rounding up the half integer numbers). The individualized strategy was more expensive (delta costs/woman = €275 (95% CI, 40 to 499)). Individualized dosing reduced the occurrence of mild and moderate ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and subsequently the costs for management of these OHSS categories (costs saved/woman were €35). The analysis based on AMH as a tool for dose individualization suggested comparable results. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Despite a training programme, the AFC might have suffered from inter-observer variation. In addition, although strict cancel criteria were provided, selective cancelling in the individualized 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 both first cycle live birth rates and cumulative live birth rates show no difference between strategies, the open design probably did not mask a potential benefit for the individualized group. Despite increasing consensus on using GnRH antagonist co-treatment in women predicted for a hyper response in particular, GnRH agonists were used in almost 80% of the women in this study. Hence, in those women, the AFC and bloodsampling for the post-hoc AMH analysis were performed during pituitary suppression. As the correlation between AFC and ovarian response is not compromised during GnRH agonist use, this will probably not have influenced classification of response. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Individualized FSH dosing for the IVF/ICSI population as a whole should not be pursued as it does not improve live birth rates and it increases costs. Women scheduled for IVF/ICSI with a regular menstrual cycle are therefore recommended a standard FSH starting dose of 150 IU per day. Still, safety management by individualized dosing in predicted hyper responders is open for further research. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW number 171102020). AMH measurements were performed free of charge by Roche Diagnostics. TCT, HLT and SCO received an unrestricted personal grant from Merck BV. AH declares that the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Centre Groningen receives an unrestricted research grant from Ferring pharmaceutics BV, 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 (the Netherlands) and Merck Serono (the Netherlands) for consultancy work for Gedeon Richter (Belgium) and Roche Diagnostics on automated AMH assay development (Switzerland) and for a research cooperation with Ansh Labs (USA). All other autors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registered at the ICMJE-recognized Dutch Trial Registry (www.trialregister.nl). Registration number: NTR2657.

Recombinant luteinizing hormone (rLH) and recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) for ovarian stimulation in IVF/ICSI cycles.

BACKGROUND: One of the various ovarian stimulation regimens used for in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles is the use of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) in combination with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue. GnRH analogues prevent premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surges. Since they deprive the growing follicles of LH, the question arises as to whether supplementation with recombinant LH (rLH) would increase live birth rates. This is an updated Cochrane Review; the original version was published in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of recombinant luteinizing hormone (rLH) combined with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) for ovarian stimulation compared to rFSH alone in women undergoing in-vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI). SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched the following databases in June 2016: the Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and ongoing trials registers, and checked the references of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rLH combined with rFSH versus rFSH alone in IVF/ISCI cycles. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We combined data to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. Our primary outcomes were live birth rate and incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Secondary outcomes included ongoing pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate and cancellation rates (for poor response or imminent OHSS). MAIN RESULTS: We included 36 RCTs (8125 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods) and imprecision.Live birth rates: There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between rLH combined with rFSH versus rFSH alone in live birth rates (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.06; n = 499; studies = 4; I2 = 63%, very low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the live birth rate following treatment with rFSH alone is 17% it will be between 15% and 30% using rLH combined with rFSH.OHSS: There may be little or no difference between rLH combined with rFSH versus rFSH alone in OHSS rates (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.01; n = 2178; studies = 6; I2 = 10%, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of OHSS following treatment with rFSH alone is 1%, it will be between 0% and 1% using rLH combined with rFSH.Ongoing pregnancy rate: The use of rLH combined with rFSH probably improves ongoing pregnancy rates, compared to rFSH alone (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.42; participants = 3129; studies = 19; I2 = 2%, moderate-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the ongoing pregnancy rate following treatment with rFSH alone is 21%, it will be between 21% and 27% using rLH combined with rFSH.Miscarriage rate: The use of rLH combined with rFSH probably makes little or no difference to miscarriage rates, compared to rFSH alone (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.36; n = 1711; studies = 13; I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the miscarriage rate following treatment with rFSH alone is 7%, the miscarriage rate following treatment with rLH combined with rFSH will be between 4% and 9%.Cancellation rates: There may be little or no difference between rLH combined with rFSH versus rFSH alone in rates of cancellation due to low response (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.10; n = 2251; studies = 11; I2 = 16%, low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the risk of cancellation due to low response following treatment with rFSH alone is 7%, it will be between 4% and 7% using rLH combined with rFSH.We are uncertain whether use of rLH combined with rFSH improves rates of cancellation due to imminent OHSS compared to rFSH alone. Use of a fixed effect model suggested a benefit in the combination group (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.89; n = 2976; studies = 8; I2 = 60%, very low quality evidence) but use of a random effects model did not support the conclusion that there was a difference between the groups (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.97). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no clear evidence of a difference between rLH combined with rFSH and rFSH alone in rates of live birth or OHSS. The evidence for these comparisons was of very low-quality for live birth and low quality for OHSS. We found moderate quality evidence that the use of rLH combined with rFSH may lead to more ongoing pregnancies than rFSH alone. There was also moderate-quality evidence suggesting little or no difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of cancellation due to low response or imminent OHSS, but the evidence for these outcomes was of low or very low quality.We conclude that the evidence is insufficient to encourage or discourage stimulation regimens that include rLH combined with rFSH in IVF/ICSI cycles.

Behavioral, cognitive, and motor performance and physical development of five-year-old children who were born after intracytoplasmic sperm injection with the use of testicular sperm.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate at the age of 5 years the behavioral, cognitive, and motor performance and physical development of children born after testicular sperm extraction (TESE) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). DESIGN: A prospective longitudinal cohort study. SETTING: Two university medical centers. PATIENT(S): A total of 103 5-year-olds who were born after TESE-ICSI. INTERVENTION(S): The follow-up of the children was performed by questionnaires at birth and again at 1 year and at 4 years of age. Five-year-old children were invited for individual assessment. Behavioral performance was assessed with the use of the Child Behavior Checklist for parents and teachers. Cognitive performance was assessed with the use of the Dutch Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence test, 3rd version. Motor performance was assessed with the use of the Dutch Movement Assessment Battery for Children, 2nd version. Physical development was assessed by means of physical examination and medical history. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Behavioral, cognitive, and motor performance and physical development. RESULT(S): Eighty-nine children were completely assessed, and 14 were partially assessed at the age of 5 years. The 5-year-old cohort assessed significantly better on behavioral and cognitive performance and significantly worse on motor performance-but still in the normal range-compared with the theoretic distribution in the general population. Four children (3.8%) of the 5-year-old cohort had developmental problems/delays. Two of them were previously diagnosed with a form of autism (pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified). Two children had developmental problems based on our behavioral, cognitive, and/or motor assessments. CONCLUSION(S): The long-term effects on development and health in children born after TESE-ICSI procedures seem to be reassuring.