No pain relief by virtual reality during hysterosalpingography (HSG): results from a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Is virtual reality (VR) an effective non-pharmacological tool to reduce procedural pain during hysterosalpingography (HSG)? SUMMARY ANSWER: An HSG with VR does not reduce procedural pain scores compared to an HSG without VR. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: An HSG is often experienced as painful and uncomfortable. VR has been proven successful to reduce acute procedural pain during a variety of medical procedures and interventions. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a two-centre open-label randomized controlled trial between January 2021 and October 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women scheduled for HSG as part of their infertility work-up were screened for participation. After informed consent, women were randomized between HSG with or without VR. Due to the nature of the intervention, the study was not blinded. VR was administered by a head-mounted device displaying nature movies and/or relaxation exercises. The primary endpoint was procedural pain measured using VAS (scale 0.0-10.0 cm). Procedural pain was divided into overall pain score and peak pain score during the procedure. It was measured immediately after HSG. Secondary endpoints included patient satisfaction, VR preferences, and adverse effects of VR. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We included a total of 134 women, 69 to the intervention group (HSG with VR) and 65 to the control group (HSG without VR). The mean VAS for peak pain was 6.80 cm (SD 2.25) in the intervention group versus 6.60 cm (SD 2.40) in the control group (mean difference 0.28 (95% CI -0.57, 1.12), P = 0.52). The mean VAS for overall pain was 5.00 cm (SD 2.10) in the intervention group versus 4.90 cm (SD 2.13) in the control group (mean difference 0.06 (95% CI -0.71, 0.84), P = 0.88). The expectation that VR would be a good distraction from pain during HSG was correlated with both overall and peak pain scores. When correcting for this expectation, we found that women in the intervention group reported significantly higher scores, both in peak (adjusted MD 0.58 (95% CI -0.81, 1.97), P = 0.021) and overall (adjusted MD 0.43 (95% CI -0.84, 1.71), P = 0.013) pain, compared to the control group. There were no differences in the prevalence of symptoms that were considered as adverse effects of VR. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was not blinded. Reasons for declining participation in the study were anxiety or wanting full control during HSG, which might have created selection bias. The distraction score possibly indicates that the level of VR immersiveness was not optimal due to the lack of sound and/or the type of VR applications. Future studies should investigate whether more immersive or interactive VR applications could decrease procedural pain scores during HSG. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since VR does not reduce procedural pain, this additional tool should not be used during HSG. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): There was no external funding for this study. KR and AvH report receiving a travel grant from Merck outside the scope of this study. BM is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) investigator grant (GNT1176437) and BM reports consultancy for Merck, Organon, and Norgine and travel and research funding from Merck. BM holds stock for ObsEva. CL reports receiving research grants from Merck, and Ferring. KD and VM report receiving travel and speaker's fees from Guerbet and research grants from Guerbet. VM also reports research grants from Merck and Ferring. The remaining authors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The trial is registered prospectively in the Netherlands Trial Register (trialregister.nl registration number NL9203, currently accessible on trialsearch.who.int). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 16-01-2021. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: The first participant was enrolled on 19 January 2021.

Cost-effectiveness of embryo transfer strategies: a decision analytic model using long-term costs and consequences of singletons and multiples born as a consequence of IVF.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the cost-effectiveness of elective single embryo transfer (eSET) versus double embryo transfer (DET) strategies from a societal perspective, when applying a time horizon of 1, 5 and 18 years? SUMMARY ANSWER: From a short-term perspective (1 year) it is cost-effective to replace DET with single embryo transfer; however when intermediate- (5 years) and long-term (18 years) costs and consequences are incorporated, DET becomes the most cost-effective strategy, given a ceiling ratio of €20 000 per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: According to previous cost-effectiveness research into embryo transfer strategies, DET is considered cost-effective if society is willing to pay around €20 000 for an extra live birth. However, interpretation of those studies is complicated, as those studies fail to incorporate long-term costs and outcomes and used live birth as a measure of effectiveness instead of QALYs. With this outcome, both multiple and singletons were valued as one live birth, whereas costs of all children of a multiple were incorporated. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A Markov model (cycle length: 1 year; time horizon: 1, 5 and 18 years) was developed comparing a maximum of: (i) three cycles of eSET in all patients; (ii) four cycles of eSET in all patients; (iii) five cycles of eSET in all patients; (iv) three cycles of standard treatment policy (STP), i.e. eSET in women <38 years with a good quality embryo, and DET in all other women; and (v) three cycles of DET in all patients. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Expected life years (LYs), child QALYs and costs were estimated for all comparators. Input parameters were derived from a retrospective cohort study, in which hospital resource data were collected (n=580) and a parental questionnaire was sent out (431 respondents). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (5000 iterations) was performed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: With a time horizon of 18 years, DETx3 is most effective (0.54 live births, 10.2 LYs and 9.8 QALYs) and expensive (€37 871) per couple starting IVF. Three cycles of eSET are least effective (0.43 live births, 7.1 LYs and 6.8 QALYs) and expensive (€25 563). We assumed that society is willing to pay €20 000 per QALY gained. With a time horizon of 1 year, eSETx3 was the most cost-effective embryo transfer strategy with a probability of being cost-effective of 99.9%. With a time horizon of 5 or 18 years, DETx3 was most cost-effective, with probabilities of being cost-effective of 77.3 and 93.2%, respectively. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This is the first study to use QALYs generated by the children in the economic evaluation of embryo transfer strategies. There remains some disagreement on whether QALYs generated by new life should be used in economic evaluations of fertility treatment. A further limitation is that treatment ends when it results in live birth and that only child QALYs were considered as measure of effectiveness. The results for the time horizon of 18 years might be less solid, as the data beyond the age of 8 years are based on extrapolation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The current Markov model indicates that when child QALYs are used as measure of outcome it is not cost-effective on the long term to replace DET with single embryo transfer strategies. However, for a balanced approach, a family-planning perspective would be preferable, including additional treatment cycles for couples who wish to have another child. Furthermore, the analysis should be extended to include QALYs of family members. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was supported by a research grant (grant number 80-82310-98-09094) from the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw). There are no conflicts of interest in connection with this article. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Hospital costs during the first 5 years of life for multiples compared with singletons born after IVF or ICSI.

STUDY QUESTION: Do in vitro fertilization (IVF) multiples generate higher hospital costs than IVF singletons, from birth up to age 5? SUMMARY ANSWER: Hospital costs from birth up to age 5 were significantly higher among IVF/ICSI multiple children compared with IVF/ICSI singletons; however, when excluding the costs incurred during the birth admission period, hospital costs of multiples and singletons were comparable. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Concern has risen over the long-term outcome of children born after IVF. The increased incidence of multiple births in IVF as a result of double-embryo transfer predisposes children to a poorer neonatal outcome such as preterm birth and low birthweight. As a consequence, IVF multiples require more medical care. Costs and consequences of poorer neonatal outcomes in multiples may also exist later in life. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: All 5497 children born from IVF in 2003-2005, whose parents received IVF or ICSI treatment in one of five participating Dutch IVF centers, served as a basis for a retrospective cohort study. Based on gestational age, birthweight, Apgar and congenital malformation, children were assigned to one of three risk strata (low-, moderate- or high-risk). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: To enhance the efficiency of the data collection, 816 multiples and 584 singletons were selected for 5-year follow-up based on stratified (risk) sampling. Parental informed consent was received of 322 multiples and 293 singletons. Individual-level hospital resource use data (hospitalization, outpatient visits and medical procedures) were retrieved from hospital information systems and patient charts for 302 multiples and 278 singletons. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The risk of hospitalization (OR 4.9, 95% CI 3.3-7.0), outpatient visits (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.8-3.6) and medical procedures (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2-2.2) was higher for multiples compared with singletons. The average hospital costs amounted to €10 018 and €2093 during the birth admission period (P < 0.001), €1131 and €696 after the birth admission period to the first birthday (not significant (n.s.)) and €1084 and €938 from the second to the fifth life year (n.s.) for multiples and singletons, respectively. Hospital costs from birth up to age 5 were 3.3-fold higher for multiples compared with singletons (P < 0.001). Among multiples and singletons, respectively, 90.8 and 76.2% of the total hospital costs were caused by hospital admission days and 8.9 and 25.2% of the total hospital costs during the first 5 years of life occurred after the first year of life. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Resource use and costs outside the hospital were not included in the analysis. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study confirms the increased use of healthcare resources by IVF/ICSI multiples compared with IVF/ICSI singletons. Single-embryo transfer may result in substantial savings, particularly in the birth admission period. These savings need to be compared with the extra costs of additional embryo transfers needed to achieve a successful pregnancy. Besides costs, health outcomes of children born after single-embryo transfer should be compared with those born after double-embryo transfer. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was supported by a research grant (grant number 80-82310-98-09094) from the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw). There are no conflicts of interest in connection with this article. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Predictive value of basal follicle-stimulating hormone concentrations in a general subfertility population.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the predictive value of elevated basal FSH concentrations during the initial subfertility workup with respect to fecundity in a general subfertility population with ovulatory menstrual cycles. DESIGN: Nested case-control study. SETTING: Fertility center of a university hospital. PATIENT(S): Fifty subfertile women with basal FSH levels >10.0 IU/L and 50 age-matched controls. INTERVENTION(S): Long-term follow-up (3-7 years). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Pregnancies, deliveries, and time to pregnancy. RESULT(S): Patients with elevated basal FSH levels and controls were comparable with regard to basic characteristics, clinical diagnoses, and subfertility treatment. Long-term follow-up showed that 52% of the women with elevated basal FSH concentrations became pregnant (positive predictive value 48%) versus 62% of the controls, and 42% versus 46% eventually delivered a child, respectively. The mean time to pregnancy was 3.0 years in the elevated-FSH group and 3.4 years in controls. Most of the pregnancies in both groups occurred after spontaneous conceptions. CONCLUSION(S): The results of this study suggest that screening for elevated basal FSH concentrations is of no additional value in a general subfertility population with ovulatory menstrual cycles.