STUDY QUESTION What are the costs and effects of tubal patency testing by hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) compared to hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile women during the fertility work-up?SUMMARY ANSWER During the fertility work-up, clinical management based on the test results of HyFoSy leads to slightly lower, though not statistically significant, live birth rates, at lower costs, compared to management based on HSG results.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Traditionally, tubal patency testing during the fertility work-up is performed by HSG. The FOAM trial, formally a non-inferiority study, showed that management decisions based on the results of HyFoSy resulted in a comparable live birth rate at 12 months compared to HSG (46% versus 47%; difference -1.2%, 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%; P = 0.27). Compared to HSG, HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain, it lacks ionizing radiation and exposure to iodinated contrast medium. Moreover, HyFoSy can be performed by a gynaecologist during a one-stop fertility work-up. To our knowledge, the costs of both strategies have never been compared.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION We performed an economic evaluation alongside the FOAM trial, a randomized multicenter study conducted in the Netherlands. Participating infertile women underwent, both HyFoSy and HSG, in a randomized order. The results of both tests were compared and women with discordant test results were randomly allocated to management based on the results of one of the tests. The follow-up period was twelve months.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS We studied 1160 infertile women (18-41 years) scheduled for tubal patency testing. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth. The economic evaluation compared costs and effects of management based on either test within 12 months. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the difference in total costs and chance of live birth. Data were analyzed using the intention to treat principle.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 of the 1160 women underwent both tubal tests and had data available: 747 women with concordant results (48% live births), 136 with inconclusive results (40% live births), and 143 with discordant results (41% had a live birth after management based on HyFoSy results versus 49% with live birth after management based on HSG results). When comparing the two strategies-management based on HyfoSy results versus HSG results-the estimated chance of live birth was 46% after HyFoSy versus 47% after HSG (difference -1.2%; 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%). For the procedures itself, HyFoSy cost euro136 and HSG euro280. When costs of additional fertility treatments were incorporated, the mean total costs per couple were euro3307 for the HyFoSy strategy and euro3427 for the HSG strategy (mean difference euro-119; 95% CI: euro-125 to euro-114). So, while HyFoSy led to lower costs per couple, live birth rates were also slightly lower. The ICER was euro10 042, meaning that by using HyFoSy instead of HSG we would save euro10 042 per each additional live birth lost.LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION When interpreting the results of this study, it needs to be considered that there was a considerable uncertainty around the ICER, and that the direct fertility enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests was not incorporated as women underwent both tubal patency tests in this study. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS Compared to clinical management based on HSG results, management guided by HyFoSy leads to slightly lower live birth rates (though not statistically significant) at lower costs, less pain, without ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast exposure. Further research on the comparison of the direct fertility-enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests is needed.STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) FOAM trial was an investigator-initiated study, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm (R)-FOAM kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel-and speakers fees from Guerbet and her department received research grants from Guerbet outside the submitted work. H.R.V. received consulting-and travel fee from Ferring. A.M.v.P. reports received consulting fee from DEKRA and fee for an expert meeting from Ferring, both outside the submitted work. C.H.d.K. received travel fee from Merck. F.J.M.B. received a grant from Merck and speakers fee from Besins Healthcare. F.J.M.B. is a member of the advisory board of Merck and Ferring. J.v.D. reported speakers fee from Ferring. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda and consultancy for Sanofi on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford Press in the role of deputy editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a DSMB as independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. B.W.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC GNT1176437. B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Guerbet, iGenomix, and Merck KGaA and travel support from Merck KGaA. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck, and Ferring and travel and speakers fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746.

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Does hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) lead to similar pregnancy outcomes, compared with hysterosalpingography (HSG), as first-choice tubal patency test in infertile couples? SUMMARY ANSWER HyFoSy and HSG produce similar findings in a majority of patients and clinical management based on the results of either HyFoSy or HSG, leads to comparable pregnancy outcomes. HyFoSy is experienced as significantly less painful. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Traditionally, tubal patency testing during fertility work-up is performed by HSG. HyFoSy is an alternative imaging technique lacking ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast medium exposure which is less expensive than HSG. Globally, there is a shift towards the use of office-based diagnostic methods, such as HyFoSy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This multicentre, prospective, comparative study with a randomized design was conducted in 26 hospitals in The Netherlands. Participating women underwent both HyFoSy and HSG in randomized order. In case of discordant results, women were randomly allocated to either a management strategy based on HyFoSy or one based on HSG. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS We included infertile women between 18 and 41 years old who were scheduled for tubal patency testing during their fertility work-up. Women with anovulatory cycles not responding to ovulation induction, endometriosis, severe male infertility or a known iodine contrast allergy were excluded. The primary outcome for the comparison of the HyFoSy- and HSG-based strategies was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth within 12 months after inclusion in an intention-to-treat analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 women underwent HyFoSy and HSG. HyFoSy was inconclusive in 97 of them (9.5%), HSG was inconclusive in 30 (2.9%) and both were inconclusive in 9 (0.9%). In 747 women (73%) conclusive tests results were concordant. Of the 143/1026 (14%) with discordant results, 105 were randomized to clinical management based on the results of either HyFoSy or HSG. In this group, 22 of the 54 women (41%) allocated to management based on HyFoSy and 25 of 51 women (49%) allocated to management based on HSG had an ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth (Difference −8%; 95% CI: −27% to 10%). In total, clinical management based on the results of HyFoSy was estimated to lead to a live birth in 474 of 1026 women (46%) versus 486 of 1026 (47%) for management based on HSG (Difference −1.2%; 95% CI: −3.4% to 1.5%). Given the pre-defined margin of −2%, statistically significant non-inferiority of HyFoSy relative to HSG could not be demonstrated (P = 0.27). The mean pain score for HyFoSy on the 1–10 Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was 3.1 (SD 2.2) and the mean VAS pain score for HSG was 5.4 (SD 2.5; P for difference < 0.001). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Since all women underwent both tubal patency tests, no conclusions on a direct therapeutic effect of tubal flushing could be drawn. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS HyFoSy or HSG produce similar tubal pathology findings in a majority of infertile couples and, where they differ, a difference in findings does not lead to substantial difference in pregnancy outcome, while HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The FOAM study was an investigator-initiated study funded by ZonMw, The Netherlands organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). ZonMw funded the whole project. IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm-foam® kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel and speaker fees from Guerbet. F.J.M.B. reports personal fees as a member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, The Netherlands, and a research support grant from Merck Serono, outside the submitted work. C.B.L. reports speakers’ fee from Ferring in the past, and his department receives research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.V.W. reports leading The Netherlands Satellite of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for Guerbet and research funding from Merck and Guerbet. V.M. reports non-financial support from IQ medicals ventures, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NTR4746/NL4587 (https://www.trialregister.nl) TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 19 August 2014 DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT 7 May 2015

(Abstracted from Hum Reprod 2022;37:969–979) A main cause of female infertility is tubal pathology, with 11% to 30% of cases resulting from previous surgery, infections (such as sexually transmitted diseases), or endometriosis. Hysterosalpingography (HSG) is considered as the first choice for a tubal patency test during fertility workup, but the more patient-friendly hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography option has also been introduced.

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 (sic)1534 for gonadotrophins and (sic)1067 for clomiphene citrate (mean difference of (sic)468; 95% confidence interval [CI] (sic)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 (sic)21,804 (95% CI (sic)11,628-31,980) per additional ongoing pregnancy with gonadotrophins and (sic)17,044 (95% CI (sic)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.

STUDY QUESTION Are six cycles of ovulation induction with gonadotrophins more cost-effective than six cycles of ovulation induction with clomiphene citrate (CC) with or without IUI in normogonadotropic anovulatory women not pregnant after six ovulatory cycles with CC? SUMMARY ANSWER Both gonadotrophins and IUI are more expensive when compared with CC and intercourse, and gonadotrophins are more effective than CC. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY In women with normogonadotropic anovulation who ovulate but do not conceive after six cycles with CC, medication is usually switched to gonadotrophins, with or without IUI. The cost-effectiveness of these changes in policy is unknown. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION We performed an economic evaluation of ovulation induction with gonadotrophins compared with CC with or without IUI in a two-by-two factorial multicentre randomized controlled trial in normogonadotropic anovulatory women not pregnant after six ovulatory cycles with CC. Between December 2008 and December 2015 women were allocated to six cycles with gonadotrophins plus IUI, six cycles with gonadotrophins plus intercourse, six cycles with CC plus IUI or six cycles with CC plus intercourse. The primary outcome was conception leading to a live birth achieved within 8 months of randomization. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis on direct medical costs. We calculated the direct medical costs of ovulation induction with gonadotrophins versus CC and of IUI versus intercourse in six subsequent cycles. We included costs of medication, cycle monitoring, interventions, and pregnancy leading to live birth. Resource use was collected from the case report forms and unit costs were derived from various sources. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for gonadotrophins compared to CC and for IUI compared to intercourse. We used non-parametric bootstrap resampling to investigate the effect of uncertainty in our estimates. The analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE We allocated 666 women in total to gonadotrophins and IUI (n = 166), gonadotrophins and intercourse (n = 165), CC and IUI (n = 163), or CC and intercourse (n = 172). Mean direct medical costs per woman receiving gonadotrophins or CC were €4495 versus €3006 (cost difference of €1475 (95% CI: €1457-€1493)). Live birth rates were 52% in women allocated to gonadotrophins and 41% in those allocated to CC (relative risk (RR) 1.24:95% CI: 1.05-1.46). The ICER was €15 258 (95% CI: €8721 to €63 654) per additional live birth with gonadotrophins. Mean direct medical costs per woman allocated to IUI or intercourse were €4497 versus €3005 (cost difference of €1510 (95% CI: €1492-€1529)). Live birth rates were 49% in women allocated to IUI and 43% in those allocated to intercourse (RR = 1.14:95% CI: 0.97-1.35). The ICER was €24 361 (95% CI: €-11 290 to €85 172) per additional live birth with IUI. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We allowed participating hospitals to use their local protocols for ovulation induction and IUI, which may have led to variation in costs, but which increases generalizability. Indirect costs generated by transportation or productivity loss were not included. We did not evaluate letrozole, which is potentially more effective than CC. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Gonadotrophins are more effective, but more expensive than CC, therefore, the use of gonadotrophins in women with normogonadotropic anovulation who have not conceived after six ovulatory CC cycles depends on society's willingness to pay for an additional child. In view of the uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness estimate of IUI, these data are not sufficient to make recommendations on the use of IUI in these women. In countries where ovulation induction regimens are reimbursed, policy makers and health care professionals may use our results in their guidelines. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This trial was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw number: 80-82310-97-12067). The Eudract number for this trial is 2008-006171-73. The Sponsor's Protocol Code Number is P08-40. CBLA reports unrestricted grant support from Merck and Ferring. BWM is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for Merck, ObsEva and Guerbet. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NTR1449.

Tubal pathology is a causative factor in 20% of subfertile couples. Traditionally, tubal testing during fertility work-up is performed by hysterosalpingography (HSG). Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) is a new technique that is thought to have comparable accuracy as HSG, while it is less expensive and more patient friendly. HyFoSy would be an acceptable alternative for HSG, provided it has similar effectiveness in terms of patient outcomes.

STUDY QUESTION:Is FSH or clomiphene citrate (CC) the most effective stimulation regimen in terms of ongoing pregnancies in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with adherence to strict cancellation criteria as a measure to reduce the number of multiple pregnancies? SUMMARY ANSWER:In IUI with adherence to strict cancellation criteria, ovarian stimulation with FSH is not superior to CC in terms of the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate, and yields a similar, low multiple pregnancy rate. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN:FSH has been shown to result in higher pregnancy rates compared to CC, but at the cost of high multiple pregnancy rates. To reduce the risk of multiple pregnancy, new ovarian stimulation regimens have been suggested, these include strict cancellation criteria to limit the number of dominant follicles per cycle i.e. withholding insemination when more than three dominant follicles develop. With such a strategy, it is unclear whether the ovarian stimulation should be done with FSH or with CC. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION:We performed an open-label multicenter randomized superiority controlled trial in the Netherlands (NTR 4057). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS:We randomized couples diagnosed with unexplained subfertility and scheduled for a maximum of four cycles of IUI with ovarian stimulation with 75 IU FSH or 100 mg CC. Cycles were cancelled when more then three dominant follicles developed. The primary outcome was cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate. Multiple pregnancy was a secondary outcome. We analysed the data on intention to treat basis. We calculated relative risks and absolute risk difference with 95% CI. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE:Between July 2013 and March 2016, we allocated 369 women to ovarian stimulation with FSH and 369 women to ovarian stimulation with CC. A total of 113 women (31%) had an ongoing pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with FSH and 97 women (26%) had an ongoing pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with CC (RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.93-1.47, ARD = 0.04, 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.11). Five women (1.4%) had a multiple pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with FSH and eight women (2.2%) had a multiple pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with CC (RR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.21-1.89, ARD = -0.01, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.01). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION:We were not able to blind this study due to the nature of the interventions. We consider it unlikely that this has introduced performance bias, since pregnancy outcomes are objective outcome measures. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS:We revealed that adherence to strict cancellation criteria is a successful solution to reduce the number of multiple pregnancies in IUI. To decide whether ovarian stimulation with FSH or with CC should be the regimen of choice, costs and patients' preferences should be taken into account. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S):This trial received funding from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw). Prof. Dr B.W.J. Mol is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for Merck, ObsEva and Guerbet. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Nederlands Trial Register NTR4057. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE:1 July 2013. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT:The first patient was randomized at 27 August 2013.

Objective To study the effectiveness of four cycles of intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian stimulation (OS) by follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) or by clomiphene citrate (CC), and adherence to strict cancellation criteria.Setting Randomised controlled trial among 22 secondary and tertiary fertility clinics in the Netherlands.Participants 732 women from couples diagnosed with unexplained or mild male subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis according to the model of Hunault of natural conception.Interventions Four cycles of IUI-OS within a time horizon of 6 months comparing FSH 75 IU with CC 100 mg. The primary outcome is ongoing pregnancy conceived within 6 months after randomisation, defined as a positive heartbeat at 12 weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes are cancellation rates, number of cycles with a monofollicular or with multifollicular growth, number of follicles > 14 mm at the time of ovulation triggering, time to ongoing pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, live birth and multiple pregnancy. We will also assess if biomarkers such as female age, body mass index, smoking status, antral follicle count and endometrial aspect and thickness can be used as treatment selection markers.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 (CCMO NL 43131-018-13). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at international scientific meetings.

(Abstracted from Lancet 2018;391:758–765) Clomifene citrate has long been used as a first-line ovulation induction agent for women wishing to conceive who have normogonadotropic anovulation (absent or irregular ovulation). Women who ovulate but do not conceive after several cycles with clomifene citrate are usually switched to ovulation induction with gonadotrophins, with or without intrauterine insemination.

Objective: To study the effectiveness of an intrauterine insemination (IUI) program compared to no treatment in subfertile couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis on natural conception.Study design: A retrospective matched cohort study in which ongoing pregnancy rates in 72 couples who voluntarily dropped out of treatment with IUI were compared to ongoing pregnancy rates in 144 couples who continued treatment with IUI. Couples with unexplained subfertility, mild male subfertility or cervical factor subfertility who started treatment with IUI between January 2000 and December 2008 were included. Couples were matched on hospital, age, duration of subfertility, primary or secondary subfertility and diagnosis. Primary outcome was cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate after three years. Time to pregnancy was censored at the moment couples were lost to follow up or when their child wish ended and, for the no-treatment group, when couples re-started treatment.Results: After three years, there were 18 pregnancies in the stopped treatment group (25%) versus 41 pregnancies in the IUI group (28%) (RR 1.1 (0.59-2.2)(p = 0.4)). The cumulative pregnancy rate after three years was 40% in both groups, showing no difference in time to ongoing pregnancy (shared frailty model p = 0.86).Conclusions: In couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, treatment with IUI does not to add to expectant management. There is need for a randomized clinical trial comparing IUI with expectant management in these couples. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

STUDY QUESTION:Are there treatment selection markers that could aid in identifying couples, with unexplained or mild male subfertility, who would have better chances of a healthy child with IVF with single embryo transfer (IVF-SET) than with IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS)? SUMMARY ANSWER:We did not find any treatment selection markers that were associated with better chances of a healthy child with IVF-SET instead of IUI-OS in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY:A recent trial, comparing IVF-SET to IUI-OS, found no evidence of a difference between live birth rates and multiple pregnancy rates. It was suggested that IUI-OS should remain the first-line treatment instead of IVF-SET in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and female age between 18 and 38 years. The question remains whether there are some couples that may have higher pregnancy chances if treated with IVF-SET instead of IUI. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION:We performed our analyses on data from the INeS trial, where couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis for natural conception were randomly allocated to IVF-SET, IVF in a modified natural cycle or IUI-OS. In view of the aim of this study, we only used data of the comparison between IVF-SET (201 couples) and IUI-OS (207 couples). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS:We pre-defined the following baseline characteristics as potential treatment selection markers: female age, ethnicity, smoking status, type of subfertility (primary/secondary), duration of subfertility, BMI, pre-wash total motile count and Hunault prediction score. For each potential treatment selection marker, we explored the association with the chances of a healthy child after IVF-SET and IUI-OS and tested if there was an interaction with treatment. Given the exploratory nature of our analysis, we used a P-value of 0.1. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE:None of the markers were associated with higher chances of a healthy child from IVF-SET compared to IUI-OS (P-value for interaction >0.10). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION:Since this is the first large study that looked at potential treatment selection markers for IVF-SET compared to IUI-OS, we had no data on which to base a power calculation. The sample size was limited, making it difficult to detect any smaller associations. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS:We could not identify couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility who would have had higher chances of a healthy child from immediate IVF-SET than from IUI-OS. As in the original trial IUI-OS had similar effectiveness and was less costly compared to IVF-SET, IUI-OS should remain the preferred first-line treatment in these couples. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S):The study was supported by a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, and a grant from the Netherlands' association of health care insurers. There are no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:The trial was registered at the Dutch trial registry (NTR939).

STUDY QUESTION:What is the effectiveness of a multifaceted implementation strategy compared to usual care on improving the adherence to guideline recommendations on expectant management for couples with unexplained infertility?SUMMARY ANSWER:The multifaceted implementation strategy did not significantly increase adherence to guideline recommendations on expectant management compared to care as usual.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY:Intrauterine insemination (IUI) with or without ovarian hyperstimulation has no beneficial effect compared to no treatment for 6 months after the fertility work-up for couples with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis of natural conception. Therefore, various professionals and policy makers have advocated the use of prognostic profiles and expectant management in guideline recommendations.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION:A cluster randomized controlled trial in 25 clinics in the Netherlands was conducted between March 2013 and May 2014. Clinics were randomized between the implementation strategy (intervention, n = 13) and care as usual (control, n = 12). The effect of the implementation strategy was evaluated by comparing baseline and effect measurement data. Data collection was retrospective and obtained from medical record research and a patient questionnaire.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS:A total of 544 couples were included at baseline and 485 at the effect measurement (247 intervention group/238 control group).MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE:Guideline adherence increased from 49 to 69% (OR 2.66; 95% CI 1.45-4.89) in the intervention group, and from 49 to 61% (OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.38-3.00) in the control group. Multilevel analysis with case-mix adjustment showed that the difference of 8% was not statistically significant (OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.67-2.59). The ongoing pregnancy rate within six months after fertility work-up did not significantly differ between intervention and control group (25% versus 27%: OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.40-1.27).LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION:There is a possible selection bias, couples included in the study had a higher socio-economic status than non-responders. How this affects guideline adherence is unclear. Furthermore, when powering for this study we did not take into account the unexpected improvement of adherence in the control group.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS:Generalization of our results to other countries with recommendations on expectant management might be questionable because barriers for expectant management can be very different in other countries. Furthermore, due to a large variation in improved adherence rate in the intervention group it will be interesting to further analyse the process of implementation in each clinic with a process evaluation on professionals and couples' exposure to and experiences with the strategy.STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S):Supported by Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW, project number 171203005). No competing interests.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Dutch trial Register, www.trialregister.nl NTR3405.TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE:19 April 2012.DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT:10 July 2012.

Trials assessing effectiveness in medically assisted reproduction (MAR) should aim to study the desired effect over multiple cycles, as this reflects clinical practice and captures the relevant perspective for the couple. The aim of this study was to assess the extent to which multiple cycles are reported in MAR trials. A sample of randomized controlled trials (RCT) was collected on MAR, published in four time periods, in 11 pre-specified peer-reviewed journals; 253 trials were included: 196 on IVF, 37 on intrauterine insemination and 20 on ovulation induction. Forty-eight (19%) reported on multiple cycles, which was significantly more common in trials on intrauterine insemination and ovulation induction compared with trials on IVF (P < 0.01). Both trials on IVF were multi-centre trials, and those using live birth as primary outcome, reported significantly more often on multiple cycles (OR 3.7 CI 1.1 to 12.5) and (OR 8.7 CI 1.8 to 40.3), respectively. Trials designed to compare protocol variations reported multiple cycles less often (OR 0.07 CI 0.01 to 0.74). Most RCT on MAR, especially those on IVF, do not report cumulative pregnancy rates. As not all women become pregnant in their first cycle, the clinical significance of these trials is limited.

STUDY QUESTION:What is the cost-effectiveness of in vitro fertilization (IVF) with conventional ovarian stimulation, single embryo transfer (SET) and subsequent cryocycles or IVF in a modified natural cycle (MNC) compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (IUI-COH) as a first-line treatment in couples with unexplained subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis on natural conception?.SUMMARY ANSWER:Both IVF strategies are significantly more expensive when compared with IUI-COH, without being significantly more effective. In the comparison between IVF-MNC and IUI-COH, the latter is the dominant strategy. Whether IVF-SET is cost-effective depends on society's willingness to pay for an additional healthy child.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY:IUI-COH and IVF, either after conventional ovarian stimulation or in a MNC, are used as first-line treatments for couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility. As IUI-COH is less invasive, this treatment is usually offered before proceeding to IVF. Yet, as conventional IVF with SET may lead to higher pregnancy rates in fewer cycles for a lower multiple pregnancy rate, some have argued to start with IVF instead of IUI-COH. In addition, IVF in the MNC is considered to be a more patient friendly and less costly form of IVF.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION:We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized noninferiority trial. Between January 2009 and February 2012, 602 couples with unexplained infertility and a poor prognosis on natural conception were allocated to three cycles of IVF-SET including frozen embryo transfers, six cycles of IVF-MNC or six cycles of IUI-COH. These couples were followed until 12 months after randomization.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS:We collected data on resource use related to treatment, medication and pregnancy from the case report forms. We calculated unit costs from various sources. For each of the three strategies, we calculated the mean costs and effectiveness. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH and for IVF-MNC compared with IUI-COH. Nonparametric bootstrap resampling was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in our estimates.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE:There were 104 healthy children (52%) born in the IVF-SET group, 83 (43%) the IVF-MNC group and 97 (47%) in the IUI-COH group. The mean costs per couple were €7187 for IVF-SET, €8206 for IVF-MNC and €5070 for IUI-COH. Compared with IUI-COH, the costs for IVF-SET and IVF-MNC were significantly higher (mean differences €2117; 95% CI: €1544-€2657 and €3136, 95% CI: €2519-€3754, respectively).The ICER for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH was €43 375 for the birth of an additional healthy child. In the comparison of IVF-MNC to IUI-COH, the latter was the dominant strategy, i.e. more effective at lower costs.LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION:We only report on direct health care costs. The present analysis is limited to 12 months.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS:Since we found no evidence in support of offering IVF as a first-line strategy in couples with unexplained and mild subfertility, IUI-COH should remain the treatment of first choice.STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS:The study was supported by a grant from ZonMw, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, (120620027) and a grant from Zorgverzekeraars Nederland, the Netherlands' association of health care insurers (09-003).TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52843371; Nederlands Trial Register NTR939.

Objectives To compare the effectiveness of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer or in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle with that of intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in terms of a healthy child. Design Multicentre, open label, three arm, parallel group, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Setting 17 centres in the Netherlands. Participants Couples seeking fertility treatment after at least 12 months of unprotected intercourse, with the female partner aged between 18 and 38 years, an unfavourable prognosis for natural conception, and a diagnosis of unexplained or mild male subfertility. Interventions Three cycles of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer (plus subsequent cryocycles), six cycles of in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, or six cycles of intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation within 12 months after randomisation. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was birth of a healthy child resulting from a singleton pregnancy conceived within 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were live birth, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, time to pregnancy, complications of pregnancy, and neonatal morbidity and mortality Results 602 couples were randomly assigned between January 2009 and February 2012; 201 were allocated to in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer, 194 to in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, and 207 to intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Birth of a healthy child occurred in 104 (52%) couples in the in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer group, 83 (43%) in the in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle group, and 97 (47%) in the intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation group. This corresponds to a risk, relative to intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation, of 1.10 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.34) for in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer and 0.91 (0.73 to 1.14) for in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle. These 95% confidence intervals do not extend below the predefined threshold of 0.69 for inferiority. Multiple pregnancy rates per ongoing pregnancy were 6% (7/121) after in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer, 5% (5/102) after in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, and 7% (8/119) after intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation (one sided P=0.52 for in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer compared with intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation; one sided P=0.33 for in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation). Conclusions In vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer and in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle were non-inferior to intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in terms of the birth of a healthy child and showed comparable, low multiple pregnancy rates. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52843371; Nederlands Trial Register NTR939.

R.I. Tjon-Kon-Fat1, A.J. Bensdorp1, P.M.M. Bossuyt2, C. Koks3, G.J.E. Oosterhuis4, A. Hoek5, P. Hompes6, F.J. Broekmans7, H.R. Verhoeve8, J.P. de Bruin9, R. van Golde10, S. Repping1, B.J. Cohlen11, M.D.A. Lambers12, P.F. van Bommel13, E. Slappendel14, D. Perquin15, J. Smeenk16, M.J. Pelinck17, J. Gianotten18, D.A. Hoozemans19, J.W.M. Maas3, H. Groen5, M.J.C. Eijkemans20, F. van der Veen1, B.W.J. Mol21, and M. van Wely1,* Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Máxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, The Netherlands Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Vrije Universiteit Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Department for Reproductive Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, ’s Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Centre Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Isala Clinics, Zwolle, The Netherlands Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, The Netherlands Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology,Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Elisabeth Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Scheper Hospital, Emmen, The Netherlands Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Kennemer Gasthuis, Haarlem, The Netherlands Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands The Robinson Research Institute, School of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia

A previous randomized clinical trial compared immobilization for 15 min with immediate mobilization subsequent to intrauterine insemination (IUI) and showed higher ongoing pregnancy rates in couples immobilizing subsequent to IUI. The current study compared the long-term effectiveness of immobilization subsequent to IUI. All couples (n = 391) included in the trial were followed for 3 years after randomization and pregnancies and treatments were recorded. After the initial trial period, couples in both groups were offered treatment according to local protocol. The primary outcome was an ongoing pregnancy during the 3 years after the initial trial. In this time period, there were 143 ongoing pregnancies in the immobilization group (n = 199 couples) and 112 ongoing pregnancies in the immediate mobilization group (n = 192). The ongoing pregnancy rates were 72% and 58%, respectively (relative risk 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.4). The persistent significant difference in ongoing pregnancy rates underpins the importance of immobilization after IUI. There is no valid reason to withhold women from immobilizing for 15 min after IUI.