Abstract STUDY QUESTIONS The primary objective is to investigate if continuous use of oral contraceptives is non-inferior compared to long-term pituitary desensitization with a GnRH agonist prior to IVF/ICSI in patients with moderate to severe endometriosis with regard to treatment efficacy. Secondary objectives concern treatment safety and cost-effectiveness. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Long-term pituitary desensitization with a GnRH agonist for 3–6 months prior to IVF/ICSI improves clinical pregnancy rates in women suffering from endometriosis. However, discussion about this treatment strategy exists because of its uncomfortable side effects. Alternatively, IVF/ICSI pre-treatment with continuously administered oral contraceptives may offer fewer side-effects and lower (in)direct costs, as well as encouraging IVF outcomes in women with endometriosis. To date, these two different IVF/ICSI pre-treatment strategies in women with endometriosis have not been directly compared. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION An open-label, parallel two-arm randomized controlled multicenter trial is planned, including patients with moderate to severe endometriosis. To demonstrate an absolute difference of 13% (delta of 10% with non-inferiority margin of 3%) with a power of 80% 137 patients per group are sufficient. Taking into account a withdrawal of patients of 10% and a cancelation rate of embryo transfer after ovarian pick up of 10% (for instance due to fertilization failure), the sample size calculation is rounded off to 165 patients per group; 330 patients in total will be included. After informed consent, eligible patients will be randomly allocated to the intervention or reference group by using web based block randomization stratified per centre. Study inclusion is expected to be complete in 3–5 years. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The research population consists of patients with moderate to severe endometriosis (ASRM III/IV) who are scheduled for their first, second or third IVF/ICSI treatment attempt. Women aged over 41 years, younger than 18 years, with a known contraindication for the use of oral contraceptives and/or GnRH agonists or with severe male factor infertility will be excluded from participation. After informed consent patients are allocated to the intervention group (one-phase oral contraceptive continuously during three subsequent months) or the reference group (three Leuprorelin 3.75 mg i.m./s.c. depot injections during three subsequent months). Tibolon 2.5 mg can be given daily as add-back therapy in the reference group. After 3 months of pre-treatment the IVF/ICSI stimulation phase will be started. The primary outcome is live birth rate after fresh embryo transfer. Secondary outcomes are cumulative live birth rate after one IVF/ICSI treatment cycle (including fresh and frozen embryo transfers up to 15 months after randomization), ongoing pregnancy rate and time to pregnancy. In addition, treatment outcome parameters, adverse events, side-effects during the first 3 months, complications, recurrence of endometriosis (complaints), quality of life, patient preferences, safety and costs effectiveness will be reported. Measurements will be performed at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 months after randomization. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(s) All authors have no conflict of interest related to this manuscript. The department of reproductive medicine of the Amsterdam UMC location VUmc has received several research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring not related to the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER The trial is registered as the COPIE trial (Continuous use of Oral contraceptives as an alternative for long-term Pituitary desensitization with a GnRH agonist prior to IVF/ICSI in Endometriosis patients) in the Dutch Trial Register (Ref. No. NTR6357, http://www.trialregister.nl). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 16 March 2017. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT Enrollment is planned for November 2018.

RESEARCH QUESTION:Hysterosalpingography (HSG) with an oil-based contrast has been shown to increase ongoing pregnancy rates compared with HSG with water-based contrast, but it remains unclear if an effect of HSG occurs compared with no HSG.DESIGN:A secondary data-analysis of a prospective cohort study among 4556 couples that presented with unexplained subfertility in 38 clinics in the Netherlands between January 2002 and December 2004. A time-varying Cox regression with inverse probability of treatment weighing was used to analyse ongoing pregnancy rates in women after undergoing the HSG procedure (with the use of either water- or oil-based contrast media) compared with women who did not undergo HSG.RESULTS:The probability of natural conception within 24 months after first presentation at the fertility clinic was increased after HSG, regardless of the type of contrast medium used, compared with no HSG (adjusted hazard ratio 1.48, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.73, corresponding to an absolute increase in 6-month pregnancy rate of +6%). When this analysis was limited to HSGs that were made with water-contrast, the treatment effect remained (adjusted hazard ratio 1.40, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.70).CONCLUSIONS:HSG increases the ongoing pregnancy rate of couples with unexplained subfertility compared with no HSG, regardless of the contrast medium used. Results need to be validated in future, preferably randomized, studies.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the treatment preferences of women with normogonadotrophic anovulation treated with ovulation induction with or without intrauterine insemination (IUI)?SUMMARY ANSWER: Women with normogonadotrophic anovulation differ in their treatment preference; half of them base their preference on the lowest burden and half of them on the highest effectiveness.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Common treatments for anovulatory women who wish to conceive are ovulation induction using clomiphene citrate or letrozole taken in tablet form or with injections containing gonadotrophins, all optionally combined with IUI. Patient preferences for these alternatives have not yet been examined in these women.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, AND DURATION: Between August 2014 and February 2017 we conducted a multicentre discrete choice experiment (DCE). The target sample size was calculated by including 20 women for six attributes in the main analysis resulting in the inclusion of 120 women to be able to assess heterogeneity across choices.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We invited treatment-naive women diagnosed with normogonadotropic anovulation and visiting the outpatient clinic of five Dutch centers (three teaching hospitals and two university hospitals) to participate in the DCE by completing a printed questionnaire. We asked women to indicate their preference in hypothetical alternative treatment scenarios by offering a series of choice sets from which they were to choose their preferred alternatives. The choice sets contained several treatment characteristics of interest, i.e. attributes concerning ovulation induction with clomiphene citrate or letrozole versus gonadotrophins, as well as intercourse and IUI. We selected six attributes: number of visits to the outpatient clinic during treatment; type of medication; intercourse or IUI; risk of side effects; willingness to pay; and pregnancy chances leading to the birth of a child after six treatment cycles.We used a multinominal logit model to determine the preferences of women and investigated heterogeneity in preferences through latent class analysis. To determine if women were willing to make a trade-off for higher pregnancy rates at the expense of a higher burden, we calculated the marginal rate of substitution.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The questionnaire was completed by 145 women. All six attributes influenced women's treatment preferences and those valued as most important were low risk of side effects, a minimal number of hospital visits and intercourse. A total of 55% of women were driven by the wish to conceive with the least medical interference and lowest burden. The remaining women were success driven and chose mainly for the highest chances to conceive, regardless of the burden. Age and duration of subfertility did not significantly differ between these women. Women were willing to trade-off some burden and costs for higher pregnancy chances.LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The sample size of our study is relatively small which made it not possible to perform interaction tests and subgroup analyses.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our results may be used during the counseling of couples about their treatment options. These findings are an argument to explore if a woman prefers potentially fast success or a medically less intense route that might take longer. The preference for the less intense route would lead to the continuation of ovulation induction with oral drugs such as clomiphene citrate or letrozole rather than treatment with injected gonadotrophins, or even IVF.

STUDY QUESTION:Is pre-ovulatory endometrial thickness (EMT) in women with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with ovarian stimulation (OS) associated with pregnancy chances? SUMMARY ANSWER:We found no evidence for an association between EMT and pregnancy chances. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY:It has been suggested that OS with clomiphene citrate (CC) results in a lower EMT than with gonadotrophins or aromatase inhibitors, but the clinical consequences in terms of pregnancy are unclear. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION:We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing CC, gonadotrophins or aromatase inhibitors in an IUI program reporting on EMT and pregnancy rates in women with unexplained subfertility. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS:We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the non-MEDLINE subset of PubMed from inception to 28th June 2016 and cross-checked references of relevant articles. Outcome measures were clinical pregnancy rate and mean pre-ovulatory EMT. We calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs with a fixed effect model, and in case of heterogeneity with an I2 > 50% a random effect model. We performed a meta-regression analysis to determine if stimulating drugs interacted with the estimated effect of EMT. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE:Our search retrieved 1563 articles of which 23 were included, totaling 3846 women. There were 17 RCTs and 6 cohort studies. The average study quality was low and there was considerable to substantial statistical heterogeneity. Seven studies provided data on EMT in relation to pregnancy. There was no evidence of a difference in EMT between women who conceived and women that did not conceive (1525 women, MDrandom: 0.51 mm, 95% CI: -0.05 to 1.07). Women treated with CC had a significantly thinner EMT than women treated with gonadotrophins (two studies, MD: -0.33, 95% CI: -0.64 to -0.01). There was no evidence of a difference in EMT when comparing CC with letrozole (five studies, MDrandom: -0.84, 95% CI: -1.97 to 0.28). The combination of CC plus gonadotrophins resulted in a slightly thinner endometrium than letrozole (nine studies, MDrandom: -0.79, 95% CI: -1.37 to -0.20). Letrozole resulted in a thinner EMT than gonadotrophins (two studies, MDrandom: -1.31, 95% CI: -2.08 to -0.53). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION:The overall quality of the included studies was low to moderate. We found considerable to substantial heterogeneity in the comparisons, hampering firm conclusions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS:We found no evidence for an association between EMT and pregnancy rates during IUI -OS. As a consequence, canceling IUI cycles because of a thin endometrial lining may negatively affect clinical care. Although we found some evidence for very small differences in EMT when comparing various drugs, we cannot make inferences on their effect on pregnancy chances since these differences may be coincidental. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S):None. REGISTRATION NUMBER:N/A.

STUDY QUESTIONDoes hysteroscopic proximal tubal occlusion by intratubal devices as a treatment for hydrosalpinges result in comparable ongoing pregnancy rates following IVF/ICSI when compared with laparoscopic salpingectomy?SUMMARY ANSWERHysteroscopic proximal tubal occlusion by intratubal devices is inferior to laparoscopic salpingectomy in the treatment of hydrosalpinges in women undergoing IVF/ICSI with respect to ongoing pregnancy rates.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADYIt is known that women with hydrosalpinges undergoing IVF have poorer pregnancy outcomes compared with women with other forms of tubal infertility. In these women, both laparoscopic salpingectomy and laparoscopic proximal tubal ligation are known to improve IVF outcomes. At present, it is unclear whether a less-invasive hysteroscopic treatment with intratubal devices leads to similar ongoing pregnancy rates following IVF when compared with laparoscopic salpingectomy.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATIONA two-centre, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Between October 2009 and December 2014 a total of 85 women were included in this study; of whom, 42 were randomized to hysteroscopic proximal occlusion by intratubal device placement and 43 were randomized to laparoscopic salpingectomy. Randomization was based on a computer-generated randomization list. The study was unblinded. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy rate, defined as a fetal heartbeat on ultrasound beyond 10-week gestation following one IVF/ICSI treatment (fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfers).PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODSWe studied women aged 18-41 years, with uni- or bilateral ultrasound visible hydrosalpinges who were scheduled for an IVF/ICSI treatment.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCEThe ongoing pregnancy rates per patient according to the intention-to-treat principle were 11/42 (26.2%) after hysteroscopic proximal occlusion by intratubal devices (intervention group) versus 24/43 (55.8%) after laparoscopic salpingectomy (control group) (P = 0.008) [absolute difference: 26.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.5-51.7, relative risk (RR): 0.56; 95% CI: 0.31-1.03, P = 0.01]. In the per protocol analysis, the ongoing pregnancy rate per patient following hysteroscopic proximal occlusion by intratubal devices was 9/27 (33.3%) compared with 19/32 (59.4%) following laparoscopic salpingectomy (P = 0.067) (absolute difference: 29.6%; 95% CI: 7.1 to 49.1, RR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.27-0.83, P = 0.062).LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTIONMasking participants and investigators would be difficult due to the nature of both interventions. Since we had objective outcome measurements, we withheld sham procedures, leaving the study unblinded. Furthermore, our low sample size resulted in wide CIs. A larger sample size would result in a more accurate treatment effect; however, this was non-feasible for recruitment and inclusion.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGSIn the treatment of hydrosalpinges prior to IVF/ICSI, hysteroscopic proximal occlusion by intratubal devices is inferior to laparoscopic salpingectomy.STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTSThe intratubal devices were received from Conceptus, Inc., San Carlos, CA, USA, which was acquired by Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Whippany, NJ, USA in 2013. Conceptus, Inc./Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. had no role in the study design, data collection and analyses, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. The study as a whole was funded by the SWOG (foundation for scientific investigation in obstetrics and gynaecology of the VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands). P.G.A.H. has received non-financial support from Conceptus, Inc. during the conduct of this study. He has received grants from Ferring B.V., Merck Serono and Abbott outside the submitted work. M.H.E. has received personal fees from Smith and Nephew and IQ Medical Ventures outside the submitted work.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERThe Dutch Trial Register: NTR 2073.TRIAL REGISTRATION DATEOctober 21, 2009.DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENTOctober 26, 2009.

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.

Background: Breast cancer risk is temporarily increased after a full-term pregnancy and declines thereafter, possibly due to increased levels of gonadal and placental hormones during pregnancy. Inconsistent results, however, have been reported after twin pregnancies with higher hormone levels. Among women treated with in vitro fertilisation (IVF), for whom the number of embryos available for implantation is known, we recently observed that a multiple birth after implantation of all transferred embryos is associated with higher levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). As VEGF is involved in breast cancer progression, we studied the effects of embryo implantation and a multiple birth on breast cancer risk in a nationwide Dutch cohort of IVF-treated women.Methods: We performed a cohort analysis among 12,589 women who had been treated with IVF between 1983 and 1995 and completed a risk factor questionnaire between 1997 and 1999. Data on IVF treatment were obtained from medical records. Breast cancer cases were ascertained through linkage with the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry. Breast cancer risks associated with singleton and multiple births were estimated with Cox regression.Findings: There were 1688 women (13.4%) with multiples, 6027 (47.9%) with singletons and 4874 (38.7%) nulliparous women. Breast cancer occurred in 317 women of whom 57 had multiples. Breast cancer risk was 1.44 times higher in mothers of multiples than in mothers of singletons (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06-1.97). Risk was highest in women who gave birth to multiples from all embryos transferred (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.86, 95% CI 1.01-3.43), and lower for those with multiples after incomplete embryo implantation (adjusted HR 1.31, 95% CI 0.76-2.25).Interpretation: A woman's potential to implant all transferred embryos may be associated with breast cancer risk. Further research is needed to confirm our results and to identify the underlying biological mechanisms. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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.

Although the prevailing opinion is that emotional processes are influenced by sex hormones, the literature is still inconclusive. The aim of the current study was to examine the effects of gonadal suppression on brain activity during affective picture processing. Twenty-one female-to-male (FtM) transsexuals and 19 control women were recruited and underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging scanning while rating emotional pictures adapted from the International Affective Picture System. The gonadal hormone production of the FtMs was suppressed for 8 weeks, the control group did not receive any treatment before scanning. Under gonadal suppression, FtMs showed less brain activation in the superior temporal lobe compared with female controls during perception of positive affective pictures. Regression analysis showed that during processing of positive affective images, brain activity within the right superior temporal lobe was not correlated with levels of estradiol, luteinizing hormone, and follicle-stimulating hormone. In the absence of associations with hormonal levels, the difference in activation in the superior temporal lobe during positive emotional stimuli between FtMs and control women may be attributed to a priori differences between the 2 groups. Future studies should clarify if these differences are a result of atypical sexual differentiation of the brain in FtMs.

BACKGROUND: At present, it is unclear which treatment strategy is best for couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility. We hypothesized that the prognostic profile influences the effectiveness of assisted conception. We addressed this issue by analysing individual patient data (IPD) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).METHODS: We performed an IPD analysis of published RCTs on treatment strategies for subfertile couples. Eligible studies were identified from Cochrane systematic reviews and we also searched Medline and EMBASE. The authors of RCTs that compared expectant management (EM), intracervical insemination (ICI), intrauterine insemination (IUI), all three with or without controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and IVF in couples with unexplained or male subfertility, and had reported live birth or ongoing pregnancy as an outcome measure, were invited to share their data. For each individual patient the chance of natural conception wascalculated with a validated prognostic model. We constructed prognosis-bytreatment curves and tested whether there was a significant interaction between treatment and prognosis.RESULTS: We acquired data from 8 RCTs, including 2550 couples. In three studies (n = 954) the more invasive treatment strategies tended to be less effective in couples with a high chance of natural conception but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P-value for interaction between prognosis and treatment outcome were 0.71, 0.31 and 0.19). In one study (n = 932 couples) the strategies withCOS(ICI and IUI) led to higher pregnancy rates than unstimulated strategies (ICI 8% versus 15%, IUI 13% versus 22%), regardless of prognosis (P-value for interaction in all comparisons >0.5), but at the expense of a high twin rate in the COS strategies (ICI 6% versus 23% and IUI 3% versus 30%, respectively). In two studies (n = 373 couples), the more invasive treatment strategies tended to be more effective in couples with a good prognosis but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P-value for interaction: 0.38 and 0.68). In one study (n = 253 couples) the differential effect of prognosis on treatment effect was limited (P-value for interaction 0.52), perhaps because prognosis was incorporated in the inclusion criteria. The only study that compared EM with IVF included 38 couples, too small for a precise estimate.CONCLUSIONS: In this IPD analysis of couples with unexplained or male subfertility, we did not find a large differential effect of prognosis on the effectiveness of fertility treatment with IUI, COS or IVF.

Study question: Does the type of medium used to culture fresh and frozen-thawed embryos influence neonatal birthweight after single embryo transfer (SET) in IVF? Summary answer: A comparison of two commercially available culture media showed no significant influence on mean birthweight and mean birthweight adjusted for gestational age, gender and parity (z-scores) of singletons born after a fresh or frozen-thawed SET. Furthermore, we show that embryo freezing and thawing may lead to a significantly higher mean birthweight. What is known and what this paper adds: Animal studies have shown that culture media constituents are responsible for changes in birthweight of offspring. In human IVF, there is still little knowledge of the effect of medium type on birthweight. Until now, only a small number of commercially available culture media have been investigated (Vitrolife, Cook® Medical and IVF online medium). Our study adds new information: it has a larger population of singleton births compared to the previously published studies, it includes outcomes of other media types (HTF and Sage®), not previously analysed, and it includes data on frozen-thawed SETs. Design: This study was a retrospective analysis of birthweights of singleton newborns after fresh (day 3) or frozen-thawed (day 5) SET cycles, using embryos cultured in either of two different types of commercially available culture media, between 2008 and 2011. Participants and setting: Before January 2009, a single-step culture medium was used: human tubal fluid (HTF) with 4 mg/ml human serum albumin (HSA). From January 2009 onwards, a commercially available sequential medium was introduced: Sage®, Quinn's advantage protein plus medium. Singletons born after a fresh SET (99 embryos cultured in HTF and 259 in Sage®) and singletons born after a frozen-thawed SET (32 embryos cultured in HTF only, 41 in HTF and Sage® and 86 in Sage® only) were analysed. Only patients using autologous gametes without the use of a gestational carrier were considered. Also excluded were: (vanishing) twins, triplets, babies with congenital or chromosomal abnormalities and babies born before 22 weeks of gestation. Main results and the role of chance: Analysis of 358 singletons born after a fresh SET and 159 singletons born after a frozen–thawed SET showed no significant difference between the HTF and Sage® groups in terms of birthweight. Gestational age, parity and gender of the baby were significantly related to birthweight in multiple linear regression analyses, and other possible confounding factors included maternal age, BMI and smoking, the number …

STUDY QUESTIONWhich reproductive endocrine changes are attributed exclusively to laparoscopic ovarian drilling in polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS)?SUMMARY ANSWERLaser evaporation-specific endocrine effects were the prevention of an immediate increase in inhibin B and a sustained decrease in testosterone, androstenedione and anti-Müllarian hormone (AMH).WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADYAll ovarian drilling procedures result in reproductive endocrine changes. It is not known which of these changes are the result of ovarian drilling and which are related to the surgery per se.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATIONThis prospective controlled study was performed at an outpatient academic fertility clinic. Between 2007 and 2010, a total of 21 oligo- or amenorrheic PCOS patients were included.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODSIncluded were oligo- or amenorrheic PCOS patients with all three of the Rotterdam criteria and luteinizing hormone (LH) >6.5 U/l. All PCOS patients had an indication for diagnostic surgery due to subfertility. There were 12 PCOS patients who chose to undergo ovarian laser evaporation (CO2 laser, 25 W, 20 times/ovary) and 9 PCOS who chose a diagnostic laparoscopy only (controls). Reproductive endocrinology was measured before, and until 5 days after, surgery, and four gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) 'double pulse' tests were included. The main outcome measures were changes in reproductive endocrinology and pituitary sensitivity/priming to GnRH after laser evaporation compared with diagnostic laparoscopy only.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCEIn the first hours after surgery, both groups showed an increase in LH, follicle stimulating hormone, estrogen and a decrease in testosterone, androstenedione, AMH and insulin growth factor-1 (P < 0.05). Inhibin B increased in the laparoscopy only group (P < 0.05). In the first days after surgery, testosterone, androstenedione and AMH remained at lower than baseline levels exclusively in the laser group (P < 0.05). Pituitary sensitivity/priming to GnRH was not altered after either laser evaporation or laparoscopy only.LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTIONThe limitations of this study are the short follow-up period and the relatively small groups.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGSThe strength of this study is the integrally measured endocrine profiles in combination with an optimal control group of PCOS patients undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy only. Interestingly, most of the immediate endocrine changes after laser evaporation could be related to the surgical context and not to the ovarian drilling procedure itself.STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTSThe study was funded by the Foundation of Scientific Research in Obstetrics and Gynaecology and the study medication, Lutrelef, was donated by Ferring, The Netherlands, Hoofdorphe There were no conflicts of interests mentioned by the authors.

STUDY QUESTIONWhat is the value of embryo selection by metabolomic profiling of culture medium with near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy as an adjunct to morphology, compared with embryo selection by morphology alone, based on an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPD MA)?SUMMARY ANSWERThe IPD MA indicates that the live birth rate after embryo selection by NIR spectroscopy and morphology is not significantly different compared with the live birth rate after embryo selection by morphology alone.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADYRetrospective proof of principle studies has consistently shown that high NIR viability scores are correlated with a high implantation potential of embryos. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have generally shown no benefit of the NIR technology over embryo morphology, although there have been some conflicting results between pregnancy outcomes on different days of embryo transfer.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATIONThis IPD MA included all existing RCTs (n = 4) in which embryo selection by morphology was compared with embryo selection by morphology and the use of NIR spectroscopy of spent embryo culture medium by the Viametrics-E(™).PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODSSearches of PubMed, the Cochrane Library and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry were conducted and the sole manufacturer of the Viametrics-E(™) was consulted to identify clinics where an RCT comparing embryo selection by morphology to embryo selection by morphology and the use of the Viametrics-E(™) (NIR viability score) was performed. A total of 20 citations were potentially eligible for inclusion, two of which met the inclusion criteria. The manufacturer of the Viametrics-E(™) provided two additional clinical sites of use. In total, four RCTs were identified as eligible for inclusion. The IPD MA was based on a fixed effect model due to the lack of heterogeneity between included studies. Differences between study groups were tested and reported using logistic regression models adjusted for significant confounders. The pooled analysis of the primary outcome led to a total sample size of 924 patients: 484 patients in the control group (embryo selection by morphology alone) and 440 patients in the treatment group (embryo selection by morphology plus NIR spectroscopy).MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCEThe live birth rates in the control group and the NIR group were 34.7% (168 of 484) and 33.2% (146 of 440), respectively. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was 0.98 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-1.29], indicating no difference in live birth rates between the two study groups. The data of the four studies showed no significant heterogeneity (I(2) = 26.2% P = 0.26). The multivariate regression analysis including all confounders show that maternal age (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.87-0.94) and the number of previous IVF cycles (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71-0.96) were significantly related to live birth. The study group (i.e. embryo selection by morphology or embryo selection by morphology plus NIR) was not related to live birth (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.73-1.29).LIMITATIONS AND REASONS FOR CAUTIONThe availability of at least two similar best quality embryos as an inclusion criterion prior to transfer in the two largest RCTs might have caused a selection bias towards a better prognosis patient group.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGSThere is at present no evidence that NIR spectroscopy of spent embryo culture media in its current form can be used in daily practice to improve live birth rates.

What is the effectiveness of continued treatment with clomiphene citrate (CC) in women with World Health Organization (WHO) type II anovulation who have had at least six ovulatory cycles with CC but did not conceive?When women continued CC after six treatment cycles, the cumulative incidence rate of the ongoing pregnancy rate was 54% (95% CI 37-78%) for cycles 7-12.If women with WHO type II anovulation fail to conceive with CC within six ovulatory cycles, guidelines advise switching to gonadotrophins, which have a high risk of multiple gestation and are expensive. It is however not clear what success rate could be achieved by continued treatment with CC.We performed a retrospective cohort study of women with WHO II anovulation who visited the fertility clinics of five hospitals in the Netherlands between 1994 and 2010. We included women treated with CC who had had at least six ovulatory cycles without successful conception (n = 114) after which CC was continued using dosages varying from 50 to 150 mg per day for 5 days.Follow-up was a total of 12 treatment cycles. Primary outcome was the cumulative incidence rate of an ongoing pregnancy at the end of treatment.We recruited 114 women that had ovulated on CC for at least six cycles but had not conceived. Of these 114 women, 35 (31%) had an ongoing pregnancy resulting in a cumulative incidence rate of an ongoing pregnancy of 54% after 7-12 treatment cycles with CC.Limitations of our study are its retrospective approach.Randomized trials comparing continued treatment with CC with the relatively established second line treatment with gonadotrophins are justified. In the meantime, we suggest to only begin this less convenient and more expensive treatment for women who do not conceive after 12 ovulatory cycles with CC.None.Not applicable.

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.