The cost-effectiveness of transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy versus hysterosalpingography in the work-up for subfertility

STUDY QUESTION

Is a strategy starting with transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy (THL) cost-effective compared to a strategy starting with hysterosalpingography (HSG) in the work-up for subfertility?

SUMMARY ANSWER

A strategy starting with THL is cost-effective compared to a strategy starting with HSG in the work-up for subfertile women.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Tubal pathology is a common cause of subfertility and tubal patency testing is one of the cornerstones of the fertility work-up. Both THL and HSG are safe procedures and can be used as a first-line tubal patency test.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This economic evaluation was performed alongside a randomized clinical trial comparing THL and HSG in 300 subfertile women, between May 2013 and October 2016. For comparisons of THL and HSG, the unit costs were split into three main categories: costs of the diagnostic procedure, costs of fertility treatments and the costs for pregnancy outcomes.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Subfertile women scheduled for tubal patency testing were eligible. Women were randomized to a strategy starting with THL or a strategy starting with HSG. The primary outcome of the study was conception leading to a live birth within 24 months after randomization. The mean costs and outcomes for each treatment group were compared. We used a non-parametric bootstrap resampling of 1000 re-samples to investigate the effect of uncertainty and we created a cost-effectiveness plane and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

We allocated 149 women to THL and 151 to HSG, and we were able to achieve complete follow-up of 142 versus 148 women, respectively. After the fertility work-up women were treated according to the Dutch guidelines and based on a previously published prognostic model. In the THL group, 83 women (58.4%) conceived a live born child within 24 months after randomization compared to 82 women (55.4%) in the HSG group (difference 3.0% (95% CI: -8.3 to 14.4)). The mean total costs per woman were lower in the THL group compared to the HSG group (THL group €4991 versus €5262 in the HSG group, mean cost difference = -€271 (95% CI -€273 to -€269)). Although the costs of only the diagnostic procedure were higher in the THL group, in the HSG group more women underwent diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopies and also had higher costs for fertility treatments.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Our trial was conducted in women with a low risk of tubal pathology; therefore, the results of our study are not generalizable to women with high risk of tubal pathology. Furthermore, this economic analysis was based on the Dutch healthcare system, and possibly our results are not generalizable to countries with different strategies or costs for fertility treatments.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

After 2 years of follow-up, we found a live birth rate of 58.4% in the THL group versus 55.4% in the HSG group and a lower mean cost per woman in the THL group, with a cost difference of -€271. The findings of our trial suggest that a strategy starting with THL is cost-effective compared to a strategy starting with HSG in the workup for subfertile women. However, the cost difference between the two diagnostic strategies is limited compared to the total cost per woman in our study and before implementing THL as a first-line strategy for tubal patency testing, more research in other fields, such as patient preference and acceptance, is necessary.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The authors received no external financial support for the research. B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator Grant (GNT1176437). B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA, Guerbet. B.W.J.M. reports receiving travel support from Merck KGaA. C.T.P. reports consultancy for Guerbet, outside of this manuscript. All other authors have no conflicts to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR3462.

P–468 Fertility-related quality of life in subfertile women undergoing transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy versus hysterosalpingography as a first-line tubal patency test

Study question

Is there a difference in fertility-related quality of life (QoL) in subfertile women undergoing transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy (THL) versus hysterosalpingography (HSG) as a first-line tubal-patency test?

Summary answer

In subfertile women undergoing first-line tubal patency testing, THL and HSG resulted in comparable fertility-related QoL.

What is known already

Both subfertility itself and subfertility treatment can have a significant impact on QoL. Tubal patency testing as part of fertility work-up is also known as a potential stressor. Pain scores for THL are significantly lower than for HSG (VAS 4.7 vs 5.4 ;

SD: 2.5, p 0.038), but acceptability of the procedures was found to be comparable. Fertility-related QoL has not yet been studied in women undergoing tubal patency testing.

Study design, size, duration

We used data from a randomised clinical trial performed in 4 Dutch teaching hospitals, NTR3462. Between May 2013 and October 2016, we randomly assigned 300 subfertile women to THL or HSG with live birth as primary outcome. We performed a standardized questionnaire study as part of a randomised controlled trial comparing THL and HSG in the work-up for subfertility.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

Women were eligible if they were undergoing a fertility work-up with an indication for evaluation of tubal patency testing. Fertility-related QoL was measured six weeks after the procedure with the validated FertiQoL questionnaire, which produces a Core (total) score and four subscale domains: Emotional, Relational, Social, and Mind-Body. FertiQoL scores for the Core score and subscales between THL and HSG were compared using Mann-Whitney-U test and multiple linear regression analysis.

Main results and the role of chance

We allocated 149 women to THL and 151 to HSG. The questionnaire was completed by 84 women in the THL group (response rate 56%) and 96 women in the HSG group (response rate 64%). Core scores were 74.6 ±12.8 for THL and 73.4 ±12.4 for HSG (p = 0.39). Scores for the Emotional domain were 64.5 ±19.0 for THL versus 66.0 ±16.3 (p = 0.67) for HSG. Scores for the ‘Mind-body’ domain for THL were 76.9 ±15.6 versus 74.1 ±18.0 for HSG (p = 0.42), scores for the Relational domain were 79.2 ±12.9 for THL and 76.9 ±15.6 for HSG (p = 0.21). Scores for the Social domain for THL were 77.9 ±15.1 versus 76.7±14.1, (p = 0.42). The optional ‘Treatment FertiQol’ was completed by 156 women. Total scores were 77.5 ±12.1 for THL versus 73.8 ±13.1 (p = 0.08) for HSG. The multiple linear regression analysis showed only a statistical significant positive effect of higher age on the score for the Emotional domain (B:0.90, p = 0.015).

Limitations, reasons for caution

One of the main limitations of this study was a response rate of 60%. Although this is considered an acceptable rate within questionnaire research, this could lead to selection bias.

Wider implications of the findings: In subfertile women, tubal patency testing with THL versus HSG did not result in differences in fertility-related QoL.

Trial registration number

NTR3462

IVF or IUI as first-line treatment in unexplained subfertility: the conundrum of treatment selection markers

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).

Effectiveness of lifestyle intervention in subgroups of obese infertile women: a subgroup analysis of a RCT

STUDY QUESTION

Do age, ovulatory status, severity of obesity and body fat distribution affect the effectiveness of lifestyle intervention in obese infertile women?

SUMMARY ANSWER

We did not identify a subgroup in which lifestyle intervention increased the healthy live birth rate however it did increase the natural conception rate in anovulatory obese infertile women.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Obese women are at increased risk of infertility and are less likely to conceive after infertility treatment. We previously demonstrated that a 6-month lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment did not increase the rate of healthy live births (vaginal live birth of a healthy singleton at term) within 24 months of follow-up as compared to prompt infertility treatment in obese infertile women. Natural conceptions occurred more frequently in women who received a 6-month lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This is a secondary analysis of a multicentre RCT (randomized controlled trial), the LIFEstyle study. Between 2009 and 2012, 577 obese infertile women were randomly assigned to a 6-month lifestyle intervention followed by infertility treatment (intervention group) or to prompt infertility treatment (control group). Subgroups were predefined in the study protocol, based on frequently used cut-off values in the literature: age (≥36 or <36 years), ovulatory status (anovulatory or ovulatory), BMI (≥35 or <35 kg/m²) and waist-hip (WH) ratio (≥0.8 or <0.8).

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Data of 564 (98%) randomized women who completed follow-up were analyzed. We studied the effect of the intervention program in various subgroups on healthy live birth rate within 24 months, as well as the rate of overall live births (live births independent of gestational age, mode of delivery and health) and natural conceptions within 24 months. Live birth rates included pregnancies resulting from both treatment dependent and natural conceptions. Logistic regression models with randomization group, subgroup and the interaction between randomization group and subgroup were used. Significant interaction was defined as a P-value <0.1.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Neither maternal age, ovulatory status nor BMI had an impact on the healthy live birth rate within 24 months, nor did they influence the overall live birth rate within 24 months after randomization. WH ratio showed a significant interaction with the effect of lifestyle intervention on healthy live birth rate (P = 0.05), resulting in a lower healthy live birth rate in women with a WH ratio <0.8. WH ratio had no interaction regarding overall live birth rate (P = 0.27) or natural conception rate (P = 0.38). In anovulatory women, the effect of lifestyle intervention resulted in more natural conceptions compared to ovulatory women (P-value for interaction = 0.02). There was no interaction between other subgroups and the effect of the intervention on the rate of natural conception.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Since this was a subgroup analysis of a RCT and sample size determination of the trial was based on the primary outcome of the study, the study was not powered for analyses of all subgroups.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Our finding that lifestyle intervention leads to increased natural conception in anovulatory obese women could be used in the counselling of these women, but requires further research using an appropriately powered study in order to confirm this result.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

The study was supported by a grant from ZonMw, the Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development (50-50110-96-518). The Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the UMCG received an unrestricted educational grant from Ferring pharmaceuticals BV, The Netherlands. Ben Mol is a consultant for ObsEva, Geneva. Annemieke Hoek received a speaker's fee for a postgraduate education from MSD pharmaceutical company, outside the submitted work.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The LIFEstyle study was registered at the Dutch trial registry (NTR 1530).

Prevention of multiple pregnancies in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility: randomised controlled trial of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer or in vitro fertilisation in modified natural cycle compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation

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.

Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic electrocautery of the ovaries versus ovulation induction with recombinant FSH in clomiphene citrate-resistant women with polycystic ovary syndrome: an economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic electrocautery of the ovaries and ovulation induction with gonadotrophins are both second line treatments for women with clomiphene citrate-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Long-term follow-up after electrocautery versus ovulation induction with gonadotrophins has demonstrated at least comparable chances for a first live born child with a reduced need for ovulation induction or assisted reproduction treatment and increased chances for a second live born child. In this study, we report on the long-term economic consequences of both treatment modalities.

METHODS

Between February 1998 and October 2001, we performed a multi-centre randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing a strategy of laparoscopic electrocautery of the ovaries, followed by clomiphene citrate and gonadotrophins when anovulation persisted, and a strategy of ovulation induction with gonadotrophins in women with clomiphene citrate-resistant PCOS. Eight to twelve years after randomization we performed a follow-up study on reproductive outcome in these women and the fertility treatments they had needed including data on direct medical costs of pregnancy and delivery. Clinical data included number of treatment cycles, live births, miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies and multiple pregnancies. We calculated mean costs per woman after randomization until the first live birth. Confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by bootstrapping.

RESULTS

We obtained data for an economic analysis on 159 of the 168 randomized women (95%). In total, 71 of 83 women (86%) allocated to the electrocautery strategy and 69 of 85 women (81%) allocated to the gonadotrophin strategy had at least one live birth. Given the equivalence between the two treatment strategies in terms of a first live birth-the primary outcome measure-our analysis focused on the cost difference between the two strategies within a mean follow-up time of 8-12 years. The mean costs per first live birth after randomization were €11 176 (95% CI: €9689-€12 549) for the electrocautery group and €14 423 (95% CI: €12 239-€16 606) for the recombinant FSH group, resulting in significantly lower costs (P < 0.05) per first live birth for women allocated to the electrocautery group (mean difference €3247; 95% CI: €650-€5814).

CONCLUSION

In women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS, laparoscopic electrocautery of the ovaries results in significantly lower costs per live birth than ovulation induction with gonadotrophins for an at least equal effectiveness.

[Diagnostic image (336). A woman with a calcified pelvic mass]

In a 34-year-old woman with uterine fibroids, one of the fibroids was calcified and was therefore visible on a conventional radiograph.

[Laparoscopic electrocoagulation of the ovaries prior to in vitro fertilization in two females with polycystic ovary syndrome]

A 32-year-old woman with oligomenorrhoea/amenorrhoea and a 30-year-old woman with oligomenorrhoea as a result of the polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), with an active desire for children, were considered eligible for in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) because the semen of their partners was of inferior quality. However, the patients' polycystic ovaries proved to be difficult to stimulate. There was either no response to stimulation with gonadotropins or an excessive response, as a result of which treatment had to be stopped prematurely. However, when laparoscopic ovarian electrocautery was done and a stimulation cycle was subsequently started, adequate and controlled stimulation of the ovaries turned out to be quite possible in both cases. Afterwards, a follicle aspiration could be performed with success and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) was carried out. Embryo transfer resulted in pregnancy only in the first patient. This procedure, which has never been described before in the Dutch literature, might also be effective in other women with PCOS who are eligible for IVF.

Apoptosis in human ejaculated spermatozoa

After the introduction of assays determining apoptosis in human ejaculated spermatozoa, several studies have been published about the relationship between apoptosis in spermatozoa and semen quality. Apoptosis in spermatozoa is significantly correlated with conventional semen quality parameters, but also with the outcome of assisted reproductive techniques. The apoptotic process is probably set in motion before ejaculation. Determining apoptosis in spermatozoa can improve selection criteria in assisted reproduction.