P-639 A randomised controlled trial comparing intrauterine-insemination or expectant management in couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception: impact on coital frequency

Study question

Is coital frequency (CF) influenced by intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) or expectant management in couples diagnosed with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis?

Summary answer

Couples allocated to expectant management had a higher CF than those allocated to IUI-OS. We found no evidence for associations with live birth.

What is known already

In couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, IUI-OS is generally first line treatment. Not much is known about the CF of these couples and to what extend they are still trying to conceive naturally and whether allocation to treatment or no treatment has an influence on CF. It is often postulated that the effect of IUI-OS might be derived from replacing coitus, especially in couples with longstanding subfertility i.e., over 24 months. Keeping a sex diary can provide insight on this.

Study design, size, duration

We performed a multicentre randomised-controlled-trial in couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis of conceiving naturally within one year. The couples were allocated in a 1:1 ratio to six months IUI-OS or six months expectant management. CF was assessed with diaries on moment of coitus in relation to the menstrual cycle. We intended to include 1091 couples but after almost 4 years, the study was stopped due to slow inclusion and lack of funding.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

We recruited 178 women; 86 women were assigned IUI-OS and 92 women expectant management. All participating Dutch-reading women were eligible for the online diaries (CASTOREDC). We defined the fertile window as 7 days before and 2 days after the estimated ovulation date for all cycles. We used the Mann Whitney U test for differences in CF and timing and logistic regression for the estimated association with live birth, adjusting for cycle number and treatment allocation.

Main results and the role of chance

After IUI-OS 28/86 women (33%) had a live birth and 12/92 (13%) after expectant management, yielding a relative risk of 2.5 (90%CI 1.49 to 4.17). Of the 178 recruited women 79 (44%) filled out at least one monthly diary on sex and/or menstruation dates, 35 after IUI-OS and 44 after EM. Of these10/35 (29%) had a live birth after IUI-OS and 3/44 (7%) after expectant management.

In a total of 497 cycles, the 79 couples reported 2023 dates of coitus (average of 4.1 per cycle). The median CF was 3 (IQR: 0 to 7) in the IUI-OS group and 4 (1 to 6) in the expectant management group (p for difference: 0.08). The median CF that took place within the fertile window was 1 (0 to 3) in the IUI-OS group and 2 (0 to 3) in the expectant management group (p for difference: <0.01).

No interaction was found between intercourse frequency or timing and treatment on live birth rate. The adjusted odds ratio for intercourse frequency was 0.93 (95%CI: 0.78-1.09). The adjusted odds ratio for intercourse timing was 0.94 (95%CI: 0.64-1.37). The odds ratio for allocated treatment was unaffected by these adjustments for intercourse frequency or timing.

Limitations, reasons for caution

Only 44% of trial population returned the CF and menstruation diaries which could have induced selection bias. We estimated the day of ovulation based on the date of the next menstrual period in the expectant management group of this pragmatic trial.

Wider implications of the findings

Even though the duration of subfertility was longstanding, couples in both groups still had coitus and the median CF was higher in the expectant management group.

Trial registration number

NTR5599

P–504 A randomised controlled trial comparing expectant management or intrauterine-insemination in couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception: the impact on health-related-quality-of-life

Study question

Is health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in women with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis influenced by expectant management or intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation?

Summary answer

HRQoL did not differ, except for the relational domain which was lower after expectant management. Anxiety and depression disorders occurred frequently in both groups.

What is known already

In couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis, IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) is a first line treatment. Not much is known about quality of live or depression and anxiety in these couples. The Fertility Quality of Life (FertiQoL) is reliable for assessment within relational and social domains, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) is a reliable tool to detect anxiety and depression disorders.

Study design, size, duration

We performed a multicentre RCT in couples with unexplained subfertility with a poor prognosis of conceiving naturally within one year. Women were allocated 1:1 to six months expectant management or to six months IUI-OS. HRQoL was assessed with standard self-administered psychometric measures with established reliability and validity: FertiQol and HADS. We intended to include 1091 couples but after almost 4 years, the study had to stop due to slow inclusion and therefore lack of funding.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

Between June 2017 and September 2020, we recruited 178 women of wich 92 were assigned expectant management and 86 IUI-OS. All women who participated and could read Dutch were eligible for the HRQoL measurements because HRQoL questionnaires in foreign languages were not yet available online. Women completed the questionnaires before randomisation, 3 and 6 months after randomisation. We used mixed model analyses to assess differences between treatment groups and the effect of time.

Main results and the role of chance

One hundred sixty-two women could read Dutch and were invited (162/178 (91%)). Analyzable data of the FertiQol questionnaire were available for 80% (130/162). Compared to women allocated to IUI-OS, women allocated to expectant management had a lower FertiQol score in the relational domain (mean difference –4.3 (95% CI –7.3 to –1.3) but not in the social domain (mean diff van –0.8 (95% CI –4.5 to 2.9).

Data of the HADS questionnaire were available of 156 women (96% (156/162)). Both groups had comparable scores in the Anxiety (mean difference –0.20; 95% CI 0.63; –0.99 to 0.6) and Depressions score (mean difference 0.002; 95% CI –0.67 to 0.67) at all three moments. At baseline, the incidence of an anxiety disorder (definition score 8 or higher) was 19% (30/156) and increased to 30% and 29% at 3 months and 6 months respectively. The incidence of a depression disorder (definition score 8 or higher) was 5% (7/156) and increased to 16% and 18% at 3 months and 6 months respectively. The incidences of anxiety or depression disorders did not differ significantly between expectant management and IUI.

Limitations, reasons for caution

Our randomized controlled trial did not reach the planned sample size. The results are only applicable to women with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis and not to all women with unexplained subfertility.

Wider implications of the findings: Although often assumed, IUI-OS does not improve HRQoL compared to expectant management in all domains. IUI might prevent loss of quality of the relationship, but the impact seems small. Future studies should look into the high incidence of anxiety and depression disorders in these women and how to support them.

Trial registration number

Trial register NL5455 (NTR5599)

P–753 A randomised controlled trial comparing expectant management versus intrauterine insemination in couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception

Study question

Does 6 months expectant management reduces ongoing pregnancy rates compared to intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) in couples with unexplained subfertility?

Summary answer

In couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, 6 months of expectant management decreases ongoing pregnancy rates as compared to IUI-OS.

What is known already

In couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis, IUI-OS is a first line treatment. We have previously shown that in couples with unexplained subfertility and a good prognosis for natural conception (>30% in 12 months), 6 months expectant management does not reduce pregnancy changes. However, in couples with a poor prognosis for natural conception, effectiveness of IUI-OS is uncertain.

Study design, size, duration

We performed a non-inferiority multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) within the infrastructure of the Dutch Consortium for Healthcare Evaluation and Research in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. We studied couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception. The couples were allocated in a 1:1 ratio to six months expectant management or six months IUI-OS with either clomiphene citrate or gonadotrophins.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

We intended to include 1091 couples. The trial was halted pre-maturely due to slow inclusion after randomisation of 178 couples. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to a live birth with multiple pregnancy and miscarriage rate as important secondary outcomes. We calculated relative risks with 95% CI and a corresponding hazard-rate for ongoing-pregnancy-over-time based on intention-to-treat.

Main results and the role of chance

Between October 2016 and September 2020 92 couples were allocated to expectant management and 86 to IUI-OS. Baseline characteristics were equally distributed. Mean female age was 34 years, median duration of subfertility was 21 months. Within 6 months after randomisation, women allocated to expectant management had a lower ongoing pregnancy rate than women allocated to IUI-OS (12/92 [13.0%] vs 29/86 women [33.7%], risk ratio 0.39 (95%CI 0.21 to 0.71)). There were two ongoing twin pregnancies in the expectant management group versus none in the IUI-OS group. Of 15 clinical pregnancies in the expectant management group three miscarried (20%), of 36 clinical pregnancies in the IUI-OS group seven miscarried (19.4%) (RR 1.03 (95% CI 0.31 to 3.45)). For the outcome ongoing pregnancy, the hazard ratio for expectant management versus IUI-OS was 0.34 (95%CI 0.18 to 0.67).

Limitations, reasons for caution

Our trial did not reach the planned sample size and therefore the results are limited by the number of participants. As 8 women are still pregnant, in this abstract we report ongoing pregnancy rates. Live birth rates will be presented at the conference.

Wider implications of the findings: In couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, expectant management is inferior to IUI-OS. We advise the basic work-up for subfertility to contain a prognostic assessment, and when subfertility is unexplained and natural fertility prospects are poor IUI-OS should be the preferred treatment.

Trial registration number

NTR5599

Cost-effectiveness of ovarian stimulation agents for IUI in couples with unexplained subfertility

STUDY QUESTION

Which agent for ovarian stimulation (OS) is the most cost-effective option in terms of net benefit for couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI?

SUMMARY ANSWER

In settings where a live birth is valued at €3000 or less, between €3000 and €55 000 and above €55 000, clomiphene citrate (CC), Letrozole and gonadotrophins were the most cost-effective option in terms of net benefit, respectively.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

IUI-OS is a common first-line treatment for couples with unexplained subfertility and its increased uptake over the past decades and related personal or reimbursed costs are pressing concerns to patients and health service providers. However, there is no consensus on a protocol for conducting IUI-OS, with differences between countries, clinics and settings in the number of cycles, success rates, the agent for OS and the maximum number of dominant follicles in order to minimise the risk of a multiple pregnancy. In view of this uncertainty and the association with costs, guidance is needed on the cost-effectiveness of OS agents for IUI-OS.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We developed a decision-analytic model based on a decision tree that follows couples with unexplained subfertility from the start of IUI-OS to a protocoled maximum of six cycles, assuming couples receive four cycles on average within one year. We chose the societal perspective, which coincides with other perspectives such as that from health care providers, as the treatments are identical except for the stimulation agent. We based our model on parameters from a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials for IUI-OS. We compared the following three agents: CC (oral medication), Letrozole (oral medication) and gonadotrophins (subcutaneous injection).

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The main health outcomes were cumulative live birth and multiple pregnancy. As the procedures are identical except for the agent used, we only considered direct medical costs of the agent during four cycles. The main cost-effectiveness measures were the differences in costs divided by the differences in cumulative live birth (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ICER) and the probability of the highest net monetary benefit in which costs for an agent were deducted from the live births gained. The live birth rate for IUI using CC was taken from trials adhering to strict cancellation criteria included in a network meta-analysis and extrapolated to four cycles. We took the relative risks for the live birth rate after Letrozole and gonadotrophins versus CC from that same network meta-analysis to estimate the remaining absolute live birth rates. The uncertainty around live birth rates, relative effectiveness and costs was assessed by probabilistic sensitivity analysis in which we drew values from distributions and repeated this procedure 20 000 times. In addition, we changed model assumptions to assess their influence on our results.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The agent with the lowest cumulative live birth rate over 4 IUI-OS cycles conducted within one year was CC (29.4%), followed by Letrozole (32.0%) and gonadotrophins (34.5%). The average costs per four cycles were €362, €434 and €1809, respectively. The ICER of Letrozole versus CC was €2809 per additional live birth, whereas the ICER of gonadotrophins versus Letrozole was €53 831 per additional live birth. When we assume a live birth is valued at €3000 or less, CC had the highest probability of maximally 65% to achieve the highest net benefit. Between €3000 and €55 000, Letrozole had the highest probability of maximally 62% to achieve the highest net benefit. Assuming a monetary value of €55 000 or more, gonadotrophins had the highest probability of maximally 56% to achieve the highest net benefit.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Our model focused on population level and was thus based on average costs for the average number of four cycles conducted. We also based the model on a number of key assumptions. We changed model assumptions to assess the influence of these assumptions on our results.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The high uncertainty surrounding our results indicate that more research is necessary on the relative effectiveness of using CC, Letrozole or gonadotrophins for IUI-OS in terms of the cumulative live birth rate. We suggest that in the meantime, CC or Letrozole are the preferred choice of agent.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This work was supported by ZonMw Doelmatigheidsonderzoek, grant 80-85200-98-91072. The funder had no role in the design, conduct or reporting of this work. BWM is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet and travel and research support from ObsEva, Merck and Guerbet. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Cost-effectiveness of medically assisted reproduction or expectant management for unexplained subfertility: when to start treatment?

STUDY QUESTION

Over a time period of 3 years, which order of expectant management (EM), IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) and IVF is the most cost-effective for couples with unexplained subfertility with the female age below 38 years?

SUMMARY ANSWER

If a live birth is considered worth €32 000 or less, 2 years of EM followed by IVF was the most cost-effective, whereas above €32 000 this was 1 year of EM, 1 year of IUI-OS and then 1 year of IVF.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

IUI-OS and IVF are commonly used fertility treatments for unexplained subfertility although many couples can conceive naturally, as no identifiable barrier to conception could be found by definition. Few countries have guidelines on when to proceed with medically assisted reproduction (MAR), mostly based on the expected probability of live birth after treatment, but there is a lack of evidence to support the strategies proposed by these guidelines. The increased uptake of IUI-OS and IVF over the past decades and costs related to reimbursement of these treatments are pressing concerns to health service providers. For MAR to remain affordable, sustainable and a responsible use of public funds, guidance is needed on the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for unexplained subfertility, including EM.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We developed a decision analytic Markov model that follows couples with unexplained subfertility of which the woman is under 38 years of age for a time period of 3 years from completion of the fertility workup onwards. We divided the time axis of 3 years into three separate periods, each comprising 1 year. The model was based on contemporary evidence, most notably the dynamic prediction model for natural conception, which was combined with MAR treatment effects from a network meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials. We changed the order of options for managing unexplained subfertility for the 1 year periods to yield five different treatment policies in total: IVF-EM-EM (immediate IVF), EM-IVF-EM (delayed IVF), EM-EM-IVF (postponed IVF), IUIOS-IVF-EM (immediate IUI-OS) and EM-IUIOS-IVF (delayed IUI-OS).

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The main outcomes per policy over the 3-year period were the probability of live birth, the average treatment and delivery costs, the probability of multiple pregnancy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and finally, which policy yields the highest net benefit in which costs for a policy were deducted from the health effects, i.e. live births gained. We chose the Dutch societal perspective, but the model can be easily modified for other locations or other perspectives. The probability of live birth after EM was taken from the dynamic prediction model for natural conception and updated for Years 2 and 3. The relative effects of IUI-OS and IVF in terms of odds ratios, taken from the network meta-analysis, were applied to the probability of live birth after EM. We applied standard discounting procedures for economic analyses for Years 2 and 3. The uncertainty around effectiveness, costs and other parameters was assessed by probabilistic sensitivity analysis in which we drew values from distributions and repeated this procedure 20 000 times. In addition, we changed model assumptions to assess their influence on our results.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

From IVF-EM-EM to EM-IUIOS-IVF, the probability of live birth varied from approximately 54-64% and the average costs from approximately €4000 to €9000. The policies IVF-EM-EM and EM-IVF-EM were dominated by EM-EM-IVF as the latter yielded a higher cumulative probability of live birth at a lower cost. The policy IUIOS-IVF-EM was dominated by EM-IUIOS-IVF as the latter yielded a higher cumulative probability of live birth at a lower cost. After removal of policies that were dominated, the ICER for EM-IUIOS-IVF was approximately €31 000 compared to EM-EM-IVF. The range of ICER values between the lowest 25% and highest 75% of simulation replications was broad. The net benefit curve showed that when we assume a live birth to be worth approximately €20 000 or less, the policy EM-EM-IVF had the highest probability to achieve the highest net benefit. Between €20 000 and €50 000 monetary value per live birth, it was uncertain whether EM-EM-IVF was better than EM-IUIOS-IVF, with the turning point of €32 000. When we assume a monetary value per live birth over €50 000, the policy with the highest probability to achieve the highest net benefit was EM-IUIOS-IVF. Results for subgroups with different baseline prognoses showed the same policies dominated and the same two policies that were the most likely to achieve the highest net benefit but at different threshold values for the assumed monetary value per live birth.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Our model focused on population level and was thus based on average costs for the average number of cycles conducted. We also based the model on a number of key assumptions. We changed model assumptions to assess the influence of these assumptions on our results. The change in relative effectiveness of IVF over time was found to be highly influential on results and their interpretation.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

EM-EM-IVF and EM-IUIOS-IVF followed by IVF were the most cost-effective policies. The choice depends on the monetary value assigned to a live birth. The results of our study can be used in discussions between clinicians, couples and policy makers to decide on a sustainable treatment protocol based on the probability of live birth, the costs and the limitations of MAR treatment.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This work was supported by the ZonMw Doelmatigheidsonderzoek (80-85200-98-91072). The funder had no role in the design, conduct or reporting of this work. B.W.M. is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet and travel and research support from ObsEva, Merck and Guerbet.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.