Theodora C van Tilborg1, Simone C Oudshoorn1, Marinus J C Eijkemans2, Monique H Mochtar3, Ron J T van Golde4,5, Annemieke Hoek6, Walter K H Kuchenbecker7, Kathrin Fleischer8, Jan Peter de Bruin9, Henk Groen10, Madelon van Wely3, Cornelis B Lambalk11, Joop S E Laven12, Ben Willem J Mol13,14, Frank J M Broekmans1, Helen L Torrance1. 1. Department of Reproductive Medicine and Gynaecology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands. 2. Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands. 3. Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Reproductive Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands. 5. GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 6. Centre for Reproductive Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, PO Box 30001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Isala Clinics, PO box 10400, 8000GK Zwolle, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Centre, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 9. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, PO box 90153, 5200 ME 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands. 10. Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands. 11. Centre for Reproductive Medicine, VU University Medical Centre, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 12. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Postbus 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 13. The Robinson Research Institute, School of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health, University of Adelaide, SA 5006 Adelaide, Australia. 14. The South Australian Health and Medical Research Unit, PO Box 11060, SA 5001 Adelaide, Australia.
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION: Is there a difference in live birth rate and/or cost-effectiveness between antral follicle count (AFC)-based individualized FSH dosing or standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF or ICSI treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER: In women initiating IVF/ICSI, AFC-based individualized FSH dosing does not improve live birth rates or reduce costs as compared to a standard FSH dose. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In IVF or ICSI, ovarian reserve testing is often used to adjust the FSH dose in order to normalize ovarian response and optimize live birth rates. However, no robust evidence for the (cost-)effectiveness of this practice exists. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Between May 2011 and May 2014 we performed a multicentre prospective cohort study with two embedded RCTs in women scheduled for IVF/ICSI. Based on the AFC, women entered into one of the two RCTs (RCT1: AFC < 11; RCT2: AFC > 15) or the cohort (AFC 11-15). The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy achieved within 18 months after randomization resulting in a live birth (delivery of at least one live foetus after 24 weeks of gestation). Data from the cohort with weight 0.5 were combined with both RCTs in order to conduct a strategy analysis. Potential half-integer numbers were rounded up. Differences in costs and effects between the two treatment strategies were compared by bootstrapping. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In both RCTs women were randomized to an individualized (RCT1:450/225 IU, RCT2:100 IU) or standard FSH dose (150 IU). Women in the cohort all received the standard dose (150 IU). Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) was measured to assess AMH post-hoc as a biomarker to individualize treatment. For RCT1 dose adjustment was allowed in subsequent cycles based on pre-specified criteria in the standard group only. For RCT2 dose adjustment was allowed in subsequent cycles in both groups. Both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the strategies were evaluated from an intention-to-treat perspective. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We included 1515 women, of whom 483 (31.9%) entered the cohort, 511 (33.7%) RCT1 and 521 (34.4%) RCT2. Live births occurred in 420/747 (56.3%) women in the individualized strategy and 447/769 (58.2%) women in the standard strategy (risk difference -0.019 (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.02), P = 0.39; a total of 1516 women due to rounding up the half integer numbers). The individualized strategy was more expensive (delta costs/woman = €275 (95% CI, 40 to 499)). Individualized dosing reduced the occurrence of mild and moderate ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and subsequently the costs for management of these OHSS categories (costs saved/woman were €35). The analysis based on AMH as a tool for dose individualization suggested comparable results. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Despite a training programme, the AFC might have suffered from inter-observer variation. In addition, although strict cancel criteria were provided, selective cancelling in the individualized dose group (for poor response in particular) cannot be excluded as observers were not blinded for the FSH dose and small dose adjustments were allowed in subsequent cycles. However, as both first cycle live birth rates and cumulative live birth rates show no difference between strategies, the open design probably did not mask a potential benefit for the individualized group. Despite increasing consensus on using GnRH antagonist co-treatment in women predicted for a hyper response in particular, GnRH agonists were used in almost 80% of the women in this study. Hence, in those women, the AFC and bloodsampling for the post-hoc AMH analysis were performed during pituitary suppression. As the correlation between AFC and ovarian response is not compromised during GnRH agonist use, this will probably not have influenced classification of response. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Individualized FSH dosing for the IVF/ICSI population as a whole should not be pursued as it does not improve live birth rates and it increases costs. Women scheduled for IVF/ICSI with a regular menstrual cycle are therefore recommended a standard FSH starting dose of 150 IU per day. Still, safety management by individualized dosing in predicted hyper responders is open for further research. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW number 171102020). AMH measurements were performed free of charge by Roche Diagnostics. TCT, HLT and SCO received an unrestricted personal grant from Merck BV. AH declares that the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Centre Groningen receives an unrestricted research grant from Ferring pharmaceutics BV, The Netherlands. CBL receives grants from Merck, Ferring and Guerbet. BWJM is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for OvsEva, Merck and Guerbet. FJMB receives monetary compensation as a member of the external advisory board for Ferring pharmaceutics BV (the Netherlands) and Merck Serono (the Netherlands) for consultancy work for Gedeon Richter (Belgium) and Roche Diagnostics on automated AMH assay development (Switzerland) and for a research cooperation with Ansh Labs (USA). All other autors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registered at the ICMJE-recognized Dutch Trial Registry (www.trialregister.nl). Registration number: NTR2657.
STUDY QUESTION: Is there a difference in live birth rate and/or cost-effectiveness between antral follicle count (AFC)-based individualized FSH dosing or standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF or ICSI treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER: In women initiating IVF/ICSI, AFC-based individualized FSH dosing does not improve live birth rates or reduce costs as compared to a standard FSH dose. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In IVF or ICSI, ovarian reserve testing is often used to adjust the FSH dose in order to normalize ovarian response and optimize live birth rates. However, no robust evidence for the (cost-)effectiveness of this practice exists. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Between May 2011 and May 2014 we performed a multicentre prospective cohort study with two embedded RCTs in women scheduled for IVF/ICSI. Based on the AFC, women entered into one of the two RCTs (RCT1: AFC < 11; RCT2: AFC > 15) or the cohort (AFC 11-15). The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy achieved within 18 months after randomization resulting in a live birth (delivery of at least one live foetus after 24 weeks of gestation). Data from the cohort with weight 0.5 were combined with both RCTs in order to conduct a strategy analysis. Potential half-integer numbers were rounded up. Differences in costs and effects between the two treatment strategies were compared by bootstrapping. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In both RCTs women were randomized to an individualized (RCT1:450/225 IU, RCT2:100 IU) or standard FSH dose (150 IU). Women in the cohort all received the standard dose (150 IU). Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) was measured to assess AMH post-hoc as a biomarker to individualize treatment. For RCT1 dose adjustment was allowed in subsequent cycles based on pre-specified criteria in the standard group only. For RCT2 dose adjustment was allowed in subsequent cycles in both groups. Both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the strategies were evaluated from an intention-to-treat perspective. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We included 1515 women, of whom 483 (31.9%) entered the cohort, 511 (33.7%) RCT1 and 521 (34.4%) RCT2. Live births occurred in 420/747 (56.3%) women in the individualized strategy and 447/769 (58.2%) women in the standard strategy (risk difference -0.019 (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.02), P = 0.39; a total of 1516 women due to rounding up the half integer numbers). The individualized strategy was more expensive (delta costs/woman = €275 (95% CI, 40 to 499)). Individualized dosing reduced the occurrence of mild and moderate ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and subsequently the costs for management of these OHSS categories (costs saved/woman were €35). The analysis based on AMH as a tool for dose individualization suggested comparable results. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Despite a training programme, the AFC might have suffered from inter-observer variation. In addition, although strict cancel criteria were provided, selective cancelling in the individualized dose group (for poor response in particular) cannot be excluded as observers were not blinded for the FSH dose and small dose adjustments were allowed in subsequent cycles. However, as both first cycle live birth rates and cumulative live birth rates show no difference between strategies, the open design probably did not mask a potential benefit for the individualized group. Despite increasing consensus on using GnRH antagonist co-treatment in women predicted for a hyper response in particular, GnRH agonists were used in almost 80% of the women in this study. Hence, in those women, the AFC and bloodsampling for the post-hoc AMH analysis were performed during pituitary suppression. As the correlation between AFC and ovarian response is not compromised during GnRH agonist use, this will probably not have influenced classification of response. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Individualized FSH dosing for the IVF/ICSI population as a whole should not be pursued as it does not improve live birth rates and it increases costs. Women scheduled for IVF/ICSI with a regular menstrual cycle are therefore recommended a standard FSH starting dose of 150 IU per day. Still, safety management by individualized dosing in predicted hyper responders is open for further research. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW number 171102020). AMH measurements were performed free of charge by Roche Diagnostics. TCT, HLT and SCO received an unrestricted personal grant from Merck BV. AH declares that the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Centre Groningen receives an unrestricted research grant from Ferring pharmaceutics BV, The Netherlands. CBL receives grants from Merck, Ferring and Guerbet. BWJM is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for OvsEva, Merck and Guerbet. FJMB receives monetary compensation as a member of the external advisory board for Ferring pharmaceutics BV (the Netherlands) and Merck Serono (the Netherlands) for consultancy work for Gedeon Richter (Belgium) and Roche Diagnostics on automated AMH assay development (Switzerland) and for a research cooperation with Ansh Labs (USA). All other autors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registered at the ICMJE-recognized Dutch Trial Registry (www.trialregister.nl). Registration number: NTR2657.
Authors: Human Fatemi; Wilma Bilger; Deborah Denis; Georg Griesinger; Antonio La Marca; Salvatore Longobardi; Mary Mahony; Xiaoyan Yin; Thomas D'Hooghe Journal: Reprod Biol Endocrinol Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 5.211
Authors: J Friis Petersen; E Løkkegaard; L F Andersen; K Torp; A Egeberg; L Hedegaard; D Nysom; A Nyboe Andersen Journal: Hum Reprod Open Date: 2019-02-27
Authors: Jori A Leijdekkers; Marinus J C Eijkemans; Theodora C van Tilborg; Simone C Oudshoorn; Ron J T van Golde; Annemieke Hoek; Cornelis B Lambalk; Jan Peter de Bruin; Kathrin Fleischer; Monique H Mochtar; Walter K H Kuchenbecker; Joop S E Laven; Ben Willem J Mol; Helen L Torrance; Frank J M Broekmans Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2019-06-04 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: M E Elena Ter Welle-Butalid; I J H Ingeborg Vriens; J G Josien Derhaag; E M Edward Leter; C E Christine de Die-Smulders; M Marjolein Smidt; R J T Ron van Golde; V C G Vivianne Tjan-Heijnen Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2019-11-23 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Jori A Leijdekkers; Helen L Torrance; Nienke E Schouten; Theodora C van Tilborg; Simone C Oudshoorn; Ben Willem J Mol; Marinus J C Eijkemans; Frank J M Broekmans Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 6.918