O-078 The VALUE study: a qualitative semi-structured interview study of add-on use by patients, clinicians, and embryologists in the UK and Australia

Study question

Why do patients, clinicians and embryologists opt to use IVF add-ons in fertility treatment?

Summary answer

Add-ons offer options, hope and control in a desperate situation. The perceived drivers differ between patients and professionals; however, both feel add-ons offer bespoke care.

What is known already

Evidence that add-ons offer clinical advantages for the outcomes of IVF is lacking or insufficient. However, they remain popular in the UK and Australia, with over three-quarters of couples opting to use them. Professionals, clinical societies, and the media have latched onto the ethical aspects of offering non-evidence-based add-ons, often provided at an additional cost to vulnerable patients. Conversely, it has also been suggested that patients are driving add-on use. The VALUE study is the first large qualitative study to include both patients and professionals that explores the drivers behind their use, and how the existing evidence is weighed up.

Study design, size, duration

VALUE was a multinational semi-structured interview study in the UK and Australia. The interview schedule was reached through extensive patient and public involvement. Between January and May 2021, recruitment took place via social media advertisement, email invitation from professional societies, and snowballing. A purposive sampling strategy was planned; all eligible participants (25 patients, 25 embryologists, and 24 clinicians) were interviewed via recorded teleconference. Anonymised verbatim transcripts were analysed iteratively, and themes developed inductively.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

Patient and professional transcripts were coded separately using the software DedooseTM Two separate thematic analyses followed. An inductive approach to analysis was adopted, whereby themes emerged from the data, opposed to constructing a pre-conceived coding scheme. Codes were combined into broader themes, and sub-themes, which were discussed, debated, and named. The wider research team then commented upon and debated the themes and sub-themes, which were settled upon by consensus.

Main results and the role of chance

Thematic analysis of patient interviews identified five themes: ‘vulnerability’; ‘power of the trusted professional opinion’; ‘role of previous experience’; ‘acceptability of add-on’; and ‘the evidence doesn’t apply to me’. The professional interviews identified five themes: ‘Treating desperation’; ‘tensions within evidence-based practice’; ‘success, not profits’; ‘the patient shopper’; and ‘potential for harm’.

Analysis identified that that people undergoing IVF are vulnerable and opting for non-evidence-based treatments at additional cost because of a sense of desperation following unsuccessful cycles. For patients, utilising add-ons lends hope and a sense of control, with considerations of safety and efficacy being ranked lower than hope. For professionals, add-ons are reasonable given the absence of anything else to add, and allows patients the opportunity to exhaust every avenue. At odds with one-another are the themes regarding who is driving add-on use. Patients describe the power of a professional recommendation, believing it to be in their best interest. For professionals, it’s the patients who research and request add-ons, and failing to offer them risks losing patients. The tension between evidence and bespoke care was evident across both analyses, with testimonies being particularly powerful for patients, and for professionals, a belief that add-ons are helpful in the right context.

Limitations, reasons for caution

The VALUE study has captured patients and professionals who have volunteered to talk about this particularly contentious area of medicine. Participants are likely to be a motivated group of individuals who may potentially represent those with strong views regarding add-ons.

Wider implications of the findings

The theme of desperation runs through VALUE’s analyses and whilst we did find that patients drive add-on use, professional opinion for or against add-ons was powerful. Patients want autonomy, but only in the context of informed consent.

Trial registration number

https://osf.io/he7tn/

Are we leaving money on the table in infertility RCTs? Trialists should statistically adjust for prespecified, prognostic covariates to increase power

Infertility randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often too small to detect realistic treatment effects. Large observational studies have been proposed as a solution. However, this strategy threatens to weaken the evidence base further, because non-random assignment to treatments makes it impossible to distinguish effects of treatment from confounding factors. Alternative solutions are required. Power in an RCT can be increased by adjusting for prespecified, prognostic covariates when performing statistical analysis, and if stratified randomization or minimization has been used, it is essential to adjust in order to get the correct answer. We present data showing that this simple, free and frequently necessary strategy for increasing power is seldom employed, even in trials appearing in leading journals. We use this article to motivate a pedagogical discussion and provide a worked example. While covariate adjustment cannot solve the problem of underpowered trials outright, there is an imperative to use sound methodology to maximize the information each trial yields.

A randomized trial of endometrial scratching in women with PCOS undergoing ovulation induction cycles

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does endometrial scratching improve the chance of a live birth in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) undergoing ovulation induction and trying to conceive?

DESIGN

An international, multicentre, randomized, sham-controlled trial across six fertility clinics in three countries (New Zealand, UK and Brazil). Women with a diagnosis of PCOS who were planning to commence ovulation induction cycles (at least three cycles) in order to conceive were randomly assigned to receive the pipelle (scratch) procedure or a sham (placebo) procedure in the first cycle of ovulation induction. Women kept a diary of ovulation induction and sexual intercourse timing over three consecutive cycles and pregnancies were followed up to live birth. Primary outcome was live birth and secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, adverse pregnancy outcomes, neonatal outcomes, bleeding following procedure and pain score following procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 117 women were randomized; 58 to the scratch group and 59 to the sham group. Live birth occurred in 11 (19%) women in the scratch group and 14 (24%) in the sham group (odds ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30-1.92). Secondary outcomes were similar in each group. Significantly higher pain scores were reported in the scratch group (adjusted mean difference 3.2, 95% CI 2.5-3.9) when measured on a visual analogue scale.

CONCLUSION

No difference was detected in live birth rate for women with PCOS who received an endometrial scratch when trying to conceive using ovulation induction; however, uncertainty remains due to the small sample size in this study.

Disposition intentions of elective egg freezers toward their surplus frozen oocytes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the disposition outcomes and disposition intentions of elective egg freezers (EEFs) toward their surplus frozen oocytes and the psychosocial determinants underlying these.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Actual EEFs (women with oocytes in storage), potential EEFs (women investigating elective oocyte cryopreservation or about to freeze their oocytes), and women of reproductive age (women in the community aged ≥18 years).

INTERVENTION(S)

A systematic review was undertaken and electronically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO on the Ovid platform for conference abstracts and peer-reviewed articles, published in English after January 1, 2010. A search strategy combined synonyms for oocyte, cryopreservation, donation, disposition, elective, and attitude. Eligible studies assessed disposition outcomes (how an oocyte was disposed of) and disposition intentions (how women intend to dispose of an oocyte) and/or the psychosocial determinants underlying disposition outcomes and intentions. The Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Tool was used to assess the risk of bias. A meta-analysis using random effects was applied to pool proportions of women with similar disposition intentions toward their oocytes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Disposition outcomes and intentions toward surplus frozen oocytes: donate to research; donate to others; discard; unsure. Psychosocial determinants (beliefs, attitudes, barriers, and facilitators) of disposition outcomes and intentions.

RESULT(S)

A total of 3,560 records were identified, of which 22 (17 studies) met the inclusion criteria (8 studies from Europe, 7 from North America, and 2 from Asia). No studies reported on past oocyte disposition outcomes. Seventeen studies reported on the future disposition intentions of 5,446 women. Only 2 of the 17 studies reported on the psychosocial determinants of oocyte disposition intentions. There was substantial heterogeneity in the pooled results, which was likely a result of the significant variation in methodology. Actual EEFs were included in eight studies (n = 873), of whom 53% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44-63; I², 87%) would donate surplus oocytes to research, 31% (95% CI, 23-40; I², 72%) were unsure, 26% (95% CI, 17-38; I², 92%) would donate to others, and 12% (95% CI, 6-21; I², 88%) would discard their eggs. Psychosocial determinants: One study reported that 50% of these women were aware of friends and/or family having difficulty conceiving, which may have contributed to their willingness to donate to others. Potential EEFs were included in 4 studies (n = 645), of whom 38% (95% CI, 28-50; I², 84%) would donate to research, 32% (95% CI, 17-51; I², 91%) would donate to others, 29% (95% CI, 17-44; I², 89%) would discard, and 7% (95% CI, 1-27; I², 77%) were unsure. Psychosocial determinants: No studies. Women of reproductive age were included in 5 studies (n = 3,933), of whom 59% (95% CI, 48-70; I², 97%) would donate to research and 46% (95% CI, 35-57; I², 98%) would donate to others. "Unsure" and "discard" were not provided as response options. Psychosocial determinants: One study reported that the facilitators for donation to others included a family member or friend in need, to help others create a family, financial gain, to further science, and control or input over the selection of recipients. Barriers for donation included fear of having a biological child they do not know or who is raised by someone they know.

CONCLUSION(S)

No studies reported on the disposition outcomes of past EEFs. Disposition intentions varied across the three groups; however, "donating to research" was the most common disposition preference. Notably, the second disposition preference for one-third of actual EEFs was "unsure" and for one-third of potential EEFs was "donate to others." There were limited studies for actual and potential EEFs, and only two studies that explored the psychosocial determinants of oocyte disposition intentions. Additionally, these data suggest that disposition decisions change as women progress on their egg freezing journey, highlighting the importance of ongoing contact with the fertility team as intentions may change over time. More research is needed to understand the psychosocial determinants of oocyte disposition decisions so fertility clinics can provide EEFs with the support and information they need to make informed decisions about their stored eggs and reduce the level of uncertainty reported among EEFs and the potential risk of psychological distress and regret.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO 2020: CRD42020202733.

O-215 How common is add-on use and how do patients decide whether to use them? A national survey of IVF patients

Study question

How common is IVF add-on use in Australia, and what drives the use?

Summary answer

Most women (82%) had used one or more IVF add-ons and more than half (54%) first learned about the add-ons from their fertility specialist.

What is known already

IVF add-ons are procedures, techniques or medicines which may be considered nonessential to IVF, usually used in attempts to improve the probability of conception and live birth. Despite widespread concern about unproven IVF add-ons, information about the prevalence of their use is limited because these data are not available in national registries or datasets.

Study design, size, duration

Women who had undergone IVF in Australia since 2017 were recruited via social media. Women were excluded if they were gestational surrogates, had used a surrogate, or underwent IVF for oocyte donation or elective oocyte cryopreservation only. Eligible women completed an online survey which was open from 21st June to 14th July 2020.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

Survey questions included demographics, IVF and medical history, and questions specifically about IVF add-ons such as: the type of add-ons used, information sources consulted, and where participants first heard about add-ons. Women also responded to questions about the importance of scientific evidence regarding safety and effectiveness, factors considered in decision-making around add-on use and the presence of any decision regret.

Main results and the role of chance

A total of 1,590 responses were analyzed after excluding 287 ineligible responses. Participants were generally representative of women who undergo IVF in Australia in terms of age, indication for IVF, and use of ICSI for fertilisation. Most women had used at least one add-on (82%), and these were usually associated with an additional fee (72%). It was most common to first learn about IVF add-ons from the fertility specialist (54%), and most women reported that they and their specialist contributed equally to the decision to use add-ons.

Women viewed scientific evidence for safety and effectiveness as very important

on a scale from 0-100, an importance score over 90 was selected by more than half of the participants. Additionally, many (49%) assumed that add-ons were risk-free. Most women experienced regret at the decision to use IVF add-ons (66%), and this regret was greatest among women who experienced IVF failure when using add-ons (83%) and those who believed that the specialist drove the decision to use the add-ons (75%).

Limitations, reasons for caution

This was a retrospective survey of IVF patients, therefore it may suffer from bias due to patient recall. It does not consider the perspective of the IVF clinic or fertility specialist. Certain questions may be more prone to biased responses, such as those regarding who contributed to decision making.

Wider implications of the findings

The high prevalence of add-on use is likely generalizable to other settings where IVF treatment is largely private. Although women viewed scientific evidence as very important, most had used unproven IVF add-ons. This might suggest that women were not aware of the lack of robust evidence to support their use.

Trial registration number

Not applicable

How common is add-on use and how do patients decide whether to use them? A national survey of IVF patients

STUDY QUESTION

What is the prevalence and pattern of IVF add-on use in Australia?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Among women having IVF in the last 3 years, 82% had used one or more IVF add-on, most commonly acupuncture, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy and Chinese herbal medicine.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

IVF add-ons are procedures, techniques or medicines which may be considered nonessential to IVF, but usually used in attempts to improve the probability of conception and live birth. The use of IVF add-ons is believed to be widespread; however, there is little information about the prevalence and patterns of use in different settings.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

An online survey was distributed via social media to women in Australia who had undergone IVF since 2017. Women were excluded if they were gestational surrogates, used a surrogate, or underwent ovarian stimulation for oocyte donation or elective oocyte cryopreservation only. The survey was open from 21 June to 14 July 2020.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Survey questions included demographics, IVF and medical history, and use of IVF add-ons including details of the type of add-on, costs and information sources used. Participants were also asked about the relative importance of evidence regarding safety and effectiveness, factors considered in decision-making and decision regret.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of 1590 eligible responses were analysed. Overall, 82% of women had used one or more add-ons and these usually incurred an additional cost (72%). Around half (54%) had learned about add-ons from their fertility specialist, and most reported that the decision to use add-ons was equally shared with the specialist. Women placed a high level of importance on scientific evidence for safety and efficacy, and half (49%) assumed that add-ons were known to be safe. Most women experienced some regret at the decision to use IVF add-ons (66%), and this was more severe among women whose IVF was unsuccessful (83%) and who believed that the specialist had a larger contribution to the decision to use add-ons (75%).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

This retrospective survey relied on patient recall. Some aspects were particularly prone to bias such as contributions to decision-making. This approach to capturing IVF add-on use may yield different results to data collected directly from IVF clinics or from fertility specialists.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

There is a very high prevalence of IVF add-on use in Australia which may be generalisable to other settings with similar models of IVF provision. Although women placed high importance on scientific evidence to support add-ons, most add-ons do not have robust evidence of safety and effectiveness. This suggests that IVF patients are not adequately informed about the risks and benefits of IVF add-ons, or are not aware of the paucity of evidence to support their use.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This research was supported by a McKenzie Postdoctoral Fellowship Grant (University of Melbourne), a Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Innovation Grant (University of Melbourne) and an NHMRC Investigator Grant (APP1195189). A.P. declares that he provides fertility services at Melbourne IVF (part of Virtus Health). J.W. reports grants from Wellcome Trust, during the conduct of the study, and that publishing benefits his career. The remaining authors report no conflict of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) test information on Australian and New Zealand fertility clinic websites: a content analysis

OBJECTIVES

The anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) test has been promoted as a way to inform women about their future fertility. However, data consistently show the test is a poor predictor of natural fertility potential for an individual woman. As fertility centre websites are often a primary source of information for reproductive information, it is essential the information provided is accurate and reflects the available evidence. We aimed to systematically record and categorise information about the AMH test found on Australian and New Zealand fertility clinic websites.

DESIGN

Content analysis of online written information about the AMH test on fertility clinic websites.

SETTING

Accredited Australian and New Zealand fertility clinic websites.

METHODS

Data were extracted between April and June 2020. Any webpage that mentioned the AMH test, including blogs specifically about the AMH test posted since 2015, was analysed and the content categorised.

RESULTS

Of the 39 active accredited fertility clinics' websites, 25 included information about the AMH test. The amount of information varied widely, and embodied four overarching categories; (1) the utility of the AMH test, (2) who the test is suitable for, (3) possible actions in response to the test and (4) caveats and limitations of the test. Eight specific statements about the utility of the test were identified, many of which are not evidence-based. While some websites were transparent regarding the test's limitations, others mentioned no caveats or included persuasive statements actively promoting the test as empowering for a range of women in different circumstances.

CONCLUSIONS

Several websites had statements about the utility of the AMH test that are not supported by the evidence. This highlights the need for higher standards for information provided on fertility clinic websites to prevent women being misled to believe the test can reliably predict their fertility.

VALUE study: a protocol for a qualitative semi-structured interview study of IVF add-ons use by patients, clinicians and embryologists in the UK and Australia

INTRODUCTION

For couples undergoing assisted reproduction, a plethora of adjuncts are available; these are known as 'add-ons'. Most add-ons are not supported by good quality randomised trial evidence of efficacy, with some proven to be ineffective. However, estimates suggest that over 70% of fertility clinics provide at least one add-on, often at extra cost to the patient. This study has three aims. First, to undertake a survey of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) clinics in the UK to ascertain which add-ons are being offered and at what cost. Second, to undertake qualitative semi-structured interviews of patients, clinicians and embryologists, to explore their opinions and beliefs surrounding add-ons. Third, to review the interpretation of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority traffic light system, to better understand the information required by IVF patients, clinicians and embryologists when making decisions about add-ons.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

All UK IVF clinics will be contacted by email and invited to complete an online survey. The survey will ask them which add-ons they offer, at what cost per cycle and how information is shared with patients. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted in the UK and Australia with three groups of participants: (i) fertility patients; (ii) clinicians and (iii) embryologists. Participants for the interviews will be recruited via social media channels, website adverts, email and snowball sampling. Up to 20 participants will be recruited for each group in each country. Following an online consent process, interviews will be conducted via video-conferencing software, transcribed verbatim and data subjected to inductive thematic analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been granted by the Universities of Sheffield, Bath Spa and Melbourne. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated to regulatory bodies in the UK and Australia. A lay summary of findings will be shared via Fertility Network, UK.

A core outcome set for genitourinary symptoms associated with menopause: the COMMA (Core Outcomes in Menopause) global initiative

OBJECTIVE

Genitourinary symptoms, such as vaginal dryness and pain with sex, are commonly experienced by postmenopausal women. Comparing treatments for these genitourinary symptoms are restricted by the use of different outcome measures in clinical trials and the omission of outcomes, which may be relevant to women. The aim of this project was to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) to be reported in clinical trials of treatments for genitourinary symptoms associated with menopause.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of treatments for genitourinary symptoms associated with menopause and extracted their outcomes. This list was refined and entered into a two-round modified Delphi survey, which was open to clinicians, researchers, and postmenopausal women from November 2019 to March 2020. Outcomes were scored on a nine-point scale from "not important" to "critically important." The final COS was determined following two international consensus meetings.

RESULTS

A total of 26 unique outcomes were included in the Delphi process, which was completed by 227 participants of whom 58% were postmenopausal women, 34% clinicians, and 8% researchers. Predefined thresholds were applied to the Delphi scores to categorize outcomes by importance, which informed the e consensus meetings, attended by 43 participants from 21 countries. The final COS includes eight outcomes: (1) pain with sex, (2) vulvovaginal dryness, (3) vulvovaginal discomfort or irritation, (4) discomfort or pain when urinating, (5) change in most bothersome symptom, (6) distress, bother or interference of genitourinary symptoms, (7) satisfaction with treatment, (8) side effects of treatment.

CONCLUSION

These eight core outcomes reflect the joint priorities of postmenopausal women, clinicians, and researchers internationally. Standardized collection and reporting of these outcomes in clinical trials will facilitate the comparison of different treatments for genitourinary symptoms, advance clinical practice, and ultimately improve outcomes for symptomatic women.

Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study† ‡

STUDY QUESTION

Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements and a standardized reporting table have been developed.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals have committed to implementing this core outcome set.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and a financial interest in NexHand. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. J.W. reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. A.V. reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.

Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study† ‡

STUDY QUESTION

Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection and reporting across future infertility research be developed?

SUMMARY ANSWER

A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries).

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition and an arbitrary consensus threshold.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Fertility and Sterility and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study, the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of data, or manuscript preparation. B.W.J.M. is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). S.B. was supported by University of Auckland Foundation Seelye Travelling Fellowship. S.B. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.

A core outcome set for vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause: the COMMA (Core Outcomes in Menopause) global initiative

OBJECTIVE

Vasomotor symptoms (VMS) (hot flashes and night sweats) affect most women over the menopause transition. Comparing the safety and effectiveness of treatments for vasomotor symptoms is limited by the use of inconsistent outcome measures, and uncertainty as to which outcomes are most important to symptomatic women. To address this, we have developed a Core Outcome Set (COS) for use in clinical trials of treatments for VMS.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the primary outcomes measured in randomized controlled trials of treatments for VMS. These were refined and entered into a two-round modified Delphi survey completed by clinicians, researchers, and postmenopausal women between November 2019 and March 2020. Outcomes were scored on a nine-point scale from "not important" to "critically important." Two international consensus meetings were held to finalize the COS.

RESULTS

Based on the systematic review, 13 separate outcomes were included in the Delphi process. This was completed by 227 participants of whom 58% were postmenopausal women, 34% clinicians, and 8% researchers. Predefined thresholds were applied to categorize importance scores obtained during Round 2 of the Delphi survey. These informed discussions at the consensus meetings which were attended by 56 participants from 28 countries. The final COS includes six outcomes: 1) frequency of VMS, 2) severity of VMS, 3) distress, bother or interference caused by VMS, 4) impact on sleep, 5) satisfaction with treatment, and 6) side-effects of treatment.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of this COS will: better enable research studies to accurately reflect the joint priorities of postmenopausal women, clinicians and researchers, standardize outcome reporting, and facilitate combining and comparing results from different studies, and ultimately improve outcomes for women with bothersome VMS.

IVF add-ons in Australia and New Zealand: A systematic assessment of IVF clinic websites

BACKGROUND

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) 'add-ons' are extra (non-essential) procedures, techniques or medicines, which usually claim to increase the chance of a successful IVF outcome. Use of IVF add-ons is believed to be widespread in many settings; however, information about add-on availability in Australasia is lacking.

AIMS

To understand which add-ons are advertised on Australasian IVF clinic websites, and what is the evidence for their benefit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic assessment of website content was undertaken between December 2019-April 2020, capturing IVF add-ons advertised, including costs, claims of benefit, statements of risk or limitations, and evidence of effectiveness for improving live birth and pregnancy. A literature review assessed the strength and quality of evidence for each add-on.

RESULTS

Of the 40 included IVF clinics websites, 31 (78%) listed one or more IVF add-ons. A total of 21 different add-ons or add-on groups were identified, the most common being preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (offered by 63% of clinics), time-lapse systems (33%) and assisted hatching (28%). In most cases (77%), descriptions of the IVF add-ons were accompanied by claims of benefit. Most claims (90%) were not quantified and very few referenced scientific publications to support the claims (9.8%). None of the add-ons were supported by high-quality evidence of benefit for pregnancy or live birth rates. The cost of IVF add-ons varied from $0 to $3700 (AUD/NZD).

CONCLUSIONS

There is widespread advertising of add-ons on IVF clinic websites, which report benefits for add-ons that are not supported by high-quality evidence.

Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study

STUDY QUESTION

Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The top 10 research priorities for the four areas of male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction, and ethics, access, and organization of care for people with fertility problems were identified.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management, and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines, and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, diverse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction, and ethics, access, and organization of care.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems, and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties were entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities, and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI, and IVF), and ethics, access, and organization of care, were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from 11 countries. These research priorities were diverse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment, and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings, and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require diverse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research, and population science.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, methodological decisions informed by professional judgement, and arbitrary consensus definitions.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems, and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda.

STUDY FUNDING/ COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The study was funded by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Geoffrey Adamson reports research sponsorship from Abbott, personal fees from Abbott and LabCorp, a financial interest in Advanced Reproductive Care, committee membership of the FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, International Federation of Fertility Societies, and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, and research sponsorship of the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies from Abbott and Ferring. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. Andrew Horne reports research sponsorship from the Chief Scientist's Office, Ferring, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, and Wellbeing of Women and consultancy fees from Abbvie, Ferring, Nordic Pharma, and Roche Diagnostics. M. Louise Hull reports grants from Merck, grants from Myovant, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work and ownership in Embrace Fertility, a private fertility company. Neil Johnson reports research sponsorship from Abb-Vie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy fees from Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Roche Diagnostics, and Vifor Pharma. José Knijnenburg reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. Richard Legro reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. Ben Mol reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. Craig Niederberger reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. Jane Stewart reports being employed by a National Health Service fertility clinic, consultancy fees from Merck for educational events, sponsorship to attend a fertility conference from Ferring, and being a clinical subeditor of Human Fertility. Annika Strandell reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. Jack Wilkinson reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. Andy Vail reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from HFEA for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. Lan Vuong reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the present work. All authors have completed the disclosure form.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Not applicable.

Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study† ‡

STUDY QUESTION

Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The top 10 research priorities for the four areas of male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care for people with fertility problems were identified.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, diverse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties was entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI and IVF) and ethics, access and organization of care were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from 11 countries. These research priorities were diverse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require diverse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research and population science.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, methodological decisions informed by professional judgment and arbitrary consensus definitions.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The study was funded by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. G.D.A. reports research sponsorship from Abbott, personal fees from Abbott and LabCorp, a financial interest in Advanced Reproductive Care, committee membership of the FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, International Federation of Fertility Societies and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, and research sponsorship of the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies from Abbott and Ferring. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. A.W.H. reports research sponsorship from the Chief Scientist's Office, Ferring, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research and Wellbeing of Women and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Ferring, Nordic Pharma and Roche Diagnostics. M.L.H. reports grants from Merck, grants from Myovant, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work and ownership in Embrace Fertility, a private fertility company. N.P.J. reports research sponsorship from AbbVie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy fees from Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Roche Diagnostics and Vifor Pharma. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring and retains a financial interest in NexHand. J.S. reports being employed by a National Health Service fertility clinic, consultancy fees from Merck for educational events, sponsorship to attend a fertility conference from Ferring and being a clinical subeditor of Human Fertility. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. J.W. reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. A.V. reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the present work. All authors have completed the disclosure form.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Protocol for development of a core outcome set for menopausal symptoms (COMMA)

OBJECTIVE

Menopause is the natural cessation of menstruation and may be accompanied by troublesome symptoms including hot flushes and night sweats (vasomotor symptoms) and genitourinary symptoms. Randomized trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of interventions for these symptoms have reported a wide range of outcomes and used inconsistent measures. This variation precludes comparing and combining data from different trials. To overcome this limitation, we will develop a Core Outcome Set for Menopausal Symptoms.

METHODS

We will systematically review the literature to identify the outcomes reported in the interventional trials for vasomotor and genitourinary symptoms. This list will be entered into a two-round modified Delphi survey to be completed by clinicians, researchers, and consumers (women who have experienced menopause). Participants will score outcomes on a nine-point scale from "not important" to "critically important." Representatives from each stakeholder group will then meet to discuss the results and finalize the Core Outcome Set. Ethics approval was not required as this was considered service evaluation and development. The study is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative (http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/917).

RESULTS

An agreed upon set of minimum outcomes and outcome measures will facilitate combining and comparing findings from future trials of treatments for menopausal symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

This Core Outcome Set will better enable women and clinicians to select effective treatments, improve the quality of trial reporting, reduce research wastage, and improve care for women with troublesome menopausal symptoms. VIDEO SUMMARY:: http://links.lww.com/MENO/A633.

Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study

STUDY QUESTION

Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection, and reporting across future infertility research be developed?

SUMMARY ANSWER

A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions, and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries).

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Healthcare professionals, researchers, and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin, and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition, and an arbitrary consensus threshold.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection, and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Ferility and Sterility, and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund, and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. José Knijnenburg reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. Richard Legro reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. Ben Mol reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. Craig Niederberger reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. Annika Strandell reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. Lan Vuong reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.

Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study

STUDY QUESTION

Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements, and a standardized reporting table have been developed.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Healthcare professionals, researchers, and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines, and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms, and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals have committed to implementing this core outcome set.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund, and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. Richard Legro reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. Ben Mol reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. Craig Niederberger reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and a financial interest in NexHand. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. Annika Strandell reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. Jack Wilkinson reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. Andy Vail reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from HFEA for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. Lan Vuong reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.

IVF and IUI in couples with unexplained infertility (FIIX study): study protocol of a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTIONS

In couples with unexplained infertility and a poor prognosis of natural conception, are four cycles of IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) non-inferior to one completed cycle of IVF for the outcome of cumulative live birth? Are four cycles of IUI-OS associated with a lower cost per live birth compared to one completed cycle of IVF? Will four cycles of IUI-OS followed by one complete cycle of IVF result in as many live births at lower cost per live birth, than two complete cycles of IVF? Will four cycles of IUI-OS followed by two complete cycles of IVF result in more live births at lower cost per live birth, than two complete cycles of IVF alone?

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

IUI is widely used in the USA, the UK and Europe as a low cost, less invasive alternative to IVF for couples with unexplained infertility. Although three to six cycles of IUI were comparable to IVF in the three major studies carried out to date, gonadotrophin ovarian stimulation was used in the majority of cases, and this also resulted in a high multiple pregnancy rate in some studies. Ovarian stimulation with clomiphene citrate is known to have lower multiple pregnancy rates.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The FIIX study is a multicentre, open label, parallel, pragmatic non-inferiority randomized controlled trial of 580 couples with unexplained infertility comparing four cycles of IUI-OS with clomiphene citrate and one completed cycle of IVF. Variable block randomization stratified by age and clinic with electronic allocation will be used.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Couples with poor prognosis for natural conception and who are eligible for publicly funded fertility treatment in six fertility clinics in New Zealand.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Auckland Medical Research Fund (3718892/1119003), A+ Trust, Auckland District Health Board (A + 8479), Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust (3718514). No competing interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12619001003167.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

15 July 2019

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

02/08/2019

Strategies to reduce multiple pregnancies during medically assisted reproduction

Multiple birth rates after fertility treatment are still high in many countries. Multiple births are associated with increased rates of preterm birth and low birth weight babies, in turn increasing the risk of severe morbidity for the children. The multiple birth rates vary in different countries between 2% and 3% and up to 30% in some settings. Elective single-embryo transfer, particularly in combination with frozen-embryo transfer and milder stimulation in ovulation induction/intrauterine insemination, to avoid multifollicular development is an effective strategy to decrease the multiple birth rates while still achieving acceptable live-birth rates. Although this procedure is used successfully in many countries, it ought to be implemented broadly to improve the health of the children. One at a time should be the normal routine.

Are interventions in reproductive medicine assessed for plausible and clinically relevant effects? A systematic review of power and precision in trials and meta-analyses

STUDY QUESTION

How much statistical power do randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses have to investigate the effectiveness of interventions in reproductive medicine?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The largest trials in reproductive medicine are unlikely to detect plausible improvements in live birth rate (LBR), and meta-analyses do not make up for this shortcoming.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Effectiveness of interventions is best evaluated using RCTs. In order to be informative, these trials should be designed to have sufficient power to detect the smallest clinically relevant effect. Similar trials can subsequently be pooled in meta-analyses to more precisely estimate treatment effects.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A review of power and precision in 199 RCTs and meta-analyses from 107 Cochrane Reviews was conducted.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Systematic reviews published by Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility with the primary outcome live birth were identified. For each live birth (or ongoing pregnancy) meta-analysis and for the largest RCT in each, we calculated the power to detect absolute improvements in LBR of varying sizes. Additionally, the 95% CIs of estimated treatment effects from each meta-analysis and RCT were recorded, as these indicate the precision of the result.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Median (interquartile range) power to detect an improvement in LBR of 5 percentage points (pp) (e.g. 25-30%) was 13% (8-21%) for RCTs and 16% (9-33%) for meta-analyses. No RCTs and only 2% of meta-analyses achieved 80% power to detect an improvement of 5 pp. Median power was high (85% for trials and 93% for meta-analyses) only in relation to 20 pp absolute LBR improvement, although substantial numbers of trials and meta-analyses did not achieve 80% power even for this improbably large effect size. Median width of 95% CIs was 25 pp and 21 pp for RCTs and meta-analyses, respectively. We found that 28% of Cochrane Reviews with LBR as the primary outcome contain no live birth (or ongoing pregnancy) data.

LARGE-SCALE DATA

The data used in this study may be accessed at https://osf.io/852tn/?view_only=90f1579ce72747ccbe572992573197bd.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The design and analysis decisions used in this study are predicted to overestimate the power of trials and meta-analyses, and the size of the problem is therefore likely understated. For some interventions, it is possible that larger trials not reporting live birth or ongoing pregnancy have been conducted, which were not included in our sample. In relation to meta-analyses, we calculated power as though all participants were included in a single trial. This ignores heterogeneity between trials in a meta-analysis, and will cause us to overestimate power.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Trials capable of detecting realistic improvements in LBR are lacking in reproductive medicine, and meta-analyses are not large enough to overcome this deficiency. This situation will lead to unwarranted pessimism as well as unjustified enthusiasm regarding reproductive interventions, neither of which are consistent with the practice of evidence-based medicine or the idea of informed patient choice. However, RCTs and meta-analyses remain vital to establish the effectiveness of fertility interventions. We discuss strategies to improve the evidence base and call for collaborative studies focusing on the most important research questions.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

There was no specific funding for this study. KS and SL declare no conflict of interest. AV consults for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA): all fees are paid directly to AV's employer. JW declares that publishing research benefits his career. SR is a Statistical Editor for Human Reproduction. JW and AV are Statistical Editors for Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility. DRB is funded by the NHS as Scientific Director of a clinical IVF service.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

None.

In vitro fertilization add-ons for the endometrium: it doesn't add-up

The probability of live birth from an in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle is modest. Many additional treatments (add-ons) are available which promise to improve the success of IVF. This review summarizes the current evidence for common IVF add-ons which are suggested to improve endometrial receptivity. Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials and individual trials were included. Five add-ons were included: immune therapies, endometrial scratching, endometrial receptivity array, uterine artery vasodilation, and human chorionic gonadotropin instillation. The results suggest there is no robust evidence that these add-ons are effective or safe. Many IVF add-ons are costly, consuming precious resources which may be better spent on evidence-based treatments or further IVF. Large randomized controlled trials and appropriate safety assessment should be mandatory before the introduction of IVF add-ons into routine practice.

Access to routinely collected health data for clinical trials - review of successful data requests to UK registries

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials generally each collect their own data despite routinely collected health data (RCHD) increasing in quality and breadth. Our aim is to quantify UK-based randomised controlled trials (RCTs) accessing RCHD for participant data, characterise how these data are used and thereby recommend how more trials could use RCHD.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of RCTs accessing RCHD from at least one registry in the UK between 2013 and 2018 for the purposes of informing or supplementing participant data. A list of all registries holding RCHD in the UK was compiled. In cases where registries published release registers, these were searched for RCTs accessing RCHD. Where no release register was available, registries were contacted to request a list of RCTs. For each identified RCT, information was collected from all publicly available sources (release registers, websites, protocol etc.). The search and data extraction were undertaken between January and May 2019.

RESULTS

We identified 160 RCTs accessing RCHD between 2013 and 2018 from a total of 22 registries; this corresponds to only a very small proportion of all UK RCTs (about 3%). RCTs accessing RCHD were generally large (median sample size 1590), commonly evaluating treatments for cancer or cardiovascular disease. Most of the included RCTs accessed RCHD from NHS Digital (68%), and the most frequently accessed datasets were mortality (76%) and hospital visits (55%). RCHD was used to inform the primary trial (82%) and long-term follow-up (57%). There was substantial variation in how RCTs used RCHD to inform participant outcome measures. A limitation was the lack of information and transparency from registries and RCTs with respect to which datasets have been accessed and for what purposes.

CONCLUSIONS

In the last five years, only a small minority of UK-based RCTs have accessed RCHD to inform participant data. We ask for improved accessibility, confirmed data quality and joined-up thinking between the registries and the regulatory authorities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019123088.

A core outcome set for future endometriosis research: an international consensus development study

OBJECTIVE

To develop a core outcome set for endometriosis.

DESIGN

Consensus development study.

SETTING

International.

POPULATION

One hundred and sixteen healthcare professionals, 31 researchers and 206 patient representatives.

METHODS

Modified Delphi method and modified nominal group technique.

RESULTS

The final core outcome set includes three core outcomes for trials evaluating potential treatments for pain and other symptoms associated with endometriosis: overall pain; improvement in the most troublesome symptom; and quality of life. In addition, eight core outcomes for trials evaluating potential treatments for infertility associated with endometriosis were identified: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound; pregnancy loss, including ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy; live birth; time to pregnancy leading to live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital abnormalities. Two core outcomes applicable to all trials were also identified: adverse events and patient satisfaction with treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Using robust consensus science methods, healthcare professionals, researchers and women with endometriosis have developed a core outcome set to standardise outcome selection, collection and reporting across future randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for endometriosis. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: @coreoutcomes for future #endometriosis research have been developed @jamesmnduffy.