Patients' preferences for intrauterine insemination or in-vitro fertilization

Driving factors in treatment decision-making of patients seeking medical assistance for infertility: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

ART differs in effectiveness, side-effects, administration, and costs. To improve the decision-making process, we need to understand what factors patients consider to be most important.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

We conducted this systematic review to assess which aspects of ART treatment (effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, and genetic parenthood) are most important in the decision-making of patients with an unfulfilled wish to have a child.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched studies indexed in Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL prior to November 2023. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs), surveys, interviews, and conjoint analyses (CAs) about ART were included. Studies were included if they described two or more of the following attributes: effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, and genetic parenthood.Participants were men and women with an unfulfilled wish to have a child. From each DCE/CA study, we extracted the beta-coefficients and calculated the relative importance of treatment attributes or, in case of survey studies, extracted results. We assessed the risk of bias using the rating developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. Attributes were classified into effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, genetic parenthood, and others.

OUTCOMES

The search identified 938 studies of which 20 were included: 13 DCEs, three survey studies, three interview studies, and one conjoint analysis, with a total of 12 452 patients. Per study, 47-100% of the participants were women. Studies were assessed as having moderate to high risk of bias (critical: six studies, serious: four studies, moderate: nine studies, low: one study). The main limitation was the heterogeneity in the questionnaires and methodology utilized. Studies varied in the number and types of assessed attributes. Patients' treatment decision-making was mostly driven by effectiveness, followed by safety, burden, costs, and patient-centeredness. Effectiveness was rated as the first or second most important factor in 10 of the 12 DCE studies (83%) and the relative importance of effectiveness varied between 17% and 63%, with a median of 34% (moderate certainty of evidence). Of eight studies evaluating safety, five studies valued safety as the first or second most important factor (63%), and the relative importance ranged from 8% to 35% (median 23%) (moderate certainty of evidence). Cost was rated as first or second most important in five of 10 studies, and the importance relative to the other attributes varied between 5% and 47% (median 23%) (moderate certainty of evidence). Burden was rated as first or second by three of 10 studies (30%) and the relative importance varied between 1% and 43% (median 13%) (low certainty of evidence). Patient-centeredness was second most important in one of five studies (20%) and had a relative importance between 7% and 24% (median 14%) (low certainty of evidence). Results suggest that patients are prepared to trade-off some effectiveness for more safety, or less burden and patient-centeredness. When safety was evaluated, the safety of the child was considered more important than the mother's safety. Greater burden (cycle cancellations, number of injections, number of hospital visits, time) was more likely to be accepted by patients if they gained effectiveness, safety, or lower costs. Concerning patient-centeredness, information provision and physician attitude were considered most important, followed by involvement in decision-making, and treatment continuity by the same medical professional. Non-genetic parenthood did not have a clear impact on decision-making.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

The findings of this review can be used in future preference studies and can help healthcare professionals in guiding patients' decision-making and enable a more patient-centered approach.

IVF versus IUI with ovarian stimulation for unexplained infertility: a collaborative individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

IVF and IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) are widely used in managing unexplained infertility. IUI-OS is generally considered first-line therapy, followed by IVF only if IUI-OS is unsuccessful after several attempts. However, there is a growing interest in using IVF for immediate treatment because it is believed to lead to higher live birth rates and shorter time to pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IVF versus IUI-OS had varied study designs and findings. Some RCTs used complex algorithms to combine IVF and IUI-OS, while others had unequal follow-up time between arms or compared treatments on a per-cycle basis, which introduced biases. Comparing cumulative live birth rates of IVF and IUI-OS within a consistent time frame is necessary for a fair head-to-head comparison. Previous meta-analyses of RCTs did not consider the time it takes to achieve pregnancy, which is not possible using aggregate data. Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) allows standardization of follow-up time in different trials and time-to-event analysis methods. We performed this IPD-MA to investigate if IVF increases cumulative live birth rate considering the time leading to pregnancy and reduces multiple pregnancy rate compared to IUI-OS in couples with unexplained infertility.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register to identify RCTs that completed data collection before June 2021. A search update was carried out in January 2023. RCTs that compared IVF/ICSI to IUI-OS in couples with unexplained infertility were eligible. We invited author groups of eligible studies to join the IPD-MA and share the deidentified IPD of their RCTs. IPD were checked and standardized before synthesis. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool.

OUTCOMES

Of eight potentially eligible RCTs, two were considered awaiting classification. In the other six trials, four shared IPD of 934 women, of which 550 were allocated to IVF and 383 to IUI-OS. Because the interventions were unable to blind, two RCTs had a high risk of bias, one had some concerns, and one had a low risk of bias. Considering the time to pregnancy leading to live birth, the cumulative live birth rate was not significantly higher in IVF compared to that in IUI-OS (4 RCTs, 908 women, 50.3% versus 43.2%, hazard ratio 1.19, 95% CI 0.81-1.74, I2 = 42.4%). For the safety primary outcome, the rate of multiple pregnancy was not significantly lower in IVF than IUI-OS (3 RCTs, 890 women, 3.8% versus 5.2% of all couples randomized, odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.41-1.50, I2 = 0.0%).

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

There is no robust evidence that in couples with unexplained infertility IVF achieves pregnancy leading to live birth faster than IUI-OS. IVF and IUI-OS are both viable options in terms of effectiveness and safety for managing unexplained infertility. The associated costs of interventions and the preference of couples need to be weighed in clinical decision-making.

International Natural Procreative Technology Evaluation and Surveillance of Treatment for Subfertility (iNEST): enrollment and methods

STUDY QUESTION

What is the feasibility of a prospective protocol to follow subfertile couples being treated with natural procreative technology for up to 3 years at multiple clinical sites?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Overall, clinical sites had missing data for about one-third of participants, the proportion of participants responding to follow-up questionnaires during time periods when participant compensation was available (about two-thirds) was double that of time periods when participant compensation was not available (about one-third) and follow-up information was most complete for pregnancies and births (obtained from both clinics and participants).

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Several retrospective single-clinic studies from Canada, Ireland and the USA, with subfertile couples receiving restorative reproductive medicine, mostly natural procreative technology, have reported adjusted cumulative live birth rates ranging from 29% to 66%, for treatment for up to 2 years, with a mean women’s age of about 35 years.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The international Natural Procreative Technology Evaluation and Surveillance of Treatment for Subfertility (iNEST) was designed as a multicenter, prospective cohort study, to enroll subfertile couples seeking treatment for live birth, assess baseline characteristics and follow them up for up to 3 years to report diagnoses, treatments and outcomes of pregnancy and live birth. In addition to obtaining data from medical record abstraction, we sent follow-up questionnaires to participants (both women and men) to obtain information about treatments and pregnancy outcomes, including whether they obtained treatment elsewhere. The study was conducted from 2006 to 2016, with a total of 10 clinics participating for at least some of the study period across four countries (Canada, Poland, UK and USA).

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The 834 participants were subfertile couples with the woman’s age 18 years or more, not pregnant and seeking a live birth, with at least one clinic visit. Couples with known absolute infertility were excluded (i.e. bilateral tubal blockage, azoospermia). Most women were trained to use a standardized protocol for daily vulvar observation, description and recording of cervical mucus and vaginal bleeding (the Creighton Model FertilityCare System). Couples received medical and sometimes surgical evaluation and treatments aimed to restore and optimize female and male reproductive function, to facilitate in vivo conception.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The mean age of women starting treatment was 34.0 years; among those with additional demographic data, 382/478 (80%) had 16 or more years of education, and 199/659 (30%) had a prior live birth. Across 10 clinical sites in four countries (mostly private clinical practices) with family physicians or obstetrician–gynecologists, data about clinic visits were submitted for 60% of participants, and diagnostic data for 77%. For data obtained directly from the couple, 59% of couples had at least one follow-up questionnaire, and the proportion of women and men responding to fill out the follow-up questionnaires was 69% and 67%, respectively, when participant financial compensation was available, compared to 38% and 33% when compensation was not available. Among all couples, 57% had at least one pregnancy and 44% at least one live birth during the follow-up time period, based on data obtained from clinic and/or participant questionnaires. All sites reported on female pelvic surgical procedures, and among all participants, 22% of females underwent a pelvic diagnostic and/or therapeutic procedure, predominantly laparoscopy and hysterosalpingography. Among the 643 (77%) of participants with diagnostic information, ovulation-related disorders were diagnosed in 87%, endometriosis in 31%, nutritional disorders in 47% and abnormalities of semen analysis in 24%. The mean number of diagnoses per couple was 4.7.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The level of missing data was higher than anticipated, which limits both generalizability and the ability to study different components of treatment and prognosis. Loss to follow-up may also be differential and introduce bias for outcomes. Most of the participating clinicians were not surgeons, which limits the opportunity to study the impact of surgical interventions. Participants were geographically dispersed but relatively homogeneous with regard to socioeconomic status, which may limit the generalizability of current and future findings.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Multicenter studies are key to understanding the outcomes of subfertility treatments beyond IVF or IUI in broader populations, and the association of different prognostic factors with outcomes. We anticipate that the iNEST study will provide insight for clinical and treatment factors associated with outcomes of pregnancy and live birth, with appropriate attention to potential biases (including adjustment for potential confounders, multiple imputation for missing data, sensitivity analysis and inverse probability weighting for potential differential loss to follow-up, and assessments for clinical site heterogeneity). Future studies will need to either have: adequate funding to compensate clinics and participants for robust data collection, including targeted randomized trials; or a scaled-down, registry-based approach with targeted data points, similar to the multiple national and regional ART registries.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Funding for the study came from the International Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine, the University of Utah, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, Health Studies Fund, the Primary Children’s Medical Foundation, the Mary Cross Tippmann Foundation, the Atlas Foundation, the St. Augustine Foundation and the Women’s Reproductive Health Foundation. The authors declare no competing interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The iNEST study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01363596.

Intrauterine insemination + controlled ovarian hyperstimulation versus in vitro fertilisation in unexplained infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

IUI + COH is widely used in cases of unexplained infertility before resorting to IVF. Debate continues about what should be the first-line treatment for couples with unexplained infertility.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review assessed the relative efficacy of IUI + COH compared with IVF in couples with unexplained infertility.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Medline, Embase, CIHNL, Pscy Info, and Cochrane Library from 1980 to November 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only RCTs published articles in full text with female patients aged 18-43 years and diagnosed with unexplained infertility were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors reviewed citations from primary search independently and any disagreement was resolved by mutual discussion and consultation with a third author.

MAIN RESULT

In total, eight RCTs were included. The quality of evidence was moderate to low due to inconsistency across the trials and imprecision. The pooled result showed that IVF was associated with a statistically significant higher live birth rate (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.01-2.32, P < 0.00001 I² = 86%) with no significant difference in multiple pregnancy rate or OHSS rate. Sensitivity analysis based on women's age and a history of previous IUI or IVF treatment showed no significant difference in the live birth rates (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.88-1.15, I² = 0%, 3 RCTs) in treatment-naïve women younger than 38 years. In women over 38 years, the live birth rates were significantly higher in the IVF group (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.16-4.0, I² = 42%, 1 RCT).

CONCLUSION

Further research using a standardised treatment protocol and taking into account important prognostic variables and cumulative live birth rates from fresh IVF and all sibling frozen embryos is required to further guide clinical practice.

Using the Threshold Technique to Elicit Patient Preferences: An Introduction to the Method and an Overview of Existing Empirical Applications

Patient preference information (PPI) is a topic of interest to regulators and industry. One of many known methods for eliciting PPI is the threshold technique (TT). However, empirical studies of the TT differ from each other in many ways and no effort to date has been made to summarize them or the evidence regarding the performance of the method. We sought to describe the TT and summarize the empirical applications of the method. Forty-three studies were reviewed. Most studies estimated the minimum level of benefit required to make a treatment worthwhile, and over half estimated the maximum level of risk patients would accept to achieve a treatment benefit. The evidence demonstrates that the TT can be used to elicit multiple types of thresholds and can be used to explore preference heterogeneity and preference non-linearity. Some evidence suggests that the method may be sensitive to anchoring and shift-framing effects; however, no evidence suggests that the method is more or less sensitive to these potential biases than other stated-preference methods. The TT may be a viable method for eliciting PPI to support regulatory decision-making; however, additional understanding of the performance of this method may be needed. Future research should focus on TT performance compared with other stated-preference methods, the extent to which results predict patient choice, and the ability of the TT to inform individual treatment decisions at the point of healthcare delivery.

The relative importance of genetic parenthood

RESEARCH QUESTION

How much do patients with severe infertility and their gynaecologists value genetic parenthood relative to other key treatment characteristics?

DESIGN

A discrete choice experiment included the following treatment characteristics: genetic parenthood, pregnancy rate, curing infertility, maternal health, child health and costs. The questionnaire was disseminated between 2015 and 2016 among Dutch and Belgian patients with severe infertility and their gynaecologists.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was completed by 173 patients and 111 gynaecologists. When choosing between treatments that varied in safety, effectiveness and costs, the treatment's ability to lead to genetic parenthood did not affect the treatment preference of patients with severe infertility (n = 173). Genetic parenthood affected the treatment preference of gynaecologists (n = 111) less than all other treatment characteristics. Patients indicated that they would switch to a treatment that did not enable genetic parenthood in return for a child health risk reduction of 3.6%, a cost reduction of €3500, an ovarian hyperstimulation risk reduction of 4.6%, a maternal cancer risk reduction of 2.7% or a pregnancy rate increase of 18%. Gynaecologists made similar trade-offs.

CONCLUSIONS

While awaiting replication of this study in larger populations, these findings challenge the presumed dominant importance of genetic parenthood. This raises questions about whether donor gametes could be presented as a worthy alternative earlier in treatment trajectories and whether investments in novel treatments enabling genetic parenthood, like in-vitro gametogenesis, are proportional to their future clinical effect.

IUI: review and systematic assessment of the evidence that supports global recommendations

BACKGROUND

IUI with or without ovarian stimulation (OS) has become a first-line treatment option for many infertile couples, worldwide. The appropriate treatment modality for couples and their clinical management through IUI or IUI/OS cycles must consider maternal and perinatal outcomes, most notably the clinical complication of higher-order multiple pregnancies associated with IUI-OS. With a current global emphasis to continue to decrease maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity, the World Health Organization (WHO) had established a multi-year project to review the evidence for the establishment of normative guidance for the implementation of IUI as a treatment to address fertility problems, and to consider its cost-effectiveness for lower resource settings.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

The objective of this review is to provide a review of the evidence of 13 prioritized questions that cover IUI with and without OS. We provide summary recommendations for the development of global, evidence-based guidelines based upon methodology established by the WHO.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using question-specific relevant search terms in May 2015. For each PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcomes) drafted by WHO, specific search terms were used to find the available evidence in MEDLINE (1950 to May 2015) and The Cochrane Library (until May 2015). After presentation to an expert panel, a further hand search of references in relevant reviews was performed up to January 2017. Articles that were found to be relevant were read and analysed by two investigators and critically appraised using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias, and AMSTAR in case of systematic reviews. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE system. An independent expert review process of our analysis was conducted in November 2016.

OUTCOMES

This review provides an assessment and synthesis of the evidence that covers 13 clinical questions including the indications for the use of IUI versus expectant management, the sperm parameters required, the best and optimal method of timing and number of inseminations per cycle, prevention strategies to decrease multiple gestational pregnancies, and the cost-effectiveness of IUI versus IVF. We provide an evidence-based formulation of 20 recommendations, as well as two best practice points that address the integration of methods for the prevention of infection in the IUI laboratory. The quality of the evidence ranges from very low to high, with evidence that may be decades old but of high quality, however, we further discuss where critical research gaps in the evidence remain.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

This review presents an evidence synthesis assessment and includes recommendations that will assist health care providers worldwide with their decision-making when considering IUI treatments, with or without OS, for their patients presenting with fertility problems.

Couples with non-obstructive azoospermia are interested in future treatments with artificial gametes

STUDY QUESTION

Would couples diagnosed with non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) consider two future treatments with artificial gametes (AGs) as alternatives for testicular sperm extraction followed by ICSI (TESE-ICSI)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Most couples with NOA (89%) would opt for treatment with AGs before attempting TESE-ICSI and/or after failed TESE-ICSI.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Couples with NOA who undergo TESE-ICSI have a 25% chance of conceiving a child. Two future treatments that are being developed are 'ICSI with artificial sperm formed from somatic cells' (ICSI with AGs) and 'natural conception after autotransplantation of in vitro proliferated spermatogonial stem cells' (natural conception with AGs). It is unknown what treatment preferences patients have.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A cross-sectional survey conducted in 2012-2013, addressing all 921 couples diagnosed with NOA and treated with TESE-ICSI in Dutch fertility clinics between 2007 and 2012. The coded questionnaires were sent by mail and followed up with two reminders.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

We developed the questionnaire based on a literature review and previous qualitative interviews, and included treatment preference and the valuation of nine treatment characteristics. We assessed reliability of the questionnaires and calculated mean importance scores (MISs: 0-10) of each treatment characteristic. We assessed which patient and treatment characteristics were associated with a couple's hypothetical treatment preference using binominal regression.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The vast majority (89%) of the 494 responding couples (response rate: 54%) would potentially opt for AGs as a first and/or a last resort treatment option. More specifically, as a first treatment couples were likely (67%) to prefer natural conception with AGs over TESE-ICSI and less likely to prefer ICSI with AGs over TESE-ICSI (34%). After failed TESE-ICSI, the majority of couples (75%) would want to attempt ICSI with AGs as a last resort option. The most important characteristics of treatment were safety for children (MIS: 8.2), pregnancy rates (MIS: 7.7) and curing infertility (MIS: 6.8). Costs, burden, naturalness and technological sophistication were of about equal importance (MIS: 3.1-4.0). The majority of patients rated conception at home and moral acceptability as not important (MIS: 1.7 and 0.8, respectively), but the importance attributed to these variables did still affect patients' likeliness to opt for AGs.

LIMITATIONS AND REASONS FOR CAUTION

Couples with NOA not opting for TESE-ICSI were not included and might have other perspectives. Couples' hypothetical choices for AGs might differ from their actual choices once data on the costs, safety and pregnancy rates become available from these new treatment options.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The interest of couples with NOA in potential future treatments with AGs encourages further pre-clinical research. Priority setting for research and future decision-making on clinical application of AGs should take all characteristics important to patients into account.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

The authors report no financial or other conflict of interest relevant to the subject of this article.

First line fertility treatment strategies regarding IUI and IVF require clinical evidence

The advent of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has contributed to a significant growth in the delivery of assisted conception technique, such that IVF/ICSI procedures are now recommended over other interventions. Even the UK National Institute for Health Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines controversially recommends against intrauterine insemination (IUI) procedures in favour of IVF. We reflect on some of the clinical, economic, financial and ethical realities that have been used to selectively promote IVF over IUI, which is less intrusive and more patient friendly, obviates the need for embryo storage and has a global application. The evidence strongly favours IUI over IVF in selected couples and national funding strategies should include IUI treatment options. IUI, practised optimally as a first line treatment in up to six cycles, would also ease the pressures on public funds to allow the provision of up to three IVF cycles for couple who need it. Fertility clinics should also strive towards ISO15189 accreditation standards for basic semen diagnosis for male infertility used to triage ICSI treatment, to reduce the over-diagnosis of severe male factor infertility. Importantly, there is a need to develop global guidelines on inclusion policies for IVF/ICSI procedures. These suggestions are an ethically sound basis for constructing the provision of publicly funded fertility treatments.

Severity of oligo-asteno-teratozoospermia no longer determines overall success rate in male subfertility

In this longitudinal multicentre cohort study, the overall ongoing pregnancy rate after current evidence-based management in male subfertility was studied. All subfertile couples who visited the fertility clinic for the first time between 2002 and 2006, and had male subfertility as a single diagnosis (n = 762 of 2476 couples), were included in this study. Couples were grouped by the severity of male factor. Group I (n = 541) had a total motile sperm count (TMSC) 1-20 × 10(6). Group II (n = 161) had a TMSC <1 × 10(6). Group III (n = 60) had azoospermia. The overall ongoing pregnancy rate was 65.5% (500/762). The overall ongoing pregnancy rates in group I (69.3%) and group II (61.5%) were comparable (p = 0.06). However, group I and group II conceived significantly more frequently than group III (43.3%) (group I vs. group III p < 0.001 and group II vs. group III p = 0.02, respectively). Moreover, the spontaneous ongoing pregnancy rate in group I was 35.3%, in group II 22.4% and in group III, 1.7% (group I vs. group II p = 0.002; group I vs. group III p < 0.001; group II vs. group III p < 0.001). Thus, despite a significant difference in spontaneous ongoing pregnancy rates, except for azoospermia, the overall ongoing pregnancy rates, regardless of the severity of the male factor, were comparable. Couples with poorer sperm parameters, however, have to undergo more invasive treatment to reach the same goal.

IVF conversion to IUI in poor responders: an observational study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the significance of converting an IVF stimulation cycle with poor ovarian response to an IUI cycle.

METHODS

Between January and December 2007, 47 cycles of IVF conversion to IUI were retrospectively studied in 44 infertile women who had a low response to ovarian hyperstimulation for IVF. Patients' characteristics, ovarian stimulation, and ovarian response and outcome were collected and compared with those of 41 women undergoing ovum pickup for IVF with poor ovarian response (n = 44 cycles) in the same period.

RESULTS

Women in the conversion group had slightly lower ovarian reserve, shorter stimulation with higher rFSH doses, lower peak estradiol and fewer mature follicles than in the IVF group. Pregnancy rates were comparable in both groups, though clinical pregnancy rate tended to be higher in the conversion group than in the IVF group.

CONCLUSIONS

Thus, pregnancy rate in the conversion group compares favourably with IVF outcome in such circumstances. This means that IVF conversion to IUI in poor responders who are suitable for IUI is a valuable alternative that should be considered in their management.

The patients' perspective on fertility care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient-centered reproductive medicine (PCRM) is important for quality of care, and this is increasingly being recognized. However, its scientific basis is unclear. The main research questions addressed in this review are: 'How has the patients' perspective on fertility care been examined (method and quality)?' and 'What is the perspective of patients in developed countries on fertility care?'.

METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted and inclusion criteria with respect to eligibility and quality were applied. The methodology of the studies was critically appraised; the findings of the studies were synthesized and organized according to: patients' value clarification and assessment of service quality and dimensions of patient-centeredness. Additionally data on patient preferences and determinants of patients' perspective on care were collected.

RESULTS

In 51 selected studies, patients' perspective on fertility care was examined with (few or many item) questionnaires and/or qualitative interviews. Significant methodological problems were observed. Fertility patients attached importance to seven out of eight dimensions of patient-centeredness (Picker institute) and two new dimensions 'fertility clinic staff' and 'skills' were developed. Overall, fertility patients want to be treated like human beings with a need for: medical skills, respect, coordination, accessibility, information, comfort, support, partner involvement and a good attitude of and relationship with fertility clinic staff. Patients' preferences between procedures and demographic, medical and psychological determinants of their perspective were defined.

CONCLUSIONS

Fertility patients have 'human needs' besides their need for medical care. Evidence on PCRM is available but significant methodological limitations call for the development and validation of a European questionnaire.

Predictors of ovarian response in intrauterine insemination patients and development of a dosage nomogram

The objective of this prospective study was to identify predictors of ovarian response in ovulatory patients treated with low-dose recombinant FSH (rFSH), gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist and intrauterine insemination (IUI), and to develop an rFSH dosage nomogram based on the findings. Patients (n = 159) were stimulated with a starting dose of 75 IU rFSH/day. Ten parameters were investigated as possible predictors of the number of mature follicles >or=15 mm: age, spontaneous cycle length, body weight, body mass index, smoking status, total ovarian volume, total number of antral follicles, total Doppler score of the ovarian stromal blood flow, baseline FSH and oestradiol. Simple and multiple linear regressions were used for the statistical analysis. Appropriate ovarian response was defined as two to three mature follicles. Body weight (P = 0.001) and the number of antral follicles (P = 0.004) were the strongest independent predictive factors of the number of mature follicles. In conclusion, body weight and antral follicle count may be used to achieve appropriate ovarian response for IUI in ovulatory patients. Based on this, a simple rFSH dosage nomogram was developed for individual ovarian stimulation prior to IUI.

Stimulated intrauterine insemination (SIUI) and donor insemination (DI) as first line management for a selected subfertile population: the Manchester experience

PURPOSE

The objective of our study is to investigate the optimum number of stimulated intrauterine insemination (SIUI) or donor insemination (DI) cycles that can be offered to the couples prior to in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in a tertiary referral unit for assisted reproduction.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of 408 SIUI and 704 DI cycles performed in a tertiary referral unit for assisted reproduction. SIUI's were performed by controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and ovulation induction followed by insemination 36 h later. DI's were performed in natural or stimulated cycles after thawing frozen donor sperm. The main outcome measured was cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) per couple.

RESULTS

A maximum CLBR of 26.1% was achieved after the fourth cycle of SIUI. The CLBR of DI increased to 60.1% in the sixth cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

This study, in line with a number of other studies, is unable to demonstrate unequivocally whether increasing numbers of IUI or DI cycles are justified clinically or financially. There is a need for larger datasets from multiple centres along with rigorous randomised trials to compare treatment pathways. Until then, the resources spent on the provision of extra SIUI cycles may be better utilized by early referral to IVF.