Validation of the controlled ovarian stimulation impact measure (COSI): assessing the patient perspective

Women's Reports of Barriers to and Facilitators of Oral Medication Adherence During Ovarian Stimulation: A Mixed Methods Pilot Study

Background:

Adherence to lifestyle modification recommendations remains problematic for women undergoing fertility treatment, raising concerns about the extent to which women adhere to prescribed medication regimens. Limited data have shown suboptimal oral medication adherence rates of 19% to 74%. The objective of this study was to explore what women perceive as barriers to and facilitators of oral medication adherence during fertility treatment cycles.

Methods:

An exploratory mixed methods pilot study was conducted among a sample of 30 women who were actively taking one to two cycles of letrozole or clomiphene citrate for ovarian stimulation in conjunction with intrauterine insemination cycles. Medication adherence barriers were measured using a 20-item survey. Medication adherence facilitators and personal experiences with fertility treatment were assessed with structured interviews. Medication adherence was assessed with electronic event monitoring.

Results:

The overall medication adherence median was 0.97 with a range of 0.75 to 1.00, and nine women (50%) demonstrated perfect adherence. The most commonly reported barriers were recently feeling sad, down, or blue (53%), and taking medication more than once per day (40%). Women with higher barrier scores had significantly lower medication adherence scores (p=0.02) compared to women with lower total barrier scores. Facilitators included using physical aides as reminders (60%) and establishing a daily routine (50%). No significant correlation was found between medication adherence scores and facilitators.

Conclusion:

The dynamic interplay between perceived barriers and facilitators and women’s medication-taking patterns could influence whether or not medication regimens are followed correctly.

Self-Monitoring of Urinary Hormones in Combination with Telemedicine - a Timely Review and Opinion Piece in Medically Assisted Reproduction

Cycle monitoring via ultrasound and serum-based hormonal assays during medically assisted reproduction (MAR) can provide information on ovarian response and assist in optimizing treatment strategies in addition to reducing complications such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Two surveys conducted in 2019 and 2020, including overall 24 fertility specialists from Europe, Asia and Latin America, confirmed that the majority of fertility practitioners routinely conduct hormone monitoring during MAR. However, blood tests may cause inconvenience to patients. The reported drawbacks of blood tests identified by the survey included the validity of results from different service providers, long waiting times and discomfort to patients due to travelling to clinics for tests and repeated venepunctures. Historically, urine-based assays were used by fertility specialists in clinics but were subsequently replaced by more practical and automated serum-based assays. A remote urine-based hormonal assay could be an alternative to current serum-based testing at clinics, reducing the inconvenience of blood tests and the frequency of appointments, waiting times and patient burden. Here we provide an overview of the current standard of care for cycle monitoring and review the literature to assess the correlation between urine-based hormonal assays and serum-based hormonal assays during MAR. In addition, in this review, we discuss the evidence supporting the introduction of remote urine-based hormonal monitoring as part of a novel digital health solution that includes remote ultrasound and tele-counselling to link clinics and patients at home.

The experiences of women with breast cancer who undergo fertility preservation

STUDY QUESTION

How do women, who have just been diagnosed with breast cancer, experience oocyte or embryo banking?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Fertility preservation was a challenging yet welcome way to take action when confronted with breast cancer.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Fertility preservation for women with breast cancer is a way to safeguard future chances of having children. Women who have just been diagnosed with breast cancer report stress, as do women who have to undergo IVF treatment. How women experience the collision of these two stressfull events, has not yet been studied.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We performed a multicenter qualitative study with a phenomenological approach including 21 women between March and July 2014. Women were recruited from two university-based fertility clinics.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Women with breast cancer who banked oocytes or embryos 1–15 months before study participation were eligible. We conducted in-depth, face-to-face interviews with 21 women, which was sufficient to reach data saturation.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The 21 women interviewed had a mean age of 32 years. Analysis of the 21 interviews revealed three main experiences: the burden of fertility preservation, the new identity of a fertility patient and coping with breast cancer through fertility preservation.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Interviewing women after, rather than during, fertility preservation might have induced recall bias. Translation of quotes was not carried out by a certified translator.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The insights gained from this study of the experiences of women undergoing fertility preservation while being newly diagnosed with breast cancer could be used as a starting point for adapting the routine psychosocial care provided by fertility clinic staff. Future studies are necessary to investigate whether adapting routine psychosocial care improves women’s wellbeing.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

None of the authors in this study declare potential conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the Center of Reproductive Medicine of the Academic Medical Center.

Hormonal medication in medically assisted reproduction: a systematic review of assessments from patients

Several hormonal fertility medications have comparable effectiveness. A literature review was conducted into patients' assessments regarding seven medication characteristics including 'side effects' and 'ease of use'. Medline, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched for female fertility patients' written assessments of a hormonal medication. The tools used were appraised and common (i.e. ≥10%) unpleasant consequences were distinguished from rare ones. The 35 eligible studies did not rely on valid and reliable tools and did not provide patient assessments regarding all seven medication characteristics for any of the globally used medications. Evidence on medications for oocyte triggering was absent and for induction of pituitary quiescence it was scarce. Regarding medications for ovarian stimulation and luteal support, evidence on general side effects (mostly headache), local side effects (mostly pain), 'interference with home life' and 'impact on psychological wellbeing' was found. Evidence on 'ease of use' and 'required education' was only identified for medication for ovarian stimulation. Evidence on 'interference with work life' and 'compliance worry' was absent. This review calls for randomized controlled trials questioning patients with valid and reliable tools. In the meantime, this review's summary of the best available evidence can be integrated in decision aids facilitating personalized and informed medication choices.

Impact of different controlled ovarian stimulation protocols on the physical and psychological burdens in women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intra cytoplasmic sperm injection

CONTEXT:

Infertility treatment involves a considerable amount of physical and psychological burden which may impact the outcome.

AIM:

The objective was to understand the amount of physical and psychological burden in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intra cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles.

SETTING AND DESIGN:

Multi-center, prospective, parallel, observational study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

The study was conducted across 12 IVF centers in India. A total of 692 women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation as a part of the first cycle IVF/ICSI completed the trial. Women were recruited in 2 groups based on type of treatment (Group A - gonadotropin-releasing hormone [GnRH] antagonist; Group B - GnRH agonist) and were asked to fill questionnaires during the 2 treatment visits.

RESULTS:

The mean changes between Visit 1 (baseline) and Visit 2 in anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) scores in Group A for anxiety and depression were −0.5 (3.67), −0.1 (3.57) respectively and for Group B were −0.4 (3.68), 0.1 (3.67) respectively, which was not statistically significant. In Group A, the mean (±standard deviation [SD]) Hopkins Symptom Check List (HSCL) score was 17.9 (±5.17) in visit 1 and 19.1 (±5.45) Visit 2. The change between visits was 1.1 (P < 0.0001) with higher score reflecting higher somatic distress symptoms. In Group B, the mean (±SD) HSCL score was 18.2 (±5.19) in Visit 1 and 18.8 (±5.23) in visit 2. The change between visits was 0.6 (P < 0.0014). The difference of the mean change in physical burden between Group A and Group B was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION:

A significant impact in both treatment protocols with respect to the physical burden was found between Visit 1 and Visit 2 but no difference in physical or psychological burden between the two treatment groups was observed.