Department of Reproductive Medicine and Gynaecology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Hum Reprod. 2017 Dec 1;32(12):2485-2495. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dex321.
Is there a difference in live birth rate and/or cost-effectiveness between antral follicle count (AFC)-based individualized FSH dosing or standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF or ICSI treatment?
In women initiating IVF/ICSI, AFC-based individualized FSH dosing does not improve live birth rates or reduce costs as compared to a standard FSH dose.
In IVF or ICSI, ovarian reserve testing is often used to adjust the FSH dose in order to normalize ovarian response and optimize live birth rates. However, no robust evidence for the (cost-)effectiveness of this practice exists.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Between May 2011 and May 2014 we performed a multicentre prospective cohort study with two embedded RCTs in women scheduled for IVF/ICSI. Based on the AFC, women entered into one of the two RCTs (RCT1: AFC < 11; RCT2: AFC > 15) or the cohort (AFC 11-15). The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy achieved within 18 months after randomization resulting in a live birth (delivery of at least one live foetus after 24 weeks of gestation). Data from the cohort with weight 0.5 were combined with both RCTs in order to conduct a strategy analysis. Potential half-integer numbers were rounded up. Differences in costs and effects between the two treatment strategies were compared by bootstrapping.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In both RCTs women were randomized to an individualized (RCT1:450/225 IU, RCT2:100 IU) or standard FSH dose (150 IU). Women in the cohort all received the standard dose (150 IU). Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) was measured to assess AMH post-hoc as a biomarker to individualize treatment. For RCT1 dose adjustment was allowed in subsequent cycles based on pre-specified criteria in the standard group only. For RCT2 dose adjustment was allowed in subsequent cycles in both groups. Both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the strategies were evaluated from an intention-to-treat perspective.
We included 1515 women, of whom 483 (31.9%) entered the cohort, 511 (33.7%) RCT1 and 521 (34.4%) RCT2. Live births occurred in 420/747 (56.3%) women in the individualized strategy and 447/769 (58.2%) women in the standard strategy (risk difference -0.019 (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.02), P = 0.39; a total of 1516 women due to rounding up the half integer numbers). The individualized strategy was more expensive (delta costs/woman = €275 (95% CI, 40 to 499)). Individualized dosing reduced the occurrence of mild and moderate ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and subsequently the costs for management of these OHSS categories (costs saved/woman were €35). The analysis based on AMH as a tool for dose individualization suggested comparable results.
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Despite a training programme, the AFC might have suffered from inter-observer variation. In addition, although strict cancel criteria were provided, selective cancelling in the individualized dose group (for poor response in particular) cannot be excluded as observers were not blinded for the FSH dose and small dose adjustments were allowed in subsequent cycles. However, as both first cycle live birth rates and cumulative live birth rates show no difference between strategies, the open design probably did not mask a potential benefit for the individualized group. Despite increasing consensus on using GnRH antagonist co-treatment in women predicted for a hyper response in particular, GnRH agonists were used in almost 80% of the women in this study. Hence, in those women, the AFC and bloodsampling for the post-hoc AMH analysis were performed during pituitary suppression. As the correlation between AFC and ovarian response is not compromised during GnRH agonist use, this will probably not have influenced classification of response.
Individualized FSH dosing for the IVF/ICSI population as a whole should not be pursued as it does not improve live birth rates and it increases costs. Women scheduled for IVF/ICSI with a regular menstrual cycle are therefore recommended a standard FSH starting dose of 150 IU per day. Still, safety management by individualized dosing in predicted hyper responders is open for further research.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW number 171102020). AMH measurements were performed free of charge by Roche Diagnostics. TCT, HLT and SCO received an unrestricted personal grant from Merck BV. AH declares that the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Centre Groningen receives an unrestricted research grant from Ferring pharmaceutics BV, The Netherlands. CBL receives grants from Merck, Ferring and Guerbet. BWJM is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for OvsEva, Merck and Guerbet. FJMB receives monetary compensation as a member of the external advisory board for Ferring pharmaceutics BV (the Netherlands) and Merck Serono (the Netherlands) for consultancy work for Gedeon Richter (Belgium) and Roche Diagnostics on automated AMH assay development (Switzerland) and for a research cooperation with Ansh Labs (USA). All other autors have nothing to declare.
Registered at the ICMJE-recognized Dutch Trial Registry (www.trialregister.nl). Registration number: NTR2657.
在开始接受 IVF 或 ICSI 治疗的女性中,基于窦卵泡计数(AFC)的个体化 FSH 剂量与标准 FSH 剂量相比,活产率和/或成本效益是否存在差异?
在接受 IVF/ICSI 的女性中,与标准 FSH 剂量相比,基于 AFC 的个体化 FSH 剂量并不能提高活产率或降低成本。
在 IVF 或 ICSI 中,卵巢储备测试通常用于调整 FSH 剂量,以正常化卵巢反应并优化活产率。然而,目前尚无关于这种做法的(成本)有效性的可靠证据。
研究设计、规模、持续时间:在 2011 年 5 月至 2014 年 5 月期间,我们在计划接受 IVF/ICSI 的女性中进行了一项多中心前瞻性队列研究,其中包括两项嵌入式 RCT。根据 AFC,女性进入两项 RCT 之一(RCT1:AFC < 11;RCT2:AFC > 15)或队列(AFC 11-15)。主要结局是在随机分组后 18 个月内实现的持续妊娠,导致活产(妊娠 24 周后至少有一个活胎分娩)。为了进行策略分析,将队列中权重为 0.5 的数据与两项 RCT 合并。潜在的半整数数字被四舍五入。通过 bootstrap 比较两种治疗策略之间的成本和效果差异。
参与者/材料、设置、方法:在两项 RCT 中,女性被随机分配到个体化(RCT1:450/225 IU,RCT2:100 IU)或标准 FSH 剂量(150 IU)。队列中的女性均接受标准剂量(150 IU)。抗苗勒管激素(AMH)用于评估 AMH,作为治疗个体化的生物标志物进行事后评估。对于 RCT1,仅在标准组中允许根据预设标准在后续周期中进行剂量调整。对于 RCT2,在两个组中都允许在后续周期中进行剂量调整。从意向治疗的角度评估了策略的有效性和成本效益。
我们纳入了 1515 名女性,其中 483 名(31.9%)进入了队列,511 名(33.7%)参加了 RCT1,521 名(34.4%)参加了 RCT2。在个体化策略中,420/747(56.3%)名女性发生活产,在标准策略中,447/769(58.2%)名女性发生活产(风险差异-0.019(95%CI,-0.06 至 0.02),P=0.39;由于四舍五入半整数数字,共有 1516 名女性)。个体化策略更昂贵(每名女性增加的成本€275(95%CI,40 至 499))。个体化给药减少了轻度和中度卵巢过度刺激综合征(OHSS)的发生,并随后降低了这些 OHSS 类别的管理成本(每名女性节省的成本为€35)。基于 AMH 作为剂量个体化工具的分析表明了类似的结果。
局限性、谨慎的原因:尽管进行了培训计划,但 AFC 可能受到观察者间变异的影响。此外,尽管提供了严格的取消标准,但在个体化剂量组中(特别是由于反应不佳)可能无法排除选择性取消,因为观察者未对 FSH 剂量进行盲法,并且允许在后续周期中进行小剂量调整。然而,由于首次周期活产率和累积活产率显示两种策略之间没有差异,因此开放设计可能并没有掩盖个体化组的潜在益处。尽管人们普遍认为在预测高反应的女性中使用 GnRH 拮抗剂共同治疗,但在这项研究中,近 80%的女性使用了 GnRH 激动剂。因此,在这些女性中,AFC 和血液采样用于事后 AMH 分析是在垂体抑制期间进行的。由于 GnRH 激动剂的使用并不影响 AFC 和卵巢反应之间的相关性,因此这可能不会影响反应的分类。
作为一个整体,IVF/ICSI 人群不应追求基于 AFC 的个体化 FSH 给药,因为它不能提高活产率并增加成本。因此,建议计划接受 IVF/ICSI 的女性使用 150IU 每天的标准 FSH 起始剂量。然而,对于预测的高反应者,通过个体化剂量进行安全管理仍有待进一步研究。
研究资金/利益冲突:这项研究由荷兰健康研究与发展组织(ZonMW 编号 171102020)资助。AMH 测量由罗氏诊断公司免费进行。TCT、HLT 和 SCO 从默克公司获得了一项无限制的个人赠款。AH 宣称,格罗宁根大学医学中心妇产科从 Ferring 制药公司(荷兰)获得了一项无限制的研究赠款。CBL 从默克、费林和 Guerbet 获得了赠款。BWJM 受澳大利亚 NHMRC 从业者奖学金(GNT1082548)的支持,并报告了为 OvsEva、默克和 Ferring 制药公司的咨询工作,以及为比利时的 Gedeon Richter 和瑞士的 Roche Diagnostics 进行自动化 AMH 检测开发的合作,以及与 Ansh Labs(美国)的研究合作。所有其他作者均无利益冲突。
在 ICMJE 认可的荷兰试验注册处(www.trialregister.nl)注册。注册号:NTR2657。