Home- or hospital-based monitoring to time frozen embryo transfer in the natural cycle? Patient-reported outcomes and experiences from the Antarctica-2 randomised controlled trial
STUDY QUESTION: What are the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported experiences (PREs) in home-based monitoring compared to those in hospital-based monitoring of ovulation for scheduling frozen–thawed embryo transfer (FET)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Women undergoing either home-based or hospita...
Published in: | Human Reproduction |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Text |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Oxford University Press
2020
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9178959/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32318722 https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deaa040 |
id |
ftpubmed:oai:pubmedcentral.nih.gov:9178959 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
ftpubmed:oai:pubmedcentral.nih.gov:9178959 2023-05-15T13:40:23+02:00 Home- or hospital-based monitoring to time frozen embryo transfer in the natural cycle? Patient-reported outcomes and experiences from the Antarctica-2 randomised controlled trial Zaat, T R de Bruin, J P Goddijn, M Visser, J Kaaijk, E M Lambalk, C B Groenewoud, E R van Wely, M Mol, F 2020-04-21 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9178959/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32318722 https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deaa040 en eng Oxford University Press http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9178959/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32318722 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deaa040 © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com CC-BY-NC Hum Reprod Original Article Text 2020 ftpubmed https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deaa040 2022-06-12T01:01:13Z STUDY QUESTION: What are the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported experiences (PREs) in home-based monitoring compared to those in hospital-based monitoring of ovulation for scheduling frozen–thawed embryo transfer (FET)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Women undergoing either home-based or hospital-based monitoring experience an increase in anxiety/sadness symptoms over time, but women undergoing home-based monitoring felt more empowered during the treatment and classified the monitoring as more discreet compared to hospital-based monitoring. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: FET is at the heart of modern IVF. The two types of FET cycles that are mainly are used are artificial cycle FET, using artificial preparation of the endometrium with exogenous progesterone and oestrogen, and natural cycle FET (NC-FET). During a natural cycle FET, women visit the hospital repeatedly and receive an ovulation trigger to time FET (i.e. modified NC-FET or hospital-based monitoring). The previously published Antarctica randomised controlled trial (NTR 1586) showed that modified NC-FET is more cost-effective compared to artificial cycle FET. From the women’s point of view a more natural approach using home-based monitoring of ovulation with LH urine tests to time FET may be desired (true NC-FET or home-based monitoring). Currently, the multicentre Antarctica-2 randomised controlled trial (RCT) is comparing the cost-effectiveness of home-based monitoring of ovulation with that of hospital-based monitoring of ovulation. The Antarctica-2 RCT enables us to study PROs, defined as the view of participating women of their healthcare status, and PREs, defined as the perception of the received care of participating women, in both FET strategies. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: PROs and PREs were assessed alongside the Antarctica-2 RCT. PROs were assessed using the validated EuroQol-5D-5L questionnaire. Currently, there are no guidelines for assessing PREs in this population. Therefore, members of the Dutch Patient Organisation for Couples with ... Text Antarc* Antarctica PubMed Central (PMC) Human Reproduction 35 4 866 875 |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
PubMed Central (PMC) |
op_collection_id |
ftpubmed |
language |
English |
topic |
Original Article |
spellingShingle |
Original Article Zaat, T R de Bruin, J P Goddijn, M Visser, J Kaaijk, E M Lambalk, C B Groenewoud, E R van Wely, M Mol, F Home- or hospital-based monitoring to time frozen embryo transfer in the natural cycle? Patient-reported outcomes and experiences from the Antarctica-2 randomised controlled trial |
topic_facet |
Original Article |
description |
STUDY QUESTION: What are the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported experiences (PREs) in home-based monitoring compared to those in hospital-based monitoring of ovulation for scheduling frozen–thawed embryo transfer (FET)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Women undergoing either home-based or hospital-based monitoring experience an increase in anxiety/sadness symptoms over time, but women undergoing home-based monitoring felt more empowered during the treatment and classified the monitoring as more discreet compared to hospital-based monitoring. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: FET is at the heart of modern IVF. The two types of FET cycles that are mainly are used are artificial cycle FET, using artificial preparation of the endometrium with exogenous progesterone and oestrogen, and natural cycle FET (NC-FET). During a natural cycle FET, women visit the hospital repeatedly and receive an ovulation trigger to time FET (i.e. modified NC-FET or hospital-based monitoring). The previously published Antarctica randomised controlled trial (NTR 1586) showed that modified NC-FET is more cost-effective compared to artificial cycle FET. From the women’s point of view a more natural approach using home-based monitoring of ovulation with LH urine tests to time FET may be desired (true NC-FET or home-based monitoring). Currently, the multicentre Antarctica-2 randomised controlled trial (RCT) is comparing the cost-effectiveness of home-based monitoring of ovulation with that of hospital-based monitoring of ovulation. The Antarctica-2 RCT enables us to study PROs, defined as the view of participating women of their healthcare status, and PREs, defined as the perception of the received care of participating women, in both FET strategies. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: PROs and PREs were assessed alongside the Antarctica-2 RCT. PROs were assessed using the validated EuroQol-5D-5L questionnaire. Currently, there are no guidelines for assessing PREs in this population. Therefore, members of the Dutch Patient Organisation for Couples with ... |
format |
Text |
author |
Zaat, T R de Bruin, J P Goddijn, M Visser, J Kaaijk, E M Lambalk, C B Groenewoud, E R van Wely, M Mol, F |
author_facet |
Zaat, T R de Bruin, J P Goddijn, M Visser, J Kaaijk, E M Lambalk, C B Groenewoud, E R van Wely, M Mol, F |
author_sort |
Zaat, T R |
title |
Home- or hospital-based monitoring to time frozen embryo transfer in the natural cycle? Patient-reported outcomes and experiences from the Antarctica-2 randomised controlled trial |
title_short |
Home- or hospital-based monitoring to time frozen embryo transfer in the natural cycle? Patient-reported outcomes and experiences from the Antarctica-2 randomised controlled trial |
title_full |
Home- or hospital-based monitoring to time frozen embryo transfer in the natural cycle? Patient-reported outcomes and experiences from the Antarctica-2 randomised controlled trial |
title_fullStr |
Home- or hospital-based monitoring to time frozen embryo transfer in the natural cycle? Patient-reported outcomes and experiences from the Antarctica-2 randomised controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed |
Home- or hospital-based monitoring to time frozen embryo transfer in the natural cycle? Patient-reported outcomes and experiences from the Antarctica-2 randomised controlled trial |
title_sort |
home- or hospital-based monitoring to time frozen embryo transfer in the natural cycle? patient-reported outcomes and experiences from the antarctica-2 randomised controlled trial |
publisher |
Oxford University Press |
publishDate |
2020 |
url |
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9178959/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32318722 https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deaa040 |
genre |
Antarc* Antarctica |
genre_facet |
Antarc* Antarctica |
op_source |
Hum Reprod |
op_relation |
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9178959/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32318722 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deaa040 |
op_rights |
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com |
op_rightsnorm |
CC-BY-NC |
op_doi |
https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deaa040 |
container_title |
Human Reproduction |
container_volume |
35 |
container_issue |
4 |
container_start_page |
866 |
op_container_end_page |
875 |
_version_ |
1766132944885252096 |