1 / 50

International research in preventing and treating infertility

International research in preventing and treating infertility. Joseph B. Stanford, MD, MSPH, DFPM Tracey Parnell, MD, Fam Med, UBC Kristi Panchuk RN, MN, Fam Med, UBC Mary Ellen Haggerty, MD, Edmonton, Alberta. 22 January 2010. Acknowledgments. Kirsten Stoesser, MD UU DFPM Bernie LaSalle

orinda
Download Presentation

International research in preventing and treating infertility

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. International research in preventing and treating infertility Joseph B. Stanford, MD, MSPH, DFPM Tracey Parnell, MD, Fam Med, UBC Kristi Panchuk RN, MN, Fam Med, UBC Mary Ellen Haggerty, MD, Edmonton, Alberta 22 January 2010

  2. Acknowledgments • Kirsten Stoesser, MD • UU DFPM • Bernie LaSalle • UU Center for Clinical Translational Science • Xiaoming Sheng, PhD • UU Pediatrics • Phil Boyle, MB • Galway Clinic, Ireland • International Institute of Restorative Reproductive Medicine

  3. Funding • Funding for iNEST provided by • St. Augustine Foundation • University of Utah Health Studies Fund • University of Utah Primary Care Research Center • Atlas Foundation

  4. Background • Sensitivity and specificity of the Creighton Model chart for identifying female infertility • Clinical observations and question • Design • International practice-based research in treating infertility (iNEST) • Design, progress, lessons, next steps

  5. Questions for you • What would make these two studies more interesting and attractive to potential funders? • What would improve the science? • What would facilitate the logistics?

  6. Background • What does infertility have to do with primary care and public health? • What is natural procreative technology (NPT)?

  7. Infertility and primary care • Common problem: 10-15% of couples • only half of these seek treatment • Couples problem- both woman and man • Chronic condition • Other health implications • Lifestyle issues • Psychosocial dimensions • Sound primary approaches needed

  8. Infertility and public health • Cost, access of treatment • Cultural acceptability of treatment • Prevention • Child outcomes • Multiple gestation, low birth weight, birth defects, developmental delay • Risk factor for cancer and other conditions

  9. Natural Procreative Technology (NPT) • A systematic cooperative approach to optimize reproductive function- primarily in women. • Health education: Creighton NaProTracking • Biomarkers to guide evaluation and treatment • Vaginal bleeding and cervical mucus discharge • Medical evaluation and management • Surgical correction, if indicated • Goal is to facilitate in vivo conception over 12 optimized cycles. • Applied in Family Medicine and OBGYN practices

  10. Sensitivity and specificity of the Creighton Model FertilityCare chart for identifying female infertility

  11. Creighton Model chart review study • Basic premise: underlying physiologic abnormalities of infertility are reflected in the woman’s standardized observations and charting. • Not systematically demonstrated • Examples • Research question • Design

  12. PCOS, prior failed ART

  13. 34 yo, endometriosis, infertility

  14. Recurrent miscarriage, variable PPP, abnormal bleeding, split peak

  15. Objective • To determine the specificity and sensitivity of NaProTracking to discriminate between patients with known infertility and known fertility, through expert assessment based on standardized assessment algorithm.

  16. Design- CrM chart review study • Toronto CrM center • New patients charting who subsequently successfully conceive and have a live birth • New patients charting who have a history of infertility • Matched 1:1 by age and prior gravidity • Or just select those with no prior pregnancy

  17. Design- CrM chart review study • Blind review of charts by NPT-trained physicians • 5 independent reviewers • Rate parameters: mucus score, abnormal bleeding, length of post-peak phase • Classify as likely fertile or infertile

  18. CrM chart review study- analysis • Sensitivity and specificity: 2x2 table • Inter-rater (and intra-rater?) reliability with kappa statistic • Association of specific chart characteristics with fertility status: logistic regression

  19. Questions • Other centers? • Miscarriage patients as an additional component?

  20. International NaProTechnology Evaluation and Surveillance of Treatment for Infertility and MiscarriageiNEST

  21. Cumulative pregnancy rates for different treatment strategies Stanford JB, et al. Fertil Steril 2009 Mar 26 epub

  22. Netherlands ART N=1351 Mean female age=32.8 Duration infertility=3.6 yrs Prior ART=0% Prior pregnancy=47% Pregnancy rate at 1 year Crude=42.4% Lifetable=64.7% Ireland NPT N=1072 Mean female age=35.8 Duration infertility=5.6 yrs Prior ART=33% Prior pregnancy=47% Live birth rate at 2 years Crude=25.5% Lifetable=52.8% Comparing cohorts Lintsen et al. Hum Reprod 2007 Stanford et al. JABFM 2008

  23. Netherlands ART Twins 22% Birth < 2500 grams Not reported Ireland NPT Twins 4.5% Birth < 2500 grams 4.5% Comparing cohorts Lintsen et al. Hum Reprod 2007 Stanford et al. JABFM 2008

  24. 32yo, longstanding amenorrhoea, then dry cycles, eventually ovulatory cycles

  25. iNEST rationale • Document outcomes for peer-review • Improve outcomes • Outcomes = live birth, health pregnancies, healthy babies, healthy children

  26. iNEST Objectives • Improve NaPro treatment outcomes by systematically tracking the relationships between patient characteristics, diagnosis, and treatments. • Enhance efficiency and improve quality in the clinical practice of NaPro. • Provide guidance for future targeted randomized trials for the future.

  27. Synergy between research and practice

  28. Learning from each other Care delivery is undergoing constant changes, many of which constitute natural experiments from which we could learn important lessons. These care changes, however, usually come up too quickly to allow the usual approach to development and funding of a research proposal that could evaluate their effects, and there are rarely research-practice connections that could coordinate the design and implementation of studies of these innovations. Solberg LI et al. Ann Fam Med 2009;7:164-9

  29. Learning from each other • [We should] convert the paradigm from “translate research into practice” to “optimize health and health care through research and quality improvement.” • [We should] develop and facilitate more partnerships among clinicians, researchers, and care delivery leaders for engaged scholarship in both research and quality improvement. Solberg LI et al. Ann Fam Med 2009;7:164-9

  30. iNEST Design • Prospective cohort • Couples based • NPT practice-based initiation • Patient follow-up independent of practice • Follow all couples regardless of treatment continuation or discontinuation • Obtain treatment data from NPT physician

  31. iNEST Design • Synergize study procedures with practice procedures • Provide added value for both practices and patients

  32. iNEST Sites • Jean Golden-Tevald, Morningstar Family Health Care, New Jersey, began enrolling patients Feb. 2006 • Joseph Stanford, University of Utah, began enrolling patients July 2007 • Paul Carpentier, In His Image Family Medicine, began enrolling February 2009 • Ira Winter and Anne Carus, Life FertilityCare Center, Leamington Spa, UK, April 2009

  33. More iNEST practices • Practices with research ethics approval already in place • Boyle, Galway, Ireland • Tham, Toronto, Canada • Practices very close • Parker, Ohio, USA • Kho and Rota, Perth, Australia • Stegman, Pennsylvania, USA

  34. Participating patients • Written informed consent is obtained for 3-year follow-up with option for more. • Initial clinical questionnaire facilitates the clinical evaluation. • Future: if they enroll in the study, they can track their own cycles of evaluation and treatment online.

  35. Main Outcome • Live birth up to 3 years after beginning NPT • Examine in terms of baseline characteristics and treatment choices

  36. Interim progress • 87 couples enrolled • 27 conceived (31%) • Online tracking and entrance questionnaire developed

  37. Online system • Tracking log of eligible patients and those enrolled in study • Patients can complete initial evaluation questionnaire online: • Data released to study only when consent received • Some flexibility for implementation based on individual practice needs • Future: track cycles of treatment, and hormonal support of pregnancy

  38. Proposed modifications to iNEST • Only one detailed follow-up questionnaire at one year after entry • Add cycle review tracking • Add general health questions to the entrance and follow-up questionnaires • Add diet assessment or tracking

  39. Next steps • Methods paper describing study design and web-based innovations • Addition of practices • Additional funding • Keeping the cohort going!

  40. Big picture • Potentially high pay-off study • FMB has played essential role in start up • Potential for longitudinal cohort • Child outcomes • Data, experience, and infrastructure for randomized trial

  41. Big picture • NPT has a potentially important role in infertility in relation to public health and primary care. • Outcomes • Access • Cost • iNEST can provide key quality improvement data to improve the practice and outcomes of NPT internationally.

More Related