J.P. de Bruin
Bosch
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by J.P. de Bruin.
Human Reproduction | 2011
M. Brandes; C.J.C.M. Hamilton; J.O.M. van der Steen; J.P. de Bruin; R.S.G.M. Bots; W.L.D.M. Nelen; J.A.M. Kremer
BACKGROUND Unexplained infertility is one of the most common diagnoses in fertility care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of current fertility management in unexplained infertility. METHODS In an observational, longitudinal, multicentre cohort study, 437 couples were diagnosed with unexplained infertility and were available for analysis. They were treated according to their prognosis using standing national treatment protocols: (i) expectant management-IUI-IVF (main treatment route), (ii) IUI-IVF and (iii) directly IVF. Primary outcome measures were: ongoing pregnancy rate, patient flow over the strategies, numbers of protocol violation and drop out rates. A secondary outcome measure was the prediction of ongoing pregnancy and mode of conception. RESULTS Of all couples 81.5% (356/437) achieved an ongoing pregnancy and 73.9% (263/356) of the pregnancies were conceived spontaneously. There were 408 couples (93.4%) in strategy-1, 21 (5.0%) in strategy-2 and 8 (1.8%) in strategy-3. In total, 33 (7.6%) couples entered the wrong strategy. There were 104 couples (23.8%) who discontinued fertility treatment prematurely: 26 on doctors advice (with 4 still becoming pregnant) and 78 on their own initiative (with 33 still achieving a pregnancy). Predictors for overall pregnancy chance and mode of conception were duration of infertility, female age and obstetrical history. CONCLUSIONS Overall success rate in couples with unexplained infertility is high. Most pregnancies are conceived spontaneously. We recommend that if the pregnancy prognosis is good, expectant management should be suggested. The prognosis criteria for treatment with IUI or IVF needs to be investigated in randomized controlled trials.
BMJ | 2015
A.J. Bensdorp; R. I. Tjon-Kon-Fat; P. M. M. Bossuyt; C.A.M. Koks; G.J.E. Oosterhuis; Annemieke Hoek; Peter G.A. Hompes; F. J. Broekmans; Harold R. Verhoeve; J.P. de Bruin; R. van Golde; Sjoerd Repping; B.J. Cohlen; M. D. A. Lambers; van Peter Bommel; Denise A. M. Perquin; J.M.J. Smeenk; M. J. Pelinck; Judith Gianotten; Diederik A. Hoozemans; J. W. M. Maas; M.J. Eijkemans; F. van der Veen; B.W. Mol; M. van Wely
Objectives To compare the effectiveness of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer or in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle with that of intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in terms of a healthy child. Design Multicentre, open label, three arm, parallel group, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Setting 17 centres in the Netherlands. Participants Couples seeking fertility treatment after at least 12 months of unprotected intercourse, with the female partner aged between 18 and 38 years, an unfavourable prognosis for natural conception, and a diagnosis of unexplained or mild male subfertility. Interventions Three cycles of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer (plus subsequent cryocycles), six cycles of in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, or six cycles of intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation within 12 months after randomisation. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was birth of a healthy child resulting from a singleton pregnancy conceived within 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were live birth, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, time to pregnancy, complications of pregnancy, and neonatal morbidity and mortality Results 602 couples were randomly assigned between January 2009 and February 2012; 201 were allocated to in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer, 194 to in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, and 207 to intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Birth of a healthy child occurred in 104 (52%) couples in the in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer group, 83 (43%) in the in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle group, and 97 (47%) in the intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation group. This corresponds to a risk, relative to intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation, of 1.10 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.34) for in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer and 0.91 (0.73 to 1.14) for in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle. These 95% confidence intervals do not extend below the predefined threshold of 0.69 for inferiority. Multiple pregnancy rates per ongoing pregnancy were 6% (7/121) after in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer, 5% (5/102) after in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, and 7% (8/119) after intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation (one sided P=0.52 for in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer compared with intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation; one sided P=0.33 for in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation). Conclusions In vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer and in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle were non-inferior to intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in terms of the birth of a healthy child and showed comparable, low multiple pregnancy rates. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52843371; Nederlands Trial Register NTR939.
Human Reproduction | 2015
J.A.M. Hamilton; M. Cissen; M. Brandes; J.M.J. Smeenk; J.P. de Bruin; J.A.M. Kremer; W.L.D.M. Nelen; C.J.C.M. Hamilton
STUDY QUESTION Does the prewash total motile sperm count (TMSC) have a better predictive value for spontaneous ongoing pregnancy (SOP) than the World Health Organization (WHO) classification system? SUMMARY ANSWER The prewash TMSC shows a better correlation with the spontaneous ongoing pregnancy rate (SOPR) than the WHO 2010 classification system. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY According to the WHO classification system, an abnormal semen analysis can be diagnosed as oligozoospermia, astenozoospermia, teratozoospermia or combinations of these and azoospermia. This classification is based on the fifth percentile cut-off values of a cohort of 1953 men with proven fertility. Although this classification suggests accuracy, the relevance for the prognosis of an infertile couple and the choice of treatment is questionable. The TMSC is obtained by multiplying the sample volume by the density and the percentage of A and B motility spermatozoa. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION We analyzed data from a longitudinal cohort study among unselected infertile couples who were referred to three Dutch hospitals between January 2002 and December 2006. Of the total cohort of 2476 infertile couples, only the couples with either male infertility as a single diagnosis or unexplained infertility were included (n = 1177) with a follow-up period of 3 years. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS In all couples a semen analysis was performed. Based on the best semen analysis if more tests were performed, couples were grouped according to the WHO classification system and the TMSC range, as described in the Dutch national guidelines for male infertility. The primary outcome measure was the SOPR, which occurred before, during or after treatments, including expectant management, intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. After adjustment for the confounding factors (female and male age, duration and type of infertility and result of the postcoital test) the odd ratios (ORs) for risk of SOP for each WHO and TMSC group were calculated. The couples with unexplained infertility were used as reference. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE A total of 514 couples did and 663 couples did not achieve a SOP. All WHO groups have a lower SOPR compared with the unexplained group (ORs varying from 0.136 to 0.397). Comparing the couples within the abnormal WHO groups, there are no significant differences in SOPR, except when oligoasthenoteratozoospermia is compared with asthenozoospermia [OR 0.501 (95% CI 0.311-0.809)] and teratozoospermia [OR 0.499 (95% CI: 0.252-0.988)], and oligoasthenozoospermia is compared with asthenozoospermia [OR 0.572 (95% CI: 0.373-0.877)]. All TMSC groups have a significantly lower SOPR compared with the unexplained group (ORs varying from 0.171 to 0.461). Couples with a TMSC of <1 × 10(6) and 1-5 × 10(6) have significantly lower SOPR compared with couples with a TMSC of 5-10 × 10(6) [respectively, OR 0.371 (95% CI: 0.215-0.64) and OR 0.505 (95% CI: 0.307-0.832)]. LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION To include all SOPs during the follow-up period of 3 years, couples were not censured at the start of treatment. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Roughly, three prognostic groups can be discerned: couples with a TMSC <5, couples with a TMSC between 5 and 20 and couples with a TMSC of more than 20 × 10(6) spermatozoa. We suggest using TMSC as the method of choice to express severity of male infertility. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS None.
Reproductive Biomedicine Online | 2011
M. Brandes; J.C.M. Verzijden; C.J.C.M. Hamilton; N.P.C. de Weys; J.P. de Bruin; R.S.G.M. Bots; W.L.D.M. Nelen; J.A.M. Kremer
This longitudinal multicentre cohort study aimed to identify the role of the conception mode in infertile couples with an early pregnancy loss (EPL). All couples referred to the fertility clinic for the first time in the period 2002-2006 because of infertility were followed up to their first clinical pregnancy (n=1809). EPL was the outcome of 286 (15.8%) pregnancies. EPL rates for the different conception modes were as follows: spontaneous 14.5% (125/864), ovulation induction 15.8% (42/266), intrauterine insemination 25.0% (5/20), intrauterine insemination combined with ovarian stimulation 18.2% (37/203), IVF 16.3% (31/190), intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) 14.9% (30/202) and frozen embryo transfer (FET) 26.2% (16/61). After adjusting for female age, male age, hospital, obstetric history, female smoking habit, male alcohol use, menstrual cycle type and infertility diagnosis, the EPL rate after FET was significantly increased (odds ratio 2.2, 95% CI 1.14-4.19) compared with spontaneous conception. Embryo quality was comparable in fresh and frozen embryos. Other fertility treatments showed no increased miscarriage rate. Therefore, it is concluded that even after adjustment for confounding factors conception through FET remained an independent risk factor for EPL. Other modes of conception were not related with EPL.
International Journal of Andrology | 2011
M. Brandes; C.J.C.M. Hamilton; J.O.M. van der Steen; J.P. de Bruin; R.S.G.M. Bots; W.L.D.M. Nelen; J.A.M. Kremer
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.
Contemporary Clinical Trials | 2017
Taghride Dahhan; E.M.E. Balkenende; C.C.M. Beerendonk; Kathrin Fleischer; D. Stoop; Anna M. E. Bos; C.B. Lambalk; R. Schats; R. van Golde; I. Schipper; Leonie A. Louwe; A.E.P. Cantineau; J.M.J. Smeenk; J.P. de Bruin; N. Reddy; Y. Kopeika; F. van der Veen; M. van Wely; Sabine C. Linn; M. Goddijn
BACKGROUND Chemotherapy for breast cancer may have a negative impact on reproductive function due to gonadotoxicity. Fertility preservation via banking of oocytes or embryos after ovarian stimulation with FSH can increase the likelihood of a future live birth. It has been hypothesized that elevated serum estrogen levels during ovarian stimulation may induce breast tumour growth. This has led to the use of alternative stimulation protocols with addition of tamoxifen or letrozole. The effectiveness of these stimulation protocols in terms of oocyte yield is unknown. METHODS/DESIGN Randomized open-label trial comparing ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen and ovarian stimulation plus letrozole with standard ovarian stimulation in the course of fertility preservation. The study population consists of women with breast cancer who opt for banking of oocytes or embryos, aged 18-43years at randomisation. Primary outcome is the number of oocytes retrieved at follicle aspiration. Secondary outcomes are number of mature oocytes retrieved, number of oocytes or embryos banked and peak E2 levels during ovarian stimulation. DISCUSSION Concerning the lack of evidence on which stimulation protocol should be used in women with breast cancer and the growing demand for fertility preservation, there is an urgent need to undertake this study. By performing this study, we will be able to closely monitor the effects of various stimulation protocols in women with breast cancer and pave the way for long term follow up on the safety of this procedure in terms of breast cancer prognosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NTR4108.
BMJ Open | 2017
N. A. Danhof; M. van Wely; C.A.M. Koks; Judith Gianotten; J.P. de Bruin; B.J. Cohlen; D. P. van der Ham; Nicole F. Klijn; M.H.A. van Hooff; F.J. Broekmans; Kathrin Fleischer; C.A.H. Janssen; J. M. Rijn van Weert; J. van Disseldorp; Moniek Twisk; Maaike Traas; M.F.G. Verberg; M. J. Pelinck; J. Visser; Denise A. M. Perquin; D. E. S. Boks; Harold R. Verhoeve; C. F. van Heteren; B.W. Mol; S. Repping; F. van der Veen; M. H. Mochtar
Objective To study the effectiveness of four cycles of intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian stimulation (OS) by follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) or by clomiphene citrate (CC), and adherence to strict cancellation criteria. Setting Randomised controlled trial among 22 secondary and tertiary fertility clinics in the Netherlands. Participants 732 women from couples diagnosed with unexplained or mild male subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis according to the model of Hunault of natural conception. Interventions Four cycles of IUI–OS within a time horizon of 6 months comparing FSH 75 IU with CC 100 mg. The primary outcome is ongoing pregnancy conceived within 6 months after randomisation, defined as a positive heartbeat at 12 weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes are cancellation rates, number of cycles with a monofollicular or with multifollicular growth, number of follicles >14 mm at the time of ovulation triggering, time to ongoing pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, live birth and multiple pregnancy. We will also assess if biomarkers such as female age, body mass index, smoking status, antral follicle count and endometrial aspect and thickness can be used as treatment selection markers. Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of the Academic Medical Centre and from the Dutch Central Committee on Research involving Human Subjects (CCMO NL 43131-018-13). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at international scientific meetings. Trial registration number NTR4057.
Human Reproduction | 2009
M. Brandes; J.O.M. van der Steen; S.B. Bokdam; C.J.C.M. Hamilton; J.P. de Bruin; W.L.D.M. Nelen; J.A.M. Kremer
Human Reproduction | 2010
M. Brandes; C.J.C.M. Hamilton; J.P. de Bruin; W.L.D.M. Nelen; J.A.M. Kremer
Human Reproduction | 2016
Eva R. Groenewoud; Ben J. Cohlen; Amani Al-Oraiby; Egbert A. Brinkhuis; Frank J. Broekmans; J.P. de Bruin; G.C. van den Dool; K. Fleisher; Jaap Friederich; M. Goddijn; Annemieke Hoek; Diederik A. Hoozemans; Eugenie M. Kaaijk; Carolien A. M. Koks; Joop S.E. Laven; P.J.Q. van der Linden; A.P. Manger; Taeke Spinder; Boudewijn J. Kollen; Nick S. Macklon