Search

Study Question: Does hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) prior to hysterosalpingography (HSG) or HSG prior to HyFoSy affect visible tubal patency when compared HSG or HyFoSy alone?, Summary Answer: Undergoing either HyFoSy or HSG prior to tubal patency testing by the alternative method does not demonstrate a significant difference in visible tubal patency when compared to HyFoSy or HSG alone., What Is Known Already: HyFoSy and HSG are two commonly used visual tubal patency tests with a high and comparable diagnostic accuracy for evaluating tubal patency. These tests may also improve fertility, although the underlying mechanism is still not fully understood. One of the hypotheses points to a dislodgment of mucus plugs that may have disrupted the patency of the Fallopian tubes., Study Design, Size, Duration: This is a secondary analysis of the randomized controlled FOAM study, in which women underwent tubal patency testing by HyFoSy and HSG, randomized for order of the procedure. Participants either had HyFoSy first and then HSG, or vice versa. Here, we evaluate the relative effectiveness of tubal patency testing by HyFoSy or HSG prior to the alternative tubal patency testing method on visible tubal patency, compared to each method alone., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Infertile women aged between 18 and 41 years scheduled for tubal patency testing were eligible for participating in the FOAM study. Women with anovulatory cycles, endometriosis, or with a partner with male infertility were excluded. To evaluate the effect HyFoSy on tubal patency, we relied on HSG results by comparing the proportion of women with bilateral tubal patency visible on HSG in those who underwent and who did not undergo HyFoSy prior to their HSG (HyFoSy prior to HSG versus HSG alone). To evaluate the effect of HSG on tubal patency, we relied on HyFoSy results by comparing the proportion of women with bilateral tubal patency visible on HyFoSy in those who underwent and who did not undergo HSG prior to their HyFoSy (HSG prior to HyFoSy versus HyFoSy alone)., Main Results and the Role of Chance: Between May 2015 and January 2019, we randomized 1160 women (576 underwent HyFoSy first followed by HSG, and 584 underwent HSG first followed by HyFoSy). Among the women randomized to HyFoSy prior to HSG, bilateral tubal patency was visible on HSG in 467/537 (87%) women, compared with 472/544 (87%) women who underwent HSG alone (risk difference 0.2%; 95% CI: -3.8% to 4.2%). Among the women randomized to HSG prior to HyFoSy, bilateral tubal patency was visible on HyFoSy in 394/471 (84%) women, compared with 428/486 (88%) women who underwent HyFoSy alone (risk difference -4.4%; 95% CI: -8.8% to 0.0%)., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: The results of this secondary analysis should be interpreted as exploratory and cannot be regarded as definitive evidence. Furthermore, it has to be noted that pregnancy outcomes were not considered in this analysis., Wider Implications of the Findings: Tubal patency testing by either HyFoSy or HSG, prior to the alternative tubal patency testing method does not significantly affect visible tubal patency, when compared to alternative method alone. This suggests that both methods may have comparable abilities to dislodge mucus plugs in the Fallopian tubes., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The FOAM study was an investigator-initiated study, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm®-FOAM kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data. H.R.V. reports consultancy fees from Ferring. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford University Press in the role of Deputy Editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a Data Safety and Monitoring Board as an independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. M.v.W. is coordinating editor of Cochrane Fertility and Gynaecology. B.W.J.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC (GNT1176437) and research funding from Merck KGaA. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for Organon and Merck KGaA, and travel support from Merck KGaA. B.W.J.M. reports holding stocks of ObsEva. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring and travel and speaker fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest., Trial Registration Number: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Introduction: Existing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a freeze-all embryo transfer strategy and a fresh embryo transfer strategy have shown conflicting results. A freeze-all or a fresh transfer policy may be preferable for some couples undergoing in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), but it is unclear which couples would benefit most from each policy, how and under which protocols. Therefore, we plan a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis of RCTs comparing a freeze-all and a fresh transfer policy., Methods and Analysis: We will search electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and CENTRAL) and trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) from their inception to present to identify eligible RCTs. We will also check reference lists of relevant papers. The search was performed on 23 September 2020 and will be updated. We will include RCTs comparing a freeze-all embryo transfer strategy and a fresh embryo transfer strategy in couples undergoing IVF. The primary outcome will be live birth resulting from the first embryo transfer. All outcomes listed in the core outcome set for infertility research will be reported. We will invite the lead investigators of eligible trials to join the In dividual participant data meta-analysis of trials comparing f r o zen versus f r esh e m bryo transfer strategy (INFORM) collaboration and share the deidentified individual participant data (IPD) of their trials. We will harmonise the IPD and perform a two-stage meta-analysis and examine treatment-covariate interactions for important baseline characteristics., Ethics and Dissemination: The study ethics have been granted by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (Project ID: 30391). The findings will be disseminated via presentations at international conferences and publication in peer-reviewed journals., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42021296566., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RW reports grants from the NHMRC and NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence in Women's Health in Reproductive Life (CRE WHiRL). LNV reports personal fees from Merck, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Ferring, outside the submitted work. AP reports grants and personal fees from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck A/S and personal fees from IBSA, outside the submitted work. CB reports grants and personal fees from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S and Organon, and personal fees from IBSA and Abbott outside the submitted work. CS is a co-inventor of Igenomix SL and Head of Scientific Advisory Board at Igenomix SL. BWM is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). BWM reports personal fees from ObsEva and Merck, and travel support from Merck, outside the submitted work. SB is the Editor in Chief of Human Reproduction Open. AM reports grants from HTA/NIHR, travel/meeting support from Ferring and Pharmasure and participation in a Ferring advisory board. All other authors do not have competing interests to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Study Question: Does hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) lead to similar pregnancy outcomes, compared with hysterosalpingography (HSG), as first-choice tubal patency test in infertile couples?, Summary Answer: HyFoSy and HSG produce similar findings in a majority of patients and clinical management based on the results of either HyFoSy or HSG, leads to comparable pregnancy outcomes. HyFoSy is experienced as significantly less painful., What Is Known Already: Traditionally, tubal patency testing during fertility work-up is performed by HSG. HyFoSy is an alternative imaging technique lacking ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast medium exposure which is less expensive than HSG. Globally, there is a shift towards the use of office-based diagnostic methods, such as HyFoSy., Study Design, Size, Duration: This multicentre, prospective, comparative study with a randomized design was conducted in 26 hospitals in The Netherlands. Participating women underwent both HyFoSy and HSG in randomized order. In case of discordant results, women were randomly allocated to either a management strategy based on HyFoSy or one based on HSG., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: We included infertile women between 18 and 41 years old who were scheduled for tubal patency testing during their fertility work-up. Women with anovulatory cycles not responding to ovulation induction, endometriosis, severe male infertility or a known iodine contrast allergy were excluded. The primary outcome for the comparison of the HyFoSy- and HSG-based strategies was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth within 12 months after inclusion in an intention-to-treat analysis., Main Results and the Role of Chance: Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 women underwent HyFoSy and HSG. HyFoSy was inconclusive in 97 of them (9.5%), HSG was inconclusive in 30 (2.9%) and both were inconclusive in 9 (0.9%). In 747 women (73%) conclusive tests results were concordant. Of the 143/1026 (14%) with discordant results, 105 were randomized to clinical management based on the results of either HyFoSy or HSG. In this group, 22 of the 54 women (41%) allocated to management based on HyFoSy and 25 of 51 women (49%) allocated to management based on HSG had an ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth (Difference -8%; 95% CI: -27% to 10%). In total, clinical management based on the results of HyFoSy was estimated to lead to a live birth in 474 of 1026 women (46%) versus 486 of 1026 (47%) for management based on HSG (Difference -1.2%; 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%). Given the pre-defined margin of -2%, statistically significant non-inferiority of HyFoSy relative to HSG could not be demonstrated (P = 0.27). The mean pain score for HyFoSy on the 1-10 Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was 3.1 (SD 2.2) and the mean VAS pain score for HSG was 5.4 (SD 2.5; P for difference < 0.001)., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: Since all women underwent both tubal patency tests, no conclusions on a direct therapeutic effect of tubal flushing could be drawn., Wider Implications of the Findings: HyFoSy or HSG produce similar tubal pathology findings in a majority of infertile couples and, where they differ, a difference in findings does not lead to substantial difference in pregnancy outcome, while HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The FOAM study was an investigator-initiated study funded by ZonMw, The Netherlands organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). ZonMw funded the whole project. IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm-foam® kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel and speaker fees from Guerbet. F.J.M.B. reports personal fees as a member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, The Netherlands, and a research support grant from Merck Serono, outside the submitted work. C.B.L. reports speakers' fee from Ferring in the past, and his department receives research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.V.W. reports leading The Netherlands Satellite of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for Guerbet and research funding from Merck and Guerbet. V.M. reports non-financial support from IQ medicals ventures, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest., Trial Registration Number: NTR4746/NL4587 (https://www.trialregister.nl)., Trial Registration Date: 19 August 2014., Date of First Patient’s Enrolment: 7 May 2015., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Objective: Acute fertility preservation for women is an interdisciplinary treatment that requires adequate information provision and early referral. This quality management project aimed to improve fertility preservation care by using a practical tool: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis., Study Design: Quality management project was executed between May 2011 and July 2013. This project has been executed in a university affiliated IVF-clinic in cooperation with two oncological sites and used a four-step strategy: (1) monitoring baseline referral process, (2) exploring baseline fertility preservation program by Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats' (SWOT)-analysis, (3) setting up a new fertility preservation program and (4) evaluating the new fertility preservation program by means of SWOT-analysis., Results: During the three-months monitoring period, fertility preservation was requested for a total of 126 women. The mean age of the women was 33.8 years old (range 1-42 years old). Most requests came from women who wanted to cryopreserve oocytes because of age-related decline of fertility (n=90; 71%). Most requests for acute fertility preservation concerned women with breast cancer (n=16; 57%). Information leaflets and pre-consultation questionnaires for women improved the quality of first fertility preservation consultation as evaluated by final SWOT-analysis. Collaboration with oncological centres and information about fertility preservation improved the referral process., Conclusions: SWOT-analysis proved useful for setting up a new fertility preservation-program and can be recommended as a tool to improve the management and organisation of new types of reproductive care., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To study the impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of treatment with systemic methotrexate (MTX) or expectant management in women with ectopic pregnancy or pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) with low and plateauing serum hCG concentrations., Study Design: HRQoL was assessed alongside a randomized clinical trial (RCT) with the use of standard self-administered psychometric measure questionnaires., Patients and Setting: All women who participated in the multicenter RCT comparing treatment with systemic MTX to expectant management in women with ectopic pregnancy or persisting PUL were eligible for the HRQoL measurements., Main Outcome Measure: HRQoL measures of three standardized questionnaires (SF-36, RSCL, HADS)., Results: Data were available for 64 of 73 women (78%) randomized in the RCT. We found no difference in HRQoL between the two treatment groups. The need for additional treatment, i.e. additional MTX injections or surgical intervention, had no impact on HRQoL., Conclusion: Women treated with MTX or expectant management for an ectopic pregnancy or persisting PUL have comparable quality of life., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: For most tubal ectopic pregnancies (EP) surgery is the treatment of first choice. Whether surgical treatment should be performed conservatively (salpingostomy) or radically (salpingectomy) in women wishing to preserve their reproductive capacity, is subject to debate. Salpingostomy preserves the tube, but bears the risks of both persistent trophoblast and repeat ipsilateral tubal EP. Salpingectomy, avoids these risks, but leaves only one tube for reproductive capacity. This study aims to reveal the trade-off between both surgical options: whether the potential advantage of salpingostomy, i.e. a better fertility prognosis as compared to salpingectomy, outweighs the potential disadvantages, i.e. persistent trophoblast and an increased risk for a repeat EP., Methods/design: International multi centre randomised controlled trial comparing salpingostomy versus salpingectomy in women with a tubal EP without contra lateral tubal pathology. Hemodynamically stable women with a presumptive diagnosis of tubal EP, scheduled for surgery, are eligible for inclusion. Patients pregnant after in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and/or known documented tubal pathology are excluded. At surgery, a tubal EP must be confirmed. Only women with a tubal EP amenable to both interventions and a healthy contra lateral tube are included. Salpingostomy and salpingectomy are performed according to standard procedures of participating hospitals. Up to 36 months after surgery, women will be contacted to assess their fertility status at six months intervals starting form the day of the operation. The primary outcome measure is the occurrence of spontaneous viable intra uterine pregnancy. Secondary outcome measures are persistent trophoblast, repeat EP, all pregnancies including those resulting from IVF and financial costs. The analysis will be performed according to the intention to treat principle. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed within a decision analysis framework, based on costs per live birth, including IVF treatment whenever a spontaneous pregnancy does not occur. Patients' preferences will be assessed using a discrete choice experiment., Discussion: This trial will provide evidence on the trade off between salpingostomy and salpingectomy for tubal EP in view of the pros and cons of both interventions and will offer guidance to clinicians in making the right treatment choice., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37002267.