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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Implantation failure after transferring morphologically "good‐quality" embryos in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) may be explained by impaired endometrial receptivity. Analyzing the endometrial transcriptome analysis may reveal the underlying processes and could help in guiding prognosis and using targeted interventions for infertility. This exploratory study investigated whether the endometrial transcriptome profile was associated with short‐term or long‐term implantation outcomes (ie success or failure). Material and methods: Mid‐luteal phase endometrial biopsies of 107 infertile women with one full failed IVF/ICSI cycle, obtained within an endometrial scratching trial, were subjected to RNA‐sequencing and differentially expressed genes analysis with covariate adjustment (age, body mass index, luteinizing hormone [LH]‐day). Endometrial transcriptomes were compared between implantation failure and success groups in the short term (after the second fresh IVF/ICSI cycle) and long term (including all fresh and frozen cycles within 12 months). The short‐term analysis included 85/107 women (33 ongoing pregnancy vs 52 no pregnancy), excluding 22/107 women. The long‐term analysis included 46/107 women (23 'fertile' group, ie infertile women with a live birth after ≤3 embryos transferred vs 23 recurrent implantation failure group, ie no live birth after ≥3 good quality embryos transferred), excluding 61/107 women not fitting these categories. As both analyses drew from the same pool of 107 samples, there was some sample overlap. Additionally, cell type enrichment scores and endometrial receptivity were analyzed, and an endometrial development pseudo‐timeline was constructed to estimate transcriptomic deviations from the optimum receptivity day (LH + 7), denoted as ΔWOI (window of implantation). Results: There were no significantly differentially expressed genes between implantation failure and success groups in either the short‐term or long‐term analyses. Principal component analysis initially showed two clusters in the long‐term analysis, unrelated to clinical phenotype and no longer distinct following covariate adjustment. Cell type enrichment scores did not differ significantly between groups in both analyses. However, endometrial receptivity analysis demonstrated a potentially significant displacement of the WOI in the non‐pregnant group compared with the ongoing pregnant group in the short‐term analysis. Conclusions: No distinct endometrial transcriptome profile was associated with either implantation failure or success in infertile women. However, there may be differences in the extent to which the WOI is displaced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating ectopic pregnancy have reported many different outcomes, which are themselves often defined and measured in distinct ways. This level of variation results in an inability to compare results of individual RCTs. The development of a core outcome set to ensure outcomes important to key stakeholders are collected consistently will guide future research in ectopic pregnancy.Study Aim: To develop and implement a core outcome set to guide future research in ectopic pregnancy.Methods and Analysis: We have established an international steering group of key stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, researchers, and individuals with lived experience of ectopic pregnancy. We will identify potential outcomes from ectopic pregnancy from a comprehensive literature review of published randomised controlled trials. We will then utilise a modified Delphi method to prioritise outcomes. Subsequently, key stakeholders will be invited to score potential core outcomes on a nine-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not important) to 9 (critical). Repeated reflection and rescoring should promote whole and individual stakeholder group convergence towards consensus 'core' outcomes. We will also establish standardised definitions and recommend high-quality measurements for individual core outcomes.Trial Registration: COMET 1492 . Registered in November 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background In in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmatic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment a large drop is present between embryo transfer and occurrence of pregnancy. The implantation rate per embryo transferred is only 30%. Studies have shown that minor intrauterine abnormalities can be found in 11–45% of infertile women with a normal transvaginal sonography or hysterosalpingography. Two randomised controlled trials have indicated that detection and treatment of these abnormalities by office hysteroscopy after two failed IVF cycles leads to a 9–13% increase in pregnancy rate. Therefore, screening of all infertile women for intracavitary pathology prior to the start of IVF/ICSI is increasingly advocated. In absence of a scientific basis for such a policy, this study will assess the effects and costs of screening for and treatment of unsuspected intrauterine abnormalities by routine office hysteroscopy, with or without saline infusion sonography (SIS), prior to a first IVF/ICSI cycle. Methods/design Multicenter randomised controlled trial in asymptomatic subfertile women, indicated for a first IVF/ICSI treatment cycle, with normal findings at transvaginal sonography. Women with recurrent miscarriages, prior hysteroscopy treatment and intermenstrual blood loss will not be included. Participants will be randomised for a routine fertility work-up with additional (SIS and) hysteroscopy with on-the-spot-treatment of predefined intrauterine abnormalities versus the regular fertility work-up without additional diagnostic tests. The primary study outcome is the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate resulting in live birth achieved within 18 months of IVF/ICSI treatment after randomisation. Secondary study outcome parameters are the cumulative implantation rate; cumulative miscarriage rate; patient preference and patient tolerance of a SIS and hysteroscopy procedure. All data will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle, using univariate and multivariate logistic regression and cox regression. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed to evaluate the costs of the additional tests as routine procedure. In total 700 patients will be included in this study. Discussion The results of this study will help to clarify the significance of hysteroscopy prior to IVF treatment. Trial registration NCT01242852

Abstract Background Patients with ectopic pregnancy (EP) and low serum hCG concentrations and women with a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) and plateauing serum hCG levels are commonly treated with systemic methotrexate (MTX). However, there is no evidence that treatment in these particular subgroups of women is necessary as many of these early EPs may resolve spontaneously. The aim of this study is whether expectant management in women with EP or PUL and with low but plateauing serum hCG concentrations is an alternative to MTX treatment in terms of treatment success, future pregnancy, health related quality of life and costs. Methods/Design A multicentre randomised controlled trial in The Netherlands. Hemodynamically stable patients with an EP visible on transvaginal ultrasound and a plateauing serum hCG concentration < 1,500 IU/L or with a persisting PUL with plateauing serum hCG concentrations < 2,000 IU/L are eligible for the trial. Patients with a viable EP, signs of tubal rupture/abdominal bleeding, or a contra-indication for MTX will not be included. Expectant management is compared with systemic MTX in a single dose intramuscular regimen (1 mg/kg) in an outpatient setting. Serum hCG levels are monitored weekly; in case of inadequately declining, systemic MTX is installed or continued. In case of hemodynamic instability and/or signs of tubal rupture, surgery is performed. The primary outcome measure is an uneventful decline of serum hCG to an undetectable level by the initial intervention. Secondary outcomes are (re)interventions (additional systemic MTX injections and/or surgery), treatment complications, health related quality of life, financial costs, and future fertility. Analysis is performed according to the intention to treat principle. Quality of life is assessed by questionnaires before and at three time points after randomisation. Costs are expressed as direct costs with data on costs and used resources in the participating centres. Fertility is assessed by questionnaires after 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. Patients' preferences will be assessed using a discrete choice experiment. Discussion This trial will provide guidance on the present management dilemmas in women with EPs and PULs with low and plateauing serum hCG concentrations. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 48210491

Abstract 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