The effect of prior hysterosalpingo-foam sonography or hysterosalpingography on tubal patency: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

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.

Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography versus hysterosalpingography during fertility work-up: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the costs and effects of tubal patency testing by hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) compared to hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile women during the fertility work-up? SUMMARY ANSWER: During the fertility work-up, clinical management based on the test results of HyFoSy leads to slightly lower, though not statistically significant, live birth rates, at lower costs, compared to management based on HSG results. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Traditionally, tubal patency testing during the fertility work-up is performed by HSG. The FOAM trial, formally a non-inferiority study, showed that management decisions based on the results of HyFoSy resulted in a comparable live birth rate at 12 months compared to HSG (46% versus 47%; difference -1.2%, 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%; P = 0.27). Compared to HSG, HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain, it lacks ionizing radiation and exposure to iodinated contrast medium. Moreover, HyFoSy can be performed by a gynaecologist during a one-stop fertility work-up. To our knowledge, the costs of both strategies have never been compared. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an economic evaluation alongside the FOAM trial, a randomized multicenter study conducted in the Netherlands. Participating infertile women underwent, both HyFoSy and HSG, in a randomized order. The results of both tests were compared and women with discordant test results were randomly allocated to management based on the results of one of the tests. The follow-up period was twelve months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied 1160 infertile women (18-41 years) scheduled for tubal patency testing. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth. The economic evaluation compared costs and effects of management based on either test within 12 months. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the difference in total costs and chance of live birth. Data were analyzed using the intention to treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 of the 1160 women underwent both tubal tests and had data available: 747 women with concordant results (48% live births), 136 with inconclusive results (40% live births), and 143 with discordant results (41% had a live birth after management based on HyFoSy results versus 49% with live birth after management based on HSG results). When comparing the two strategies-management based on HyfoSy results versus HSG results-the estimated chance of live birth was 46% after HyFoSy versus 47% after HSG (difference -1.2%; 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%). For the procedures itself, HyFoSy cost €136 and HSG €280. When costs of additional fertility treatments were incorporated, the mean total costs per couple were €3307 for the HyFoSy strategy and €3427 for the HSG strategy (mean difference €-119; 95% CI: €-125 to €-114). So, while HyFoSy led to lower costs per couple, live birth rates were also slightly lower. The ICER was €10 042, meaning that by using HyFoSy instead of HSG we would save €10 042 per each additional live birth lost. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: When interpreting the results of this study, it needs to be considered that there was a considerable uncertainty around the ICER, and that the direct fertility enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests was not incorporated as women underwent both tubal patency tests in this study. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS: Compared to clinical management based on HSG results, management guided by HyFoSy leads to slightly lower live birth rates (though not statistically significant) at lower costs, less pain, without ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast exposure. Further research on the comparison of the direct fertility-enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): FOAM trial 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, and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel-and speakers fees from Guerbet and her department received research grants from Guerbet outside the submitted work. H.R.V. received consulting-and travel fee from Ferring. A.M.v.P. reports received consulting fee from DEKRA and fee for an expert meeting from Ferring, both outside the submitted work. C.H.d.K. received travel fee from Merck. F.J.M.B. received a grant from Merck and speakers fee from Besins Healthcare. F.J.M.B. is a member of the advisory board of Merck and Ferring. J.v.D. reported speakers fee from Ferring. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda and consultancy for Sanofi on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford Press in the role of deputy editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a DSMB as independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. B.W.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC GNT1176437. B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Guerbet, iGenomix, and Merck KGaA and travel support from Merck KGaA. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck, and Ferring and travel and speakers fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746.

Can hysterosalpingo-foam sonography replace hysterosalpingography as first-choice tubal patency test? A randomized non-inferiority trial.

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 long-term costs and effects of tubal flushing with oil-based versus water-based contrast during hysterosalpingography.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the long-term costs and effects of oil- versus water-based contrast in infertile women undergoing hysterosalpingography (HSG)? DESIGN: This economic evaluation of a long-term follow-up of a multicentre randomized controlled trial involved 1119 infertile women randomized to HSG with oil- (n = 557) or water-based contrast (n = 562) in the Netherlands. RESULTS: In the oil-based contrast group, 39.8% of women needed no other treatment, 34.6% underwent intrauterine insemination (IUI) and 25.6% had IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in the 5 years following HSG. In the water-based contrast group, 35.0% of women had no other treatment, 34.2% had IUI and 30.8% had IVF/ICSI in the 5 years following HSG (P = 0.113). After 5 years of follow-up, HSG using oil-based contrast resulted in equivalent costs (mean cost difference -€144; 95% confidence interval [CI] -€579 to +€290; P = 0.515) for a 5% increase in the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate compared with HSG using water-based contrast (80% compared with 75%, Relative Risk (RR) 1.07; 95% CI 1.00-1.14). Similarly, HSG with oil-based contrast resulted in equivalent costs (mean cost difference -€50; 95% CI -€576 to +€475; P = 0.850) for a 7.5% increase in the cumulative live birth rate compared with HSG with water-based contrast (74.8% compared with 67.3%, RR 1.11; 95% CI 1.03-1.20), making it the dominant strategy. Scenario analyses suggest that the oil-based contrast medium is the dominant strategy up to a price difference of €300. CONCLUSION: Over a 5-year follow-up, HSG with an oil-based contrast was associated with a 5% increase in ongoing pregnancy rate, a 7.5% increase in live birth rate and similar costs to HSG with water-based contrast.

How long does the fertility-enhancing effect of hysterosalpingography with oil-based contrast last?

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does the fertility-enhancing effect of tubal flushing during hysterosalpingography (HSG) with oil-based contrast change over time? DESIGN: This was a secondary analysis of the H2Oil (long-term follow-up) study, a multicentre randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of oil-based and water-based contrast during HSG. The main outcome was ongoing pregnancy. Cox proportional hazards models for time to ongoing pregnancy were fitted over 3 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Data on 1107 couples were available; 550 couples had oil-based contrast and 557 water-based contrast at HSG. Ongoing pregnancy rates after 3 years were 77% and 71%, respectively. Median follow-up was 9-10 months (5th-95th percentile: <1 to 36). The hazard ratio for ongoing pregnancy for oil versus water over 3 years of follow-up was 1.26 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.45). The scaled Schoenfeld residual plots showed a decrease in hazard ratio that was linear with log-transformed time. After including an interaction with log-transformed time, the hazard ratio immediately after HSG was 1.71 (95% CI 1.27-2.31) and reduced to no effect (hazard ratio of 1) at approximately 2 years. There was no evidence for a change in hazard ratio over time in a subgroup of women who experienced pain during HSG. CONCLUSIONS: The hazard ratio for ongoing pregnancy of oil-based versus water-based contrast was 1.71 immediately after HSG, gradually decreasing and plateauing towards a hazard ratio of 1 (indicating no effect) after approximately 2 years. This supports the hypothesis that oil-based contrast might dislodge debris or mucus plugs from the Fallopian tubes, but this has yet to be definitively proved.

Tubal flushing with oil-based or water-based contrast at hysterosalpingography for infertility: long-term reproductive outcomes of a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of oil-based versus water-based contrast on pregnancy and live birth rates ≤5 years after hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile women. DESIGN: A 5-year follow-up study of a multicenter randomized trial. SETTING: Hospitals. PATIENT(S): Infertile women with an ovulatory cycle, 18-39 years of age, and having a low risk of tubal pathology. INTERVENTION(S): Use of oil-based versus water-based contrast during HSG. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Ongoing pregnancy, live births, time to ongoing pregnancy, second ongoing pregnancy. RESULT(S): A total of 1,119 women were randomly assigned to HSG with oil-based contrast (n = 557) or water-based contrast (n = 562). After 5 years, 444 of 555 women in the oil group (80.0%) and 419 of 559 women in the water group (75.0%) had an ongoing pregnancy (relative risk [RR] 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.14), and 415 of 555 women in the oil group (74.8%) and 376 of 559 women in the water group (67.3%) had live births (RR 1.11; 95% CI 1.03-1.20). In the oil group, 228 pregnancies (41.1%) were conceived naturally versus 194 (34.7%) pregnancies in the water group (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.02-1.38). The time to ongoing pregnancy was significantly shorter in the oil group versus the water group (10.0 vs. 13.7 months; hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% CI 1.09-1.43). No difference was found in the occurrence of a second ongoing pregnancy. CONCLUSION(S): During a 5-year time frame, ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates are higher after tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during HSG compared with water-based contrast. More pregnancies are naturally conceived and time to ongoing pregnancy is shorter after HSG with oil-based contrast. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register (NTR) 3270 and NTR6577(www.trialregister.nl).

Tubal flushing with oil- or water-based contrast medium: can we identify markers that indicate treatment benefit?

STUDY QUESTION: Can we identify patient characteristics that distinguish which ovulatory infertile women undergoing hysterosalpingography (HSG) benefit more or less from flushing with oil-based contrast medium compared to water-based contrast medium? SUMMARY ANSWER: In ovulatory infertile women, HSG with oil-based contrast medium resulted in higher 6-month ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates as compared to HSG with water-based contrast medium and this treatment effect was independent of characteristics of the couple. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: We recently showed that in infertile women undergoing HSG, flushing with oil-based contrast medium resulted in more ongoing pregnancies than flushing with water-based contrast medium. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: We used data from our randomized clinical trial (RCT) in which 1,119 ovulatory infertile women undergoing HSG during fertility work-up were randomized for use of oil-based (N = 557) or water-based (N = 562) contrast medium. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: We built logistic regression models to predict ongoing pregnancy and live birth (secondary outcome) as a function of the specific contrast, the specific marker, and marker-by-contrast-interaction. Markers considered were female age, maternal ethnicity, female smoking, body mass index (BMI), duration of infertility, infertility being primary or secondary, sperm quality, and previous appendectomy. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The 6-month ongoing pregnancy rates in the overall population were 39.7% after use of oil-based contrast versus 29.1% after use of water-based contrast medium [relative risk (RR), 1.37; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.16-1.61; P < 0.001]. Among the studied baseline characteristics, BMI (P = 0.002) and semen volume (P = 0.02) were statistically significant prognosticators. The treatment effect of oil-based contrast was stronger in women with a BMI ≤30 kg/m2 [RR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.23-1.92; P = 0.002], and in women whose partner had a semen volume >3 ml [RR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.28-2.46; P = 0.02]. Also, in women who smoked, the treatment effect of flushing with oil was stronger, but this interaction did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.066). We found no positive effect of oil-based contrast in obese women. We found similar but weaker associations for live birth, which was probably due to lower number of events resulting in less power. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The RCT was restricted to infertile ovulatory women younger than 39 years of age without endocrinological disorders and at low risk for tubal pathology. Our results should not be generalized to infertile women who do not share these features. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: All infertile, ovulatory women younger than 39 years with a low risk for tubal pathology will benefit from an HSG with oil-based contrast; therefore, this should be offered to them after fertility work-up. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The original H2Oil RCT was an investigator-initiated study that was funded by the two academic institutions (AMC and VUmc) of the Amsterdam UMC. The study displayed in this paper was funded by an unconditional research grant from Guerbet. B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). K.D. reports consultancy for Guerbet, during the conduct of the study, and also reports research grants from Guerbet. C.B.L. reports grants from Guerbet, during the conduct of the study, and grants from Ferring, grants from Merck, and personal fees from Ferring, outside the submitted work. P.H. reports grants from Guerbet, during the conduct of the study, and grants from Ferring and Merck, outside the submitted work. V.M. reports receiving travel and speakers fee as well as research grants from Guerbet. B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Merck KGaA, and Guerbet, and research grants from Guerbet and Merck. The other authors have no conflict of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR 3270 www.trialregister.nl. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 1 February 2012. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 3 February 2012.

Oil-based or water-based contrast for hysterosalpingography in infertile women: a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost effectiveness of the use of oil-based versus water-based contrast in infertile women undergoing hysterosalpingography (HSG). DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a multicenter randomized trial. SETTING: Hospitals. PATIENT(S): Infertile women with an ovulatory cycle, 18-39 years of age, low risk of tubal pathology. INTERVENTION(S): Use of oil-based versus water-based contrast during HSG. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Costs per additional ongoing pregnancy and per live birth within 6 months of randomization, incremental cost-effective ratios (ICERs). RESULT(S): A total of 1,119 women were randomized to HSG (oil-based contrast, n = 557; water-based contrast, n = 562). After HSG, most women had no additional treatment; a minority had IUI or IVF. In the oil group, 39.7% women had an ongoing pregnancy within 6 months of randomization versus 29.1% women in the water group. There was a 10.7% increase in the live birth rate in the oil group. For ongoing pregnancy, the mean costs per couple were US$2,014 in the oil group and US$1,144 in the water group, with a corresponding ICER of US$8,198 per additional ongoing pregnancy. For live birth, the mean costs per couple were US$11,532 in the oil group and US$8,310 in the water group, with a corresponding ICER of US$30,112 per additional live birth. CONCLUSION(S): Hysterosalpingography with oil-based contrast results in higher 6-month ongoing pregnancy and live birth rate. If society is willing to pay US$8,198 for an additional ongoing pregnancy, HSG with oil-based contrast is a cost-effective strategy compared with HSG with water-based contrast for infertile, ovulatory women at low risk for tubal pathology. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register, NTR 6577 (www.trialregister.nl).

The FOAM study: is Hysterosalpingo foam sonography (HyFoSy) a cost-effective alternative for hysterosalpingography (HSG) in assessing tubal patency in subfertile women? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Tubal pathology is a causative factor in 20% of subfertile couples. Traditionally, tubal testing during fertility work-up is performed by hysterosalpingography (HSG). Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) is a new technique that is thought to have comparable accuracy as HSG, while it is less expensive and more patient friendly. HyFoSy would be an acceptable alternative for HSG, provided it has similar effectiveness in terms of patient outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: We aim to compare the effectiveness and costs of management guided by HyFoSy or by HSG. Consenting women will undergo tubal testing by both HyFoSy and HSG in a randomized order during fertility work-up. The study group will consist of 1163 subfertile women between 18 and 41 years old who are scheduled for tubal patency testing during their fertility work-up. Women with anovulatory cycles not responding to ovulation induction, endometriosis, severe male subfertility or a known contrast (iodine) allergy will be excluded. We anticipate that 7 % (N = 82) of the participants will have discordant test results for HyFoSy and HSG. These participants will be randomly allocated to either a management strategy based on HyFoSy or a management strategy based on HSG, resulting in either a diagnostic laparoscopy with chromopertubation or a strategy that assumes tubal patency (intrauterine insemination or expectant management). The primary outcome is ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth within 12 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes are patient pain scores, time to pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage rate, multiple pregnancy rate, preterm birth rate and number of additional treatments. Costs will be estimated by counting resource use and calculating unit prices. DISCUSSION: This trial will compare the effectiveness and costs of HyFoSy versus HSG in assessing tubal patency in subfertile women. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register (NTR 4746, http://www.trialregister.nl ). Date of registration: 19 August 2014.

Oil-Based or Water-Based Contrast for Hysterosalpingography in Infertile Women.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy rates among infertile women have been reported to increase after hysterosalpingography, but it is unclear whether the type of contrast medium used (oil-based or water-soluble contrast) influences this potential therapeutic effect. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, randomized trial in 27 hospitals in the Netherlands in which infertile women who were undergoing hysterosalpingography were randomly assigned to undergo this procedure with the use of oil-based or water-based contrast. Subsequently, couples received expectant management or the women underwent intrauterine insemination. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy within 6 months after randomization. Outcomes were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: A total of 1119 women were randomly assigned to hysterosalpingography with oil contrast (557 women) or water contrast (562 women). A total of 220 of 554 women in the oil group (39.7%) and 161 of 554 women in the water group (29.1%) had an ongoing pregnancy (rate ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16 to 1.61; P<0.001), and 214 of 552 women in the oil group (38.8%) and 155 of 552 women in the water group (28.1%) had live births (rate ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.64; P<0.001). Rates of adverse events were low and similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of ongoing pregnancy and live births were higher among women who underwent hysterosalpingography with oil contrast than among women who underwent this procedure with water contrast. (Netherlands Trial Register number, NTR3270 .).

Effects of long-term exogenous testosterone administration on ovarian morphology, determined by transvaginal (3D) ultrasound in female-to-male transsexuals.

STUDY QUESTION: Does long-term exogenous testosterone administration result in polycystic ovarian morphology (PCOM), determined by (3D) transvaginal ultrasound (TVU) in female-to-male transsexuals (FtMs). SUMMARY ANSWER: Long-term exogenous testosterone administration in FtMs does not result in PCOM determined by (3D) TVU. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The role of androgens in the pathophysiology of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is still unclear. From animal studies, intra-ovarian androgens have been suggested to disturb folliculogenesis, through a pro-atretic effect on growing follicles. It remains debatable whether exogenous androgens induce PCOM in humans. In the past histomorphologic studies indicated that androgen administration in FtMs could cause PCO-like changes. However, ultrasound morphology is an established criterion for PCOS, TVU data of ovaries after prolonged androgen exposure are lacking. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Prospective, observational, case-control study, in an academic setting, performed in 2014-2015, including 56 FtMs and 80 controls. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The study population consisted of adult FtMs treated with long-term testosterone, as part of their cross-sex hormone treatment, and scheduled for sex-reassignment surgery (bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy). Prior to the operation, under anaesthetics TVU measurements (3D transvaginal probe 3-9 MHz; HD11, Philips Ultrasound, Inc.) of the ovaries were performed. The control group consisted of females from a general population who underwent the same TVU and analysis. Antral follicle count (AFC) (3D) and ovarian volume (3D) were calculated using specialized software. PCOM was defined as AFC of 12 or more follicles (2-10 mm) in at least one ovary. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Prevalence rates of PCOM were not significantly different in the FtMs compared to controls, determined by (3D) TVU: 32.1% (17/53) versus 30.7% (23/75), P = 0.87. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Testosterone levels in FtMs are supraphysiological, and may not be comparable to the testosterone levels in women with PCOS. However, we applied a unique and ethically acceptable opportunity of exploring the effects of androgens on human ovaries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This first explorative study shows that long-term exogenous testosterone administration in adult women does not seem to induce PCOM determined by TVU. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): None. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The trial was registered at the Dutch Trial Register (www.trialregister.nl), registration number NTR4784.

Embryo selection using time-lapse analysis (Early Embryo Viability Assessment) in conjunction with standard morphology: a prospective two-center pilot study.

STUDY QUESTION: Does prospective embryo selection using the results from the Eava Test (Early Embryo Viability Assessment) in combination with standard morphology increase the pregnancy rate of IVF and ICSI patients compared to embryo selection based on morphology only? SUMMARY ANSWER: Embryo selection using the Eeva Test plus standard morphology on Day 3 results in comparable pregnancy rates as conventional morphological embryo selection. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Time-lapse monitoring of embryo development may represent a superior way to culture and select embryos in vitro. The Eeva Test records the development of each embryo with a cell-tracking system and predicts the likelihood (High, Medium or Low) that an embryo will form a blastocyst based on an automated analysis of early cell division timings. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This trial was designed as a prospective, observational, two-center pilot study with a propensity matched control group. The analysis involved 280 of 302 enrolled patients who were included in the Eeva Test group in 2013 and 560 control patients who were treated in the years 2011-2013. The majority of transfers (98%) were single embryo transfers. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Two academic hospitals (VUmc Amsterdam and UZ Gent) enrolled patients <41 years old, with <3 previous attempts and ≥5 normally fertilized eggs. Propensity matching was used to identify a propensity matched control group from a cohort of 1777 patients based on age, cycle number, oocyte number and number of fertilized oocytes. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There was no difference in patient baseline characteristics between the two groups. The ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) of patients enrolled in the Eeva Test group (34.3%; 96/280) did not differ significantly from the OPR in the propensity matched control group (34.6%, 194/560; P = 0.92). However, significantly less top quality embryos (eight-cell embryos with ≤25% fragmentation) were transferred in the Eeva Test group compared to the propensity matched control group (70.4% vs. 82.3%; P < 0.001). The transfer of Eeva High and Medium embryos resulted in a significantly higher OPR of 36.8% (89/242) compared to 18.4% (7/38) for Eeva Low embryos (P = 0.02). LIMITATION, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This pilot study is limited by its nonrandomized design with a concurrent and historical control. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our pilot data did not reveal significant differences between time-lapse based and conventional embryo selection. Interestingly, the pregnancy rates were comparable in both groups even though the morphological quality of the transferred embryos was significantly lower in the Eeva Test group compared to the propensity matched control group. A sufficiently powered three-armed randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a solid design should be performed to generate decisive evidence in the future. STUDY FINDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: Progyny Inc., formerly Auxogyn provided the Eeva scopes, software and technical support for this study. The funding sources did neither influence data collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data, nor the preparation of the manuscript. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01671644.