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.

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.

Embryo Transfer with Controlled Injection Speed to Increase Pregnancy Rates: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Catheter injection speed affects depth and placement of the embryo into the uterine cavity and is shown to be highly variable in, and between, subjects in a manually performed embryo transfer. In an effort to standardize the injection speed during embryo transfer, we developed an automated transfer pump: the pump-regulated embryo transfer (PRET) device. In this randomized controlled trial, we aimed to investigate if standardization of the injection speed and pressure with this PRET results in a better controlled positioning of the transferred embryo(s). METHODS: Five hundred ninety-nine in-vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection/frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles were randomly assigned to the PRET or manual transfer. Positioning of the embryo(s) into the uterine cavity was measured with ultrasound. RESULTS: The PRET device generates a significantly smaller variance of the positioning of the embryo(s) into the uterine cavity. This resulted in an ongoing pregnancy rate of 21% in the PRET versus 17% in the manual (p = 0.22) transfer group; frozen-thawed embryo transfers resulted in 17.5 versus 10.9% (p = 0.097), respectively. CONCLUSION: The PRET results in better controlled positioning of the embryo(s), and it also gives the opportunity to standardize embryo transfer. Whether the PRET may positively influence pregnancy rates, needs to be investigated in a multicenter trial.

Blood-borne angiogenic factors and sustained multiple implantation: a comparison of singleton and twin pregnancies.

This study aimed to compare longitudinal serum concentrations of angiogenic implantation factors between ongoing singleton and twin pregnancies after double-embryo transfer and to investigate whether these are involved in sustained double implantation. Sixteen patients with an ongoing singleton and nine patients with an ongoing twin pregnancy after double-embryo transfer were included in this prospective observational study. Main outcome measures were concentrations of vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A), inhibin A, glycodelin A, insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I), insulin-like growth factor-II (IGF-II), insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 (IGFBP-1) and insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3) at baseline, during the IVF treatment and in early pregnancy. It appeared that VEGF-A concentrations prior to any treatment and at early implantation as well as body mass index (BMI) were higher in women who conceived a twin pregnancy (P = 0.04). Soon after implantation, inhibin A concentrations were higher in twin pregnancies (P=0.02). Secretion profiles of glycodelin A and members of the IGF family did not differ between singleton and twin pregnancies. VEGF-A appears to play a role in sustained double implantation. Furthermore a high BMI is associated with ongoing double implantation. Future studies should investigate the predictive value of VEGF-A for having an ongoing singleton or twin pregnancy.

Ultrasonographic evidence that bedrest after embryo transfer is useless.

BACKGROUND: To demonstrate the effect of immediate ambulation after embryo transfer on the intrauterine location of the transfer content. METHODS: Prospective observational randomized controlled study. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients (47.5%) had one air bubble at transfer and after 15 min change in position: group A (bedrest) 2.69 mm, group B (immediate ambulation) 2.00 mm (p = 0.511). The distance from the fundus declined by 26% in group A and 15% in group B (p = 0.229). Twenty-eight patients (23.3%) had two air bubbles at transfer and after 15 min: average change in position of the first air bubble: group A 3.07 mm, group B 1.80 mm (p = 0.282); average change in position of the second air bubble: group A 2.69 mm, group B 1.80 mm (p = 0.450). The distance from the fundus for the first air bubble declined by 2% in group A and 18% in group B (p = 0.593) and for the second air bubble by 22% in group A and 15% in group B (p = 0.711). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the transfer content is not affected by the immediate ambulation after transfer, illustrating why there is no rationale for bedrest after transfer.

Lower incidence of hypertensive complications during pregnancy in patients treated with low-dose aspirin during in vitro fertilization and early pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: The use of aspirin during in vitro fertilization (IVF) has been investigated for its effect on pregnancy rates after IVF. In most of these studies, aspirin administration was then prolonged throughout the first trimester of pregnancy. By inhibiting vasoconstriction, the use of low-dose aspirin in the first trimester could influence placentation and therefore prevent or delay development of hypertensive pregnancy complications, such as pregnancy-induced hypertension (PIH) and pre-eclampsia (PE). METHODS: This study involved the follow-up by questionnaires and hospital records of patients with an ongoing pregnancy in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial on the effect of low-dose aspirin during IVF. Aspirin treatment was continued throughout the first trimester of pregnancy. The primary end-point of this follow-up study was the incidence of pregnancy complications. The original trial is registered with the Dutch Trial Register and as an International Standard Randomized Clinical Trial, No. ISRNCTM97507474. RESULTS: There were 54 patients who had ongoing pregnancies in the original trial; 90.7% returned the questionnaire and all Dutch hospital records were retrieved. A significant difference was found in the incidence of hypertensive pregnancy complications: 3.6% in the aspirin group and 26.9% in the placebo group (P < 0.05), resulting in numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) of 10.3 to prevent hypertensive complications in one pregnancy after IVF treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of hypertensive complications was significantly lower in the group of women treated with low-dose aspirin throughout IVF treatment and first trimester of pregnancy. These results suggest a potential benefit of low-dose aspirin during IVF and first trimester to prevent hypertensive pregnancy complications. The findings justify further investigation in placebo-controlled randomized trials.

Low-dose aspirin in non-tubal IVF patients with previous failed conception: a prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze whether the administration of low-dose aspirin during IVF treatment improves the uterine blood flow and improves ongoing pregnancy rates for non-tubal factor IVF patients with previous failed conception. DESIGN: Prospective double-blind placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: University fertility clinic. PATIENT(S): Non-tubal IVF patients with previous failed conception. INTERVENTION(S): Daily 100 mg aspirin or placebo throughout an IVF treatment with a long GnRH-agonist stimulation protocol. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Ongoing pregnancy rate, pulsatility index of the uterine artery. RESULT(S): Of 169 patients, 84 were assigned to aspirin treatment and 85 to placebo treatment. In the aspirin group, 28 patients (35.4%) had an ongoing pregnancy, and in the placebo group, 26 patients (31.0%) had an ongoing pregnancy. Multilevel analyses showed that the pulsatility index of the uterine artery was not affected by aspirin or placebo treatment. CONCLUSION(S): Low-dose aspirin administration during IVF treatment does not improve pregnancy rates of non-tubal factor IVF patients with previous failed conception, and it does not affect the arterial uterine blood flow.

The position of transferred air bubbles after embryo transfer is related to pregnancy rate.

OBJECTIVE: The possibility to visualize the transfer air bubbles is one of the main benefits of ultrasonographic-guided embryo transfer. The objective of this study was to analyze the relation between the position of the air bubbles and pregnancy rates. DESIGN: Prospective data-analysis. SETTING: University fertility clinic. PATIENT(S): IVF and intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients. INTERVENTION(S): Transabdominal ultrasonographic guidance at embryo transfer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Pregnancy rate, length endometrial plate, distance catheter to fundus, distance air bubbles to fundus. RESULT(S): Analysis of 367 consecutive ultrasonographic-guided embryo transfers following IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment. Both absolute and relative position of the air bubbles were significantly closer to the fundus in patients who became pregnant compared with patients who did not become pregnant. When the relative position of the air bubbles was in the fundal half of the endometrial plate pregnancy rates were significantly higher compared with the lower half of the endometrial plate, 43.0% and 24.4%, respectively, P=.002. Multiple regression analysis revealed the relative position as an independently associated determinant for pregnancy. CONCLUSION(S): The position of the air bubbles after embryo transfer is related to pregnancy rate; the highest pregnancy rates are found when the air bubbles end up closer to the fundus.

Ultrasonographic-guided embryo transfer does not enhance pregnancy rates compared with embryo transfer based on previous uterine length measurement.

OBJECTIVE: To compare pregnancy rates (PRs) after ultrasound-guided embryo transfer and embryo transfer based on ultrasonographic length measurement. DESIGN: Prospective intervention group combined with retrospective control group. SETTING: University fertility clinic. PATIENT(S): Patients undergoing IVF and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. INTERVENTION(S): Transabdominal ultrasonographic guidance at embryo transfer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Pregnancy and implantation rates. RESULT(S): In 367 ultrasound-guided embryo transfers clinical PR, ongoing PR, and implantation rate were 35.1%, 31.1%, and 24.3%, respectively. In 363 embryo transfers based on previous ultrasonographic length measurement, the rates were 33.9%, 29.5%, and 24.2%, respectively. There were no statistical significant differences between the groups. CONCLUSION(S): Ultrasonographic guidance does not show any benefit in terms of PR and implantation rate compared to previous ultrasonographic length measurement, an other precise and atraumatic transfer technique.

Optimizing hCG cut-off values: a single determination on day 14 or 15 is sufficient for a reliable prediction of pregnancy outcome.

OBJECTIVE: Optimizing the cut-off level for a single serum hCG determination around day 15 after oocyte retrieval or ovulation. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective data analysis. RESULTS: 204 hCG samples >5 IU/L between March and October 1999 taken on day 14, 15 or 16 after oocyte retrieval in 204 patients undergoing IVF or ICSI were analyzed. ROC-curves and optimal cut-off levels to discriminate between viable and non-viable pregnancies were calculated for each day separately. Cut-off levels were found at 76, 142 and 223 IU/L for day 14, 15 and 16, respectively, and were verified by 487 hCG samples >5 IU/L taken between January 2000 and June 2004. CONCLUSIONS: A single serum hCG determination on day 14 or 15 is sufficient to discriminate viable pregnancies accurately from non-viable pregnancies.