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.

Individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation plus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI).

BACKGROUND: During a stimulated cycle of in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI), women receive daily doses of gonadotropin follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) to induce multifollicular development in the ovaries. A normal response to stimulation (e.g. retrieval of 5 to 15 oocytes) is considered desirable. Generally, the number of eggs retrieved is associated with the dose of FSH. Both hyper-response and poor response are associated with an increased chance of cycle cancellation. In hyper-response, this is due to increased risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), while poor response cycles are cancelled because the quantity and quality of oocytes is expected to be low. Clinicians often individualise the FSH dose using patient characteristics predictive of ovarian response. Traditionally, this meant women's age, but increasingly, clinicians use various ovarian reserve tests (ORTs). These include basal FSH (bFSH), antral follicle count (AFC), and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). It is unclear whether individualising FSH dose improves clinical outcomes. This review updates the 2018 version. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registers in February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared (a) different doses of FSH in women with a defined ORT profile (i.e. predicted low, normal, or high responders based on AMH, AFC, and/or bFSH) or (b) an individualised dosing strategy (based on at least one ORT measure) versus uniform dosing or a different individualised dosing algorithm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and severe OHSS. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 studies, involving 8520 women (6 new studies added to 20 studies included in the previous version). We treated RCTs with multiple comparisons as separate trials for the purpose of this review. Meta-analysis was limited due to clinical heterogeneity. Evidence certainty ranged from very low to low, with the main limitations being imprecision and risk of bias associated with lack of blinding. Direct dose comparisons according to predicted response in women Due to differences in dose comparisons, caution is required when interpreting the RCTs in predicted low responders. All evidence was low or very low certainty. Effect estimates were very imprecise, and increased FSH dosing may or may not have an impact on rates of live birth/ongoing pregnancy, OHSS, and clinical pregnancy. Similarly, in predicted normal responders (10 studies, 4 comparisons), higher doses may or may not impact the probability of live birth/ongoing pregnancy (e.g. 200 versus 100 international units (IU): odds ratio (OR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.36; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 522 women) or clinical pregnancy. Results were imprecise, and a small benefit or harm remains possible. There were too few events for the OHSS outcome to enable inferences. In predicted high responders, lower doses may or may not affect live birth/ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.46; 1 study, 521 women), severe OHSS, and clinical pregnancy. It is also unclear whether lower doses reduce moderate or severe OHSS (Peto OR 2.31, 95% CI 0.80 to 6.67; 1 study, 521 participants). ORT-algorithm studies Eight trials compared an ORT-based algorithm to a non-ORT control group. It is unclear whether live birth/ongoing pregnancy and clinical pregnancy are increased using an ORT-based algorithm (live birth/ongoing pregnancy: OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.29; I2 = 30%; 7 studies, 4400 women; clinical pregnancy: OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.18; I2 = 18%; 7 studies, 4400 women; low-certainty evidence). However, ORT algorithms may reduce moderate or severe OHSS (Peto OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.84; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 4400 women; low-certainty evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of severe OHSS (Peto OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.28; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2724 women; low-certainty evidence). Our findings suggest that if the chance of live birth with a standard starting dose is 25%, the chance with ORT-based dosing would be between 25% and 31%. If the chance of moderate or severe OHSS with a standard starting dose is 5%, the chance with ORT-based dosing would be between 2% and 5%. These results should be treated cautiously due to heterogeneity in the algorithms: some algorithms appear to be more effective than others. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find that tailoring the FSH dose in any particular ORT population (low, normal, high ORT) affected live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates, but we could not rule out differences, due to sample size limitations. Low-certainty evidence suggests that it is unclear if ORT-based individualisation leads to an increase in live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates compared to a policy of giving all women 150 IU. The confidence interval is consistent with an increase of up to around six percentage points with ORT-based dosing (e.g. from 25% to 31%) or a very small decrease (< 1%). A difference of this magnitude could be important to many women. It is unclear if this is driven by improved outcomes in a particular subgroup. Further, ORT algorithms reduced the incidence of OHSS compared to standard dosing of 150 IU. However, the size of the effect is also unclear. The included studies were heterogeneous in design, which limited the interpretation of pooled estimates. It is likely that different ORT algorithms differ in their effectiveness. Current evidence does not provide a clear justification for adjusting the dose of 150 IU in poor or normal responders, especially as increased dose is associated with greater total FSH dose and cost. It is unclear whether a decreased dose in predicted high responders reduces OHSS, although this would appear to be the most likely explanation for the results.

Considerations on implementation of the newest treatment for symptomatic uterine fibroids: Oral GnRH antagonists.

Novel gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist treatments have recently been developed in combination with hormonal add-back therapy, as an oral treatment option for women suffering from uterine fibroids. Registration trials assessing the GnRH antagonist combination preparations with relugolix, elagolix and linzagolix have assessed treatment efficacy for fibroid-related heavy menstrual blood loss in comparison to placebo. Marketing authorization has been granted by several agencies including those in Europe, the United Kingdom and the United States. While the registration trials report a robust effect on the reduction of heavy menstrual blood loss and improvement in quality of life scores, reticence is advised before widespread prescription. In this review, we demonstrate limitations in the trial data, namely a lack of generalizability due to the restricted study population, the lack of transparency in the distribution of disease-level characteristics limiting the predictability of treatment success in the real-world diverse population, and the absence of any comparison to current alternative treatment methods. Importantly, no clinically meaningful volume reductions were found with GnRH antagonist combination preparations, and long-term safety data, particularly concerning modest but stable bone mineral density decline, need further addressing. Symptoms related to uterine fibroids adversely affect many women's quality of life and effective medical treatments are lacking. However, despite the urgent need for conservative treatments, it is vitally important that novel drugs, like combination oral GnRH antagonists, undergo sufficiently rigorous evaluation of safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in a representative population and are compared with alternative treatment methods before introduction into mainstream clinical practice.

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus conventional in vitro fertilisation in couples with males presenting with normal total sperm count and motility.

BACKGROUND: Starting over 40 years ago, in vitro fertilisation (IVF) has become the cornerstone for fertility treatment. Since then, in 1992, Palermo and colleagues successfully applied the technique intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) to benefit couples where conventional in vitro fertilisation (c-IVF) and sub-zonal insemination (SUZI) proved unsuccessful. After this case report, ICSI has become the treatment of choice for couples with severe male factor subfertility. Over time, ICSI has been used in the treatment of couples with mild male and even unexplained infertility. This review is an update of the review, first published in 1999, comparing ICSI with c-IVF for couples with males presenting with normal total sperm count and motility. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ICSI relative to c-IVF in couples with males presenting with normal total sperm count and motility. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases and trial registers: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase (excerpta Medica Database), MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online) and PsycINFO (Psychological literature database) for articles between January 2010 and 22 February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ICSI with c-IVF in couples with males presenting with normal total sperm count and motility. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodical procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were live birth and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy, viable intrauterine pregnancy and miscarriage. MAIN RESULTS: The original review published in 2003 included one RCT. In this 2023 update, we identified an additional two RCTs totalling a cohort of 1539 couples, comparing ICSI with c-IVF techniques. Two studies reported on live birth. Using the GRADE method, we assessed the certainty of evidence and reported evidence as low-certainty for live birth. We are uncertain of the effect of ICSI versus c-IVF for live birth rates (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI 0.94 to 1.30, I2 = 0%, 2 studies, n = 1124, low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth following c-IVF is assumed to be 32%, the chance of live birth with ICSI would be between 30% and 41%. For adverse events; multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, pre-eclampsia and prematurity, there was probably little or no difference between the two techniques. No study reported the primary outcome stillbirth. For secondary outcomes, we are uncertain of the effect of ICSI versus c-IVF for clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13, I2 = 45%, 3 studies, n = 1539, low-certainty evidence). Comparison of viable intrauterine pregnancy rates showed probably little or no difference between ICSI and c-IVF (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16, I2=75%, 2 studies, n = 1479 couples, moderate-certainty evidence). The high heterogeneity may have been caused by one older study conducted when protocols were less rigorous. The evidence suggests that if the chance of viable intrauterine pregnancy following c-IVF is assumed to be 33%, the chance of viable intrauterine pregnancy with ICSI would be between 28% and 38%. Miscarriage rates also showed probably little or no difference between the two techniques. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current available studies that compare ICSI and c-IVF in couples with males presenting with normal total sperm count and motility, show neither method was superior to the other, in achieving live birth, adverse events (multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, pre-eclampsia and prematurity), also alongside secondary outcomes, clinical pregnancy, viable intrauterine pregnancy or miscarriage.

Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there are five major approaches to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease: abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH), robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) and vaginal natural orifice hysterectomy (V-NOTES). Within the LH category we further differentiate the laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) from the total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SP-LH). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of different surgical approaches to hysterectomy for women with benign gynaecological conditions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases (from their inception to December 2022): the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We also searched the trial registries and relevant reference lists, and communicated with experts in the field for any additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which clinical outcomes were compared between one surgical approach to hysterectomy and another. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and performed data extraction. Our primary outcomes were return to normal activities, satisfaction and quality of life, intraoperative visceral injury and major long-term complications (i.e. fistula, pelvic-abdominal pain, urinary dysfunction, bowel dysfunction, pelvic floor condition and sexual dysfunction). MAIN RESULTS: We included 63 studies with 6811 women. The evidence for most comparisons was of low or moderate certainty. The main limitations were poor reporting and imprecision. Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) versus abdominal hysterectomy (AH) (12 RCTs, 1046 women) Return to normal activities was probably faster in the VH group (mean difference (MD) -10.91 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17.95 to -3.87; 4 RCTs, 274 women; I2 = 67%; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the return to normal activities after AH is assumed to be 42 days, then after VH it would be between 24 and 38 days. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. Laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) versus AH (28 RCTs, 3431 women) Return to normal activities may be sooner in the LH group (MD -13.01 days, 95% CI -16.47 to -9.56; 7 RCTs, 618 women; I2 = 68%, low-certainty evidence), but there may be more urinary tract injuries in the LH group (odds ratio (OR) 2.16, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.93; 18 RCTs, 2594 women; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the return to normal activities after abdominal hysterectomy is assumed to be 37 days, then after laparoscopic hysterectomy it would be between 22 and 25 days. It also suggests that if the rate of ureter injury during abdominal hysterectomy is assumed to be 0.2%, then during laparoscopic hysterectomy it would be between 0.2% and 2%. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. LH versus VH (22 RCTs, 2135 women) We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for any of our primary outcomes. Both short- and long-term complications were rare in both groups. Robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) versus LH (three RCTs, 296 women) None of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for our other primary outcomes. Single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SP-LH) versus LH (seven RCTs, 621 women) None of the studies reported satisfaction rates, quality of life or major long-term complications. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of intraoperative visceral injury. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) versus laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) (three RCTs, 233 women) None of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of intraoperative visceral injury or major long-term complications. Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (V-NOTES) versus LH (two RCTs, 96 women) We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of bladder injury. Our other primary outcomes were not reported. Overall, adverse events were rare in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Among women undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease, VH appears to be superior to AH. When technically feasible, VH should be performed in preference to AH because it is associated with faster return to normal activities, fewer wound/abdominal wall infections and shorter hospital stay. Where VH is not possible, LH has advantages over AH including faster return to normal activities, shorter hospital stay, and decreased risk of wound/abdominal wall infection, febrile episodes or unspecified infection, and transfusion. These advantages must be balanced against the increased risk of ureteric injury and longer operative time. When compared to LH, VH was associated with no difference in time to return to normal activities but shorter operative time and shorter hospital stay. RH and V-NOTES require further evaluation since there is a lack of evidence of any patient benefit over conventional LH. Overall, the evidence in this review has to be interpreted with caution as adverse event rates were low, resulting in low power for these comparisons. The surgical approach to hysterectomy should be discussed with the patient and decided in the light of the relative benefits and hazards. Surgical expertise is difficult to quantify and poorly reported in the available studies and this may influence outcomes in ways that cannot be accounted for in this review. In conclusion, when VH is not feasible, LH has multiple advantages over AH, but at the cost of more ureteric injuries. Evidence is limited for RH and V-NOTES.

Interventions affecting the nitric oxide pathway versus placebo or no therapy for fetal growth restriction in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Fetal growth restriction (FGR) is a condition of poor growth of the fetus in utero. One of the causes of FGR is placental insufficiency. Severe early-onset FGR at < 32 weeks of gestation occurs in an estimated 0.4% of pregnancies. This extreme phenotype is associated with a high risk of fetal death, neonatal mortality, and neonatal morbidity. Currently, there is no causal treatment, and management is focused on indicated preterm birth to prevent fetal death. Interest has risen in interventions that aim to improve placental function by administration of pharmacological agents affecting the nitric oxide pathway causing vasodilatation. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review and aggregate data meta-analysis is to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of interventions affecting the nitric oxide pathway compared with placebo, no therapy, or different drugs affecting this pathway against each other, in pregnant women with severe early-onset FGR. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (16 July 2022), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all randomised controlled comparisons of interventions affecting the nitric oxide pathway compared with placebo, no therapy, or another drug affecting this pathway in pregnant women with severe early-onset FGR of placental origin, for inclusion in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth methods for data collection and analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of eight studies (679 women) in this review, all of which contributed to the data and analysis. The identified studies report on five different comparisons: sildenafil compared with placebo or no therapy, tadalafil compared with placebo or no therapy, L-arginine compared with placebo or no therapy, nitroglycerin compared with placebo or no therapy and sildenafil compared with nitroglycerin. The risk of bias of included studies was judged as low or unclear. In two studies the intervention was not blinded. The certainty of evidence for our primary outcomes was judged as moderate for the intervention sildenafil and low for tadalafil and nitroglycerine (due to low number of participants and low number of events). For the intervention L-arginine, our primary outcomes were not reported. Sildenafil citrate compared to placebo or no therapy (5 studies, 516 women) Five studies (Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the Netherlands, the UK and Brazil) involving 516 pregnant women with FGR were included. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as moderate. Compared with placebo or no therapy, sildenafil probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.27, 5 studies, 516 women); may reduce fetal mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.12, 5 studies, 516 women), and increase neonatal mortality (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.33, 5 studies, 397 women), although the results are uncertain for fetal and neonatal mortality as 95% confidence intervals are wide crossing the line of no effect. Tadalafil compared with placebo or no therapy (1 study, 87 women) One study (Japan) involving 87 pregnant women with FGR was included. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as low. Compared with placebo or no therapy, tadalafil may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality (risk ratio 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.60, one study, 87 women); fetal mortality (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.96, one study, 87 women); and neonatal mortality (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.70, one study, 83 women). L-Arginine compared with placebo or no therapy (1 study, 43 women) One study (France) involving 43 pregnant women with FGR was included. This study did not assess our primary outcomes. Nitroglycerin compared to placebo or no therapy (1 studies, 23 women) One study (Brazil) involving 23 pregnant women with FGR was included. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as low. The effect on the primary outcomes is not estimable due to no events in women participating in both groups. Sildenafil citrate compared to nitroglycerin (1 study, 23 women) One study (Brazil) involving 23 pregnant women with FGR was included. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as low. The effect on the primary outcomes is not estimable due to no events in women participating in both groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Interventions affecting the nitric oxide pathway probably do not seem to influence all-cause (fetal and neonatal) mortality in pregnant women carrying a baby with FGR, although more evidence is needed. The certainty of this evidence is moderate for sildenafil and low for tadalafil and nitroglycerin. For sildenafil a fair amount of data are available from randomised clinical trials, but with low numbers of participants. Therefore, the certainty of evidence is moderate. For the other interventions investigated in this review there are insufficient data, meaning we do not know whether these interventions improve perinatal and maternal outcomes in pregnant women with FGR.

Acupuncture and Doxylamine-Pyridoxine for Nausea and Vomiting in Pregnancy : A Randomized, Controlled, 2 × 2 Factorial Trial.

BACKGROUND: An effective and safe treatment for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of acupuncture, doxylamine-pyridoxine, and a combination of both in women with moderate to severe NVP. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04401384). SETTING: 13 tertiary hospitals in mainland China from 21 June 2020 to 2 February 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 352 women in early pregnancy with moderate to severe NVP. INTERVENTION: Participants received daily active or sham acupuncture for 30 minutes and doxylamine-pyridoxine or placebo for 14 days. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the reduction in Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis (PUQE) score at the end of the intervention at day 15 relative to baseline. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, adverse events, and maternal and perinatal complications. RESULTS: No significant interaction was detected between the interventions (P = 0.69). Participants receiving acupuncture (mean difference [MD], -0.7 [95% CI, -1.3 to -0.1]), doxylamine-pyridoxine (MD, -1.0 [CI, -1.6 to -0.4]), and the combination of both (MD, -1.6 [CI, -2.2 to -0.9]) had a larger reduction in PUQE score over the treatment course than their respective control groups (sham acupuncture, placebo, and sham acupuncture plus placebo). Compared with placebo, a higher risk for births with children who were small for gestational age was observed with doxylamine-pyridoxine (odds ratio, 3.8 [CI, 1.0 to 14.1]). LIMITATION: The placebo effects of the interventions and natural regression of the disease were not evaluated. CONCLUSION: Both acupuncture and doxylamine-pyridoxine alone are efficacious for moderate and severe NVP. However, the clinical importance of this effect is uncertain because of its modest magnitude. The combination of acupuncture and doxylamine-pyridoxine may yield a potentially larger benefit than each treatment alone. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The National Key R&D Program of China and the Project of Heilongjiang Province "TouYan" Innovation Team.

Mechanical methods for induction of labour.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical methods were the first methods developed to ripen the cervix and induce labour. During recent decades they have been substituted by pharmacological methods. Potential advantages of mechanical methods, compared with pharmacological methods may include reduction in side effects that could improve neonatal outcomes. This is an update of a review first published in 2001, last updated in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of mechanical methods for third trimester (> 24 weeks' gestation) induction of labour in comparison with prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) (vaginal and intracervical), low-dose misoprostol (oral and vaginal), amniotomy or oxytocin. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies (9 January 2018). We updated the search in March 2019 and added the search results to the awaiting classification section of the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Clinical trials comparing mechanical methods used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with pharmacological methods. Mechanical methods include: (1) the introduction of a catheter through the cervix into the extra-amniotic space with balloon insufflation; (2) introduction of laminaria tents, or their synthetic equivalent (Dilapan), into the cervical canal; (3) use of a catheter to inject fluid into the extra-amniotic space (EASI). This review includes the following comparisons: (1) specific mechanical methods (balloon catheter, laminaria tents or EASI) compared with prostaglandins (different types, different routes) or with oxytocin; (2) single balloon compared to a double balloon; (3) addition of prostaglandins or oxytocin to mechanical methods compared with prostaglandins or oxytocin alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes a total of 112 trials, with 104 studies contributing data (22,055 women; 21 comparisons). Risk of bias of trials varied. Overall, the evidence was graded from very-low to moderate quality. All evidence was downgraded for lack of blinding and, for many comparisons, the effect estimates were too imprecise to make a valid judgement.   Balloon versus vaginal PGE2: there may be little or no difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.26; 7 studies; 1685 women; low-quality evidence) and there probably is little or no difference in caesarean sections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 28 studies; 6619 women; moderate-quality evidence) between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal PGE2. A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.67; 6 studies; 1966 women; moderate-quality evidence), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.93; 8 studies; 2757 women; moderate-quality evidence) and may slightly reduce the risk of aneonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04; 3647 women; 12 studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.12; 4 studies; 1481 women) or five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.14; 4271 women; 14 studies) because the quality of the evidence was found to be very low and low, respectively. Balloon versus low-dose vaginal misoprostol: it is uncertain whether there is a difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal misoprostol (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.39; 340 women; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 1322 women; 8 studies; moderate-quality evidence) but may increase the risk of a caesarean section (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.60; 1756 women; 12 studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.66; 381 women; 3 studies), serious maternal morbidity or death (no events; 4 studies, 464 women), both very low-quality evidence, and five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.97; 941 women; 7 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.63; 1302 women; 9 studies) both low-quality evidence. Balloon versus low-dose oral misoprostol: a balloon catheter probably increases the risk of a vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.46; 782 women, 2 studies, and probably slightly increases the risk of a caesarean section (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32; 3178 women; 7 studies; both moderate-quality evidence) when compared to oral misoprostol. It is uncertain whether there is a difference in uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.38; 2033 women; 2 studies), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.06; 2627 women; 3 studies), both low-quality evidence, serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.52; 2627 women; 3 studies), very low-quality evidence, five-minute Apgar scores < 7 (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.32; 2693 women; 4 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.17; 2873 women; 5 studies) both low-quality evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low- to moderate-quality evidence shows mechanical induction with a balloon is probably as effective as induction of labour with vaginal PGE2. However, a balloon seems to have a more favourable safety profile. More research on this comparison does not seem warranted. Moderate-quality evidence shows a balloon catheter may be slightly less effective as oral misoprostol, but it remains unclear if there is a difference in safety outcomes for the neonate. When compared to low-dose vaginal misoprostol, low-quality evidence shows a balloon may be less effective, but probably has a better safety profile. Future research could be focused more on safety aspects for the neonate and maternal satisfaction.

Progesterone for women with threatened miscarriage (STOP trial): a placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial.

STUDY QUESTION: In women with threatened miscarriage, does progesterone supplementation until the completion of the first trimester of pregnancy increase the probability of live birth? SUMMARY ANSWER: In women with threatened miscarriage, 400 mg vaginal progesterone nightly, from onset of bleeding until 12 weeks, did not increase live birth rates. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Limited evidence has indicated that vaginal micronized progesterone may make little or no difference to the live birth rate when compared with placebo in women with threatened miscarriage. Subgroup analysis of one recent randomized trial reported that in women with bleeding and at least one previous miscarriage, progesterone might be of benefit. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial between February 2012 and April 2019. Eligible pregnant women under 10 weeks gestation, experiencing a threatened miscarriage as apparent from vaginal bleeding were randomized into two groups in a 1:1 ratio: the intervention group received 400 mg progesterone as vaginal pessaries, the control group received placebo vaginal pessaries, both until 12 weeks gestation. The primary endpoint was live birth. We planned to randomize 386 women (193 per group). The study was stopped at a planned interim analysis for futility after randomization of 278 women. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: This trial was conducted at the Mater Mothers' Hospital, a tertiary centre for maternity care in South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. We randomized 139 women to the intervention group and 139 women to the placebo group. Primary outcome data were available for 136 women in the intervention group and 133 women in the placebo group. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The live birth rates were 82.4% (112/136) and 84.2% (112/133) in the intervention group and placebo group, respectively (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.09; risk difference -0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.07; P = 0.683). Among women with at least one previous miscarriage, live birth rates were 80.6% (54/67) and 84.4% (65/77) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82-1.11; P = 0.550). No significant effect was seen from progesterone in women with two (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.96-1.72; P = 0.096) or more (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.53-1.19; P = 0.267) previous miscarriages. Preterm birth rates were 12.9% and 9.3%, respectively (RR 1.38; 95% CI 0.69 to 2.78; P = 0.361). Median birth weight was 3310 vs 3300 g (P = 0.992). There were also no other significant differences in obstetric and perinatal outcomes. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our study was single centre and did not reach the planned sample size because it was stopped prematurely at an interim analysis. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We did not find evidence supporting the treatment effect of vaginal progesterone in women with threatened miscarriage. Progesterone in this setting should not be routinely used for threatened miscarriage. The treatment effect in women with threatened miscarriage after previous miscarriages warrants further research. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Mothers' and babies Golden Casket Clinical Fellowship (L.A.M.). Progesterone and placebo pessaries were provided by Perrigo Australia.B.W.J.M. reports grants from NHMRC, personal fees from ObsEva, personal fees from Merck KGaA, personal fees from Guerbet, personal fees from iGenomix, outside the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12611000405910. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 19 April 2011. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 06 February 2012.

Offspring physiology following the use of IVM, IVF and ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis of animal studies.

BACKGROUND: Since the birth of the first baby using IVF technology in 1978, over 10 million children have been conceived via ART. Although most aspects of ARTs were developed in animal models, the introduction of these technologies into clinical practice was performed without comprehensive assessment of their long-term safety. The monitoring of these technologies over time has revealed differences in the physiology of babies produced using ARTs, yet due to the pathology of those presenting for treatment, it is challenging to separate the cause of infertility from the effect of treatments offered. The use of systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the impacts of the predominant ART interventions used clinically in human populations on animals produced in healthy fertile populations offers an alternative approach to understanding the long-term safety of reproductive technologies. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the evidence available from animal studies on physiological outcomes in the offspring conceived after IVF, IVM or ICSI, compared to in vivo fertilization, and to provide an overview on the landscape of research in this area. SEARCH METHODS: PubMed, Embase and Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) Abstracts were searched for relevant studies published until 27 August 2021. Search terms relating to assisted reproductive technology, postnatal outcomes and mammalian animal models were used. Studies that compared postnatal outcomes between in vitro-conceived (IVF, ICSI or IVM) and in vivo-conceived mammalian animal models were included. In vivo conception included mating, artificial insemination, or either of these followed by embryo transfer to a recipient animal with or without in vitro culture. Outcomes included birth weight, gestation length, cardiovascular, metabolic and behavioural characteristics and lifespan. OUTCOMES: A total of 61 studies in five different species (bovine, equine, murine, ovine and non-human primate) met the inclusion criteria. The bovine model was the most frequently used in IVM studies (32/40), while the murine model was mostly used in IVF (17/20) and ICSI (6/8) investigations. Despite considerable heterogeneity, these studies suggest that the use of IVF or maturation results in offspring with higher birthweights and a longer length of gestation, with most of this evidence coming from studies in cattle. These techniques may also impair glucose and lipid metabolism in male mice. The findings on cardiovascular outcomes and behaviour outcomes were inconsistent across studies. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: Conception via in vitro or in vivo means appears to have an influence on measurable outcomes of offspring physiology, manifesting differently across the species studied. Importantly, it can be noted that these measurable differences are noticeable in healthy, fertile animal populations. Thus, common ART interventions may have long-term consequences for those conceived through these techniques, regardless of the pathology underpinning diagnosed infertility. However, due to heterogeneous methods, results and measured outcomes, highlighted in this review, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions. Optimizing animal and human studies that investigate the safety of new reproductive technologies will provide insight into safeguarding the introduction of novel interventions into the clinical setting. Cautiously prescribing the use of ARTs clinically may also be considered to reduce the chance of promoting adverse outcomes in children conceived before long-term safety is confidently documented.

The Risk of Preterm Birth in Low Risk Pregnant Women with Urinary Tract Infections.

OBJECTIVE: Urinary tract infections are among the most common infections during pregnancy. The association between symptomatic lower urinary tract infections during pregnancy and fetal and maternal complications such as preterm birth and low birthweight remains unclear. The aim of this research is to evaluate the association between urinary tract infections during pregnancy and maternal and neonatal outcomes, especially preterm birth. STUDY DESIGN: This study is a secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort study, which included patients between October 2011 and June 2013. The population consists of women with low risk singleton pregnancies. We divided the cohort into women with and without a symptomatic lower urinary tract infection after 20 weeks of gestation. Baseline characteristics and maternal and neonatal outcomes were compared between the two groups. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to correct for confounders. The main outcome was spontaneous preterm birth at <37 weeks. RESULTS: We identified 4,918 pregnant women eligible for enrollment, of whom 9.4% had a symptomatic lower urinary tract infection during their pregnancy. Women with symptomatic lower urinary tract infections were at increased risk for both preterm birth in general (12 vs. 5.1%, adjusted OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.7-3.5) as well as a spontaneous preterm birth at <37 weeks (8.2 vs. 3.7%, adjusted OR 2.3; 95% CI 1.5-3.5). This association was also present for early preterm birth at <34 weeks. Women with symptomatic lower urinary tract infections during pregnancy are also at increased risk of endometritis (8.9 vs. 1.8%, adjusted OR 5.3; 95% CI 1.4-20) and mastitis (7.8 vs. 1.8%, adjusted OR 4.0; 95% CI 1.6-10) postpartum. CONCLUSION: Low risk women with symptomatic lower urinary tract infections during pregnancy are at increased risk of spontaneous preterm birth. In addition, an increased risk for endometritis and mastitis postpartum was found in women with symptomatic lower urinary tract infection during pregnancy. KEY POINTS: · UTIs increase the risk of preterm birth.. · UTIs increase the risk of endometritis postpartum.. · UTIs increase the risk of mastitis postpartum..

Endometrial ablation plus levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system versus endometrial ablation alone in women with heavy menstrual bleeding: study protocol of a multicentre randomised controlled trial; MIRA2 trial.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that between 12 to 25% of women who undergo an endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) are dissatisfied after two years because of recurrent menstrual bleeding and/or cyclical pelvic pain, with around 15% of these women ultimately having a hysterectomy. The insertion of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) immediately after endometrial ablation may inactivate residual untreated endometrium and/or inhibit the regeneration of endometrial tissue. Furthermore, the LNG-IUS may prevent agglutination of the uterine walls preventing intrauterine adhesion formation associated with endometrial ablation. In these ways, insertion of an LNG-IUS immediately after endometrial ablation might prevent subsequent hysterectomies because of persisting uterine bleeding and cyclical pelvic pain or pain that arises de novo. Hence, we evaluate if the combination of endometrial ablation and an LNG-IUS is superior to endometrial ablation alone in terms of reducing subsequent rates of hysterectomy at two years following the initial ablative procedure. METHODS/DESIGN: We perform a multicentre randomised controlled trial in 35 hospitals in the Netherlands. Women with heavy menstrual bleeding, who opt for treatment with endometrial ablation and without contraindication for an LNG-IUS are eligible. After informed consent, participants are randomly allocated to either endometrial ablation plus LNG-IUS or endometrial ablation alone. The primary outcome is the hysterectomy rate at 24 months following endometrial ablation. Secondary outcomes include women's satisfaction, reinterventions, complications, side effects, menstrual bleeding patterns, quality of life, societal costs. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will help clinicians inform women with HMB who opt for treatment with endometrial ablation about whether concomitant use of the LNG-IUS is beneficial for reducing the need for hysterectomy due to ongoing bleeding and/or pain symptoms. Trial registration Dutch Trial registration: NL7817. Registered 20 June 2019, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7817 .

What is the fertility-enhancing effect of tubal flushing? A hypothesis article.

Hysterosalpingographies (HSGs) have formed an essential part of the fertility workup for more than a century. More recently, tubal flushing, especially with oil-based contrast, has been shown to significantly improve the natural conception rates. Critically, the mechanism of this fertility-enhancing effect during tubal flushing is still unclear. This article postulates hypotheses, based on published and own research, on the potential mechanisms and root cause of tubal flushing fertility enhancement. Possible explanations for the increased fertility rates, especially with oil-based contrast, are divided into the biochemical and interfacial effects derived from the contrast properties. The biochemical effects may include the immunological response of the endometrium or peritoneum, the impact on the endometrial opioid receptors or the iodine content. The interfacial effects may include improvement of interfacial factors due to the lubricant effect or dislodgement of mucus debris within the Fallopian tubes. Impact StatementWhat is already known on this subject? Tubal flushing during hysterosalpingographies (HSGs) increases natural conception rates, and using oil-based over water-based contrast increases that effect even further. However, the underlying mechanism of the observed fertility-enhancing effect is still poorly understood.What do the results of this study add? This article postulates different hypotheses on the potential mechanisms and root cause of the fertility enhancement from tubal flushing.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? We suggest additional research on the different hypotheses, intending to determine which subfertile women will benefit most from tubal flushing using oil-based contrast and at which stage of their subfertility. Furthermore, we suggest research on administering tubal flushing with oil-based contrast, besides in HSG.

Evaluation of marketing authorization and clinical implementation of ulipristal acetate for uterine fibroids.

Ulipristal acetate (UPA) is a medical treatment for uterine fibroids and was authorized for surgical pre-treatment in 2012 after the conduct of the PEARL I and II randomized controlled trials and for intermittent treatment after the observational PEARL III and IV trials. However, UPA came into disrepute due to its temporary suspension in 2017 and 2020 because of an apparent association with liver injury. This clinical opinion paper aims to review the process of marketing authorization and implementation of UPA, in order to provide all involved stakeholders with recommendations for the introduction of future drugs. Before marketing authorization, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) states that Phase III registration trials should evaluate relevant outcomes in a representative population, while comparing to gold-standard treatment. This review shows that the representativeness of the study populations in all PEARL trials was limited, surgical outcomes were not evaluated and intermittent treatment was assessed without comparative groups. Implementation into clinical practice was extensive, with 900 000 prescribed treatment cycles in 5 years in Europe and Canada combined. Extremely high costs are involved in developing and evaluating pre-marketing studies in new drugs, influencing trial design and relevance of chosen outcomes, thereby impeding clinical applicability. It is vitally important that the marketing implementation after authorization is regulated in such way that necessary evidence is generated before widespread prescription of a new drug. All stakeholders, from pharmaceutical companies to authorizing bodies, governmental funding bodies and medical professionals should be aware of their role and take responsibility for their part in this process.

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.

Stillbirth and neonatal mortality in a subsequent pregnancy following stillbirth: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A history of stillbirth is a risk factor for recurrent fetal death in a subsequent pregnancy. Reported risks of recurrent fetal death are often not stratified by gestational age. In subsequent pregnancies increased rates of medical interventions are reported without evidence of perinatal benefit. The aim of this study was to estimate gestational-age specific risks of recurrent stillbirth and to evaluate the effect of obstetrical management on perinatal outcome after previous stillbirth. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study in the Netherlands was designed that included 252.827 women with two consecutive singleton pregnancies (1st and 2nd delivery) between 1999 and 2007. Data was obtained from the national Perinatal Registry and analyzed for pregnancy outcomes. Fetal deaths associated with a congenital anomaly were excluded. The primary outcome was the occurrence of stillbirth in the second pregnancy stratified by gestational age. Secondary outcome was the influence of obstetrical management on perinatal outcome in a subsequent pregnancy. RESULTS: Of 252.827 first pregnancies, 2.058 pregnancies ended in a stillbirth (8.1 per 1000). After adjusting for confounding factors, women with a prior stillbirth have a two-fold higher risk of recurrence (aOR 1.96, 95% CI 1.07-3.60) compared to women with a live birth in their first pregnancy. The highest risk of recurrence occurred in the group of women with a stillbirth in early gestation between 22 and 28 weeks of gestation (a OR 2.25, 95% CI 0.62-8.15), while after 32 weeks the risk decreased. The risk of neonatal death after 34 weeks of gestation is higher in women with a history of stillbirth (aOR 6.48, 95% CI 2.61-16.1) and the risk of neonatal death increases with expectant obstetric management (aOR 10.0, 95% CI 2.43-41.1). CONCLUSIONS: A history of stillbirth remains an important risk for recurrent stillbirth especially in early gestation (22-28 weeks). Women with a previous stillbirth should be counselled for elective induction in the subsequent pregnancy at 37-38 weeks of gestation to decrease the risk of perinatal death.

Uterine distension media for outpatient hysteroscopy.

BACKGROUND: Hysteroscopy done in an outpatient setting is the 'gold standard' method for evaluating the uterine cavity. Media used to distend the uterine cavity include gas as carbon dioxide and liquid as saline that can be used at room temperature or warmed to body temperature. Both media offer advantages as well as disadvantages. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to compare the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of gas (carbon dioxide) and liquid (normal saline) used for uterine distension during outpatient hysteroscopy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO on 28 April 2021. We checked references of relevant trials and contacted study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. CINAHL records and ongoing trials from the trial registries were included in the CENTRAL search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing saline with carbon dioxide, as well as RCTs comparing saline at different temperatures, for uterine distension in outpatient hysteroscopy done for any indication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary review outcomes were patient tolerability and adverse events or complications related to the distending medium. Secondary outcomes were quality of the hysteroscopic view and duration of the procedure. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 RCTs (1946 women). The quality of evidence ranged from very low to high: the main limitations were risk of bias due to absence of blinding due to the nature of the procedure, imprecision, and inconsistency. Saline versus carbon dioxide Analysis ruled out a clinically relevant difference in pain scores during the procedure between saline and carbon dioxide, but the quality of evidence was low (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to 0.02; 9 RCTs, N = 1705; I² = 86%). This translates to differences of 0.39 cm (lower) and 0.05 cm (higher) on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS). Evidence was insufficient to show differences between groups in the proportion of procedures abandoned due to intense pain (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.48, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.42; 1 RCT, N = 189; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether saline decreases the need for analgesia compared to carbon dioxide (Peto OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.99; 1 RCT, N = 189; very low-quality evidence). Saline compared to carbon dioxide is probably associated with fewer vasovagal reaction events (Peto OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.86; 6 RCTs, N = 1076; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer shoulder-tip pain events (Peto OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.54; 4 RCTs, N = 623; I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). Evidence suggests that if 10% of women undergoing outpatient hysteroscopy experience a vasovagal reaction event with the use of carbon dioxide, this rate would be between 3% and 9% with the use of saline. Similarly, if the rate of shoulder-tip pain with carbon dioxide is 9%, it would be between 1% and 5% with saline. We are uncertain whether saline is similar to carbon dioxide in terms of endometrial bleeding (Peto OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.75; 2 RCTs, N = 349; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Infection was not reported by any study in this comparison. Saline may result in fewer procedures with an unsatisfactory hysteroscopic view than carbon dioxide (Peto OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.82; 5 RCTs, N = 1082; I² = 67%; low-quality evidence). The duration of the procedure was shorter with saline in three of the four studies that reported this outcome, and duration was similar in both arms in the fourth study. Warm saline versus room temperature saline Use of warm saline for uterine distension during office hysteroscopy may reduce pain scores when compared with room temperature saline (mean difference (MD) -1.14, 95% CI -1.55 to -0.73; 3 RCTs, N = 241; I² = 77%; low-quality evidence). Evidence is insufficient to show differences between groups in either the proportion of procedures abandoned due to intense pain (Peto OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.87; 1 RCT, N = 77; very low-quality evidence) or the need for analgesia (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.32; 1 RCT, N = 100; very low-quality evidence). Analysis ruled out a clinically relevant difference in duration of the procedure between warm and room temperature saline, but the quality of evidence is low (MD 13.17 seconds, 95% CI -12.96 to 39.29; 2 RCTs, N = 141; I² = 21%). No cases of infection were reported in either group (1 RCT, N = 100). No other adverse events and no information on quality of the hysteroscopic view were reported by any study in this comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence was insufficient to show differences between different distension media used for uterine distension in outpatient hysteroscopy in terms of patient tolerability, operator satisfaction, or duration of the procedure. However, saline was superior to carbon dioxide in producing fewer adverse events (shoulder-tip pain and vasovagal reaction).

Intrauterine insemination (IUI) with or without letrozole for unexplained or mild male factor infertility: A randomized pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To study the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing intrauterine insemination (IUI) with and without letrozole in couples with unexplained or mild male factor infertility STUDY DESIGN: We performed a randomized pilot study including 100 couples with unexplained or mild male factor infertility in the Reproductive Medicine Centre of Peking University Third Hospital in China. The couples scheduled for IUI were randomized to IUI with or without ovarian stimulation (letrozole) for up to 3 cycles within a time horizon of 4 months. Women in the letrozole group received 5 mg oral letrozole daily starting from cycle day 3-5 for 5 days. Women in the natural cycle IUI group did not receive any ovarian stimulation before IUI. The primary outcome is ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth. The study was registered under trial number NCT03455426 RESULTS: Between March 2018 and January 2019, 158 couples were eligible to participate after initial screening and 100 (63.3 %) couples agreed to participate. Of the 100 recruited couples, 50 were randomly allocated to IUI with letrozole and 50 to natural cycle IUI. Live birth occurred in 12 women (24.0 %) in the letrozole group and 10 women (20.0 %) in the natural cycle group (RR 1.20 (95 % CI 0.57-2.52)). Clinical pregnancy rates were 28 % and 26 % in the letrozole group and natural cycle group respectively (RR 1.08 (95 % CI 0.56-2.05). There were no multiple pregnancies in both groups. Patients were willing to be randomized and useful information was gained to plan a definitive trial. CONCLUSIONS: We showed that an RCT comparing IUI with letrozole versus natural cycle IUI in couples with unexplained or mild male factor infertility is feasible and acceptable.

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding affects the physical functioning and social well-being of many women. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and endometrial ablation are 2 frequently applied treatments in women with heavy menstrual bleeding. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system with endometrial ablation in women with heavy menstrual bleeding. STUDY DESIGN: This multicenter, randomized controlled, noninferiority trial was performed in 26 hospitals and in a network of general practices in the Netherlands. Women with heavy menstrual bleeding, aged 34 years and older, without a pregnancy wish or intracavitary pathology were randomly allocated to treatment with either the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) or endometrial ablation, performed with a bipolar radiofrequency device (NovaSure). The primary outcome was blood loss at 24 months, measured with a Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart score. Secondary outcomes included reintervention rates, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and sexual function. RESULTS: We registered 645 women as eligible, of whom 270 women provided informed consent. Of these, 132 women were allocated to the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (baseline Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart score, 616) and 138 women to endometrial ablation (baseline Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart score, 630). At 24 months, mean Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart scores were 64.8 in the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system group and 14.2 in the endometrial ablation group (difference, 50.5 points; 95% confidence interval, 4.3-96.7; noninferiority, P=.87 [25 Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart point margin]). Compared with 14 women (10%) in the endometrial ablation group, 34 women (27%) underwent a surgical reintervention in the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system group (relative risk, 2.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.49-4.68). There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction and quality of life between the groups. CONCLUSION: Both the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and endometrial ablation strategies lead to a large decrease in menstrual blood loss in women with heavy menstrual bleeding, with comparable quality of life scores after treatment. Nevertheless, there was a significant difference in menstrual blood loss in favor of endometrial ablation, and we could not demonstrate noninferiority of starting with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Women who start with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, a reversible and less invasive treatment, are at an increased risk of needing additional treatment compared with women who start with endometrial ablation. The results of this study will enable physicians to provide women with heavy menstrual bleeding with the evidence to make a well-informed decision between the 2 treatments.