What do women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) understand about their chance of IVF success?

STUDY QUESTION: How well informed are Australian women who undergo IVF about their chances of having a baby? SUMMARY ANSWER: Only one in four women estimated their individual chance of success with IVF accurately, with most women overestimating their chance. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Limited knowledge about infertility and infertility treatment in the general population is well-documented. The few studies that have investigated patients' knowledge about the chance of IVF success suggest that while IVF patients are aware of average success rates, they tend to be unrealistic about their own chance of success. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We conducted an anonymous online survey of 217 women who had started IVF since 2018 in Australia. The survey was advertised on social media, enabling women from across Australia to participate. Responses were collected in June 2021. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The survey included questions on demographic characteristics and IVF history. It asked what participants thought their chance of having a baby from one IVF treatment cycle was, how they rated their knowledge about chance of success, and about their experience of receiving IVF-related information. Participants' estimations of their chance of success were compared with their chance as calculated by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology's (SART) online calculator. Responses to a free-text question about what information women wished they had been given when they started treatment were analysed thematically. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Only about a quarter (58/217, 27%) of participants accurately estimated their chance of having a baby within 20% relative to their SART calculated chance, with more than half (118/217, 54%) overestimating their chance. Ninety percent of women indicated that their preferred source of treatment information was a consultation with their doctor, despite less than half (44%) reporting that doctors explained the probability of having a baby with IVF well (mean 5.9/10). In free-text responses, many women also reported that they wished they had been given more realistic information about IVF and their chance of success. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The dissemination method precludes calculation of response rate, and it is not possible to know if participants are representative of all women undergoing IVF. Additionally, we only surveyed women undergoing IVF, while those who decided not to have IVF were not included. Therefore, women who overestimated their chance may have been overrepresented. There is also inherent imprecision in the way understanding of chance of success was estimated. The potential impact of recall bias could neither be quantified nor excluded. It is difficult to determine to what extent women's lack of understanding of what is possible with IVF is due to poor information-provision by clinicians and the clinic, and how much can be explained by optimism bias. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The finding of poor understanding of personal chance of success amongst women undergoing IVF in Australia requires further investigation to determine potential reasons for this. The findings can be used by clinics to develop strategies for improvement in the information-provision process to ensure that women can make informed decisions about their fertility treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study received no external funding. S.L. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator Grant (APP1195189). R.W. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator Grant (APP2009767). B.W.M. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator Grant (GNT1176437). B.W.M. reports consultancy for Merck and ObsEva and has received research funding and travel funding from Merck. The other authors have no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

No pain relief by virtual reality during hysterosalpingography (HSG): results from a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Is virtual reality (VR) an effective non-pharmacological tool to reduce procedural pain during hysterosalpingography (HSG)? SUMMARY ANSWER: An HSG with VR does not reduce procedural pain scores compared to an HSG without VR. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: An HSG is often experienced as painful and uncomfortable. VR has been proven successful to reduce acute procedural pain during a variety of medical procedures and interventions. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a two-centre open-label randomized controlled trial between January 2021 and October 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women scheduled for HSG as part of their infertility work-up were screened for participation. After informed consent, women were randomized between HSG with or without VR. Due to the nature of the intervention, the study was not blinded. VR was administered by a head-mounted device displaying nature movies and/or relaxation exercises. The primary endpoint was procedural pain measured using VAS (scale 0.0-10.0 cm). Procedural pain was divided into overall pain score and peak pain score during the procedure. It was measured immediately after HSG. Secondary endpoints included patient satisfaction, VR preferences, and adverse effects of VR. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We included a total of 134 women, 69 to the intervention group (HSG with VR) and 65 to the control group (HSG without VR). The mean VAS for peak pain was 6.80 cm (SD 2.25) in the intervention group versus 6.60 cm (SD 2.40) in the control group (mean difference 0.28 (95% CI -0.57, 1.12), P = 0.52). The mean VAS for overall pain was 5.00 cm (SD 2.10) in the intervention group versus 4.90 cm (SD 2.13) in the control group (mean difference 0.06 (95% CI -0.71, 0.84), P = 0.88). The expectation that VR would be a good distraction from pain during HSG was correlated with both overall and peak pain scores. When correcting for this expectation, we found that women in the intervention group reported significantly higher scores, both in peak (adjusted MD 0.58 (95% CI -0.81, 1.97), P = 0.021) and overall (adjusted MD 0.43 (95% CI -0.84, 1.71), P = 0.013) pain, compared to the control group. There were no differences in the prevalence of symptoms that were considered as adverse effects of VR. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was not blinded. Reasons for declining participation in the study were anxiety or wanting full control during HSG, which might have created selection bias. The distraction score possibly indicates that the level of VR immersiveness was not optimal due to the lack of sound and/or the type of VR applications. Future studies should investigate whether more immersive or interactive VR applications could decrease procedural pain scores during HSG. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since VR does not reduce procedural pain, this additional tool should not be used during HSG. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): There was no external funding for this study. KR and AvH report receiving a travel grant from Merck outside the scope of this study. BM is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) investigator grant (GNT1176437) and BM reports consultancy for Merck, Organon, and Norgine and travel and research funding from Merck. BM holds stock for ObsEva. CL reports receiving research grants from Merck, and Ferring. KD and VM report receiving travel and speaker's fees from Guerbet and research grants from Guerbet. VM also reports research grants from Merck and Ferring. The remaining authors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The trial is registered prospectively in the Netherlands Trial Register (trialregister.nl registration number NL9203, currently accessible on trialsearch.who.int). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 16-01-2021. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: The first participant was enrolled on 19 January 2021.

Women's interest, knowledge, and attitudes relating to anti-Mullerian hormone testing: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the impact of co-designed, evidence-based information regarding the anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) test on women's interest in having the test? SUMMARY ANSWER: Women who viewed the evidence-based information about the AMH test had lower interest in having an AMH test than women who viewed information produced by an online company selling the test direct-to-consumers. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Online information about AMH testing often has unfounded claims about its ability to predict fertility and conception, and evidence suggests that women seek out and are recommended the AMH test as a measure of their fertility potential. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: An online randomized trial was conducted from November to December 2022. Women were randomized (double-blind, equal allocation) to view one of two types of information: co-designed, evidence-based information about the AMH test (intervention), or existing information about the AMH test from a website which markets the test direct-to-consumers (control). A total of 967 women were included in the final analysis. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants were women recruited through an online panel, who were aged 25-40 years, living in Australia or The Netherlands, had never given birth, were not currently pregnant but would like to have a child now or in the future, and had never had an AMH test. The primary outcome was interest in having an AMH test (seven-point scale; 1 = definitely NOT interested to 7 = definitely interested). Secondary outcomes included attitudes, knowledge, and psychosocial and behavioural outcomes relating to AMH testing. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Women who viewed the evidence-based information about the AMH test had lower interest in having an AMH test (MD = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.83-1.30), less positive attitudes towards (MD = 1.29, 95% CI = 4.57-5.70), and higher knowledge about the test than women who viewed the control information (MD = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.71-0.82). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The sample was more highly educated than the broader Australian and Dutch populations and some measures (e.g. influence on family planning) were hypothetical in nature. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Women have higher knowledge of and lower interest in having the AMH test when given evidence-based information about the test and its limitations. Despite previous studies suggesting women are enthusiastic about AMH testing to learn about their fertility potential, we demonstrate that this enthusiasm does not hold when they are informed about the test's limitations. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This project was supported by an NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellowship (2009419) and the Australian Health Research Alliance's Women's Health Research, Translation and Impact Network EMCR award. B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva and Merck and travel support from Merck. D.L. is the Medical Director of, and holds stock in, City Fertility NSW and reports consultancy for Organon and honoraria from Ferring, Besins, and Merck. K.H. reports consultancy and travel support from Merck and Organon. K.M. is a director of Health Literacy Solutions that owns a licence of the Sydney Health Literacy Lab Health Literacy Editor. No other relevant disclosures exist. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622001136796. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 17 August 2022. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 21 November 2022.

Is there a treatable cause of repeated implantation failure, or is it simply treatment failure by chance?

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does repeated implantation failure (RIF) sometimes have a cause, or is it simply treatment failure by chance? DESIGN: A hypothetical model of a cohort of 1000 women undergoing four repeated IVF attempts was constructed. A proportion of women with RIF carried an underlying risk factor negatively affecting implantation, compared with women without the factor. In strategy A, women had standard IVF without additional treatment; in strategy B, the women received standard IVF plus an additional treatment. The sensitivity analysis varied the prevalence of the underlying risk factor from 5% to 50%. The model was compared with literature studies where a treatment strategy had been applied. RESULTS: With strategy A, the clinical pregnancy rate decreased with subsequent IVF attempts (31% in the first transfer with a risk factor prevalence of 5%, to 8% in the fourth transfer with a risk factor prevalence of 50%). As the prevalence increased, the clinical pregnancy rate was higher with strategy A. For strategy B, the clinical pregnancy rates for the modelled cohort decreased with each subsequent IVF attempt. Regardless of the prevalence of the risk factor, the decline in clinical pregnancy rate was less strong (from 32% in the first transfer with a prevalence of 5%, to 25% in the fourth transfer with a prevalence of 50%). When applying the model to the literature studies, the trends expected for strategy B (decreasing clinical pregnancy rates) were not expressed. CONCLUSIONS: RIF might therefore be of iatrogenic origin due to the low success rate of IVF and might be triggered by the increasing female age associated with higher numbers of RIF.

Effect of COVID-19 lockdown on maternity care and maternal outcome in the Netherlands: a national quasi-experimental study.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns disrupted health care worldwide. High-income countries observed a decrease in preterm births during lockdowns, but maternal pregnancy-related outcomes were also likely affected. This study investigates the effect of the first COVID-19 lockdown (March-June 2020) on provision of maternity care and maternal pregnancy-related outcomes in the Netherlands. STUDY DESIGN: National quasi-experimental study. METHODS: Multiple linked national registries were used, and all births from a gestational age of 24+0 weeks in 2010-2020 were included. In births starting in midwife-led primary care, we assessed the effect of lockdown on provision of care. In the general pregnant population, the impact on characteristics of labour and maternal morbidity was assessed. A difference-in-regression-discontinuity design was used to derive causal estimates for the year 2020. RESULTS: A total of 1,039,728 births were included. During the lockdown, births to women who started labour in midwife-led primary care (49%) more often ended at home (27% pre-lockdown, +10% [95% confidence interval: +7%, +13%]). A small decrease was seen in referrals towards obstetrician-led care during labour (46%, -3% [-5%,-0%]). In the overall group, no significant change was seen in induction of labour (27%, +1% [-1%, +3%]). We found no significant changes in the incidence of emergency caesarean section (9%, -1% [-2%, +0%]), obstetric anal sphincter injury (2%, +0% [-0%, +1%]), episiotomy (21%, -0% [-2%, +1%]), or post-partum haemorrhage: >1000 ml (6%, -0% [-1%, +1%]). CONCLUSIONS: During the first COVID-19 lockdown in the Netherlands, a substantial increase in homebirths was seen. There was no evidence for changed available maternal outcomes, suggesting that a maternity care system with a strong midwife-led primary care system may flexibly and safely adapt to external disruptions.

Long-term outcomes of switching to gonadotrophins versus continuing with clomiphene citrate, with or without intrauterine insemination, in women with normogonadotropic anovulation and clomiphene failure: follow-up study of a factorial randomized clinical trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the long-term outcomes after allocation to use of gonadotrophins versus clomiphene citrate (CC) with or without IUI in women with normogonadotropic anovulation and clomiphene failure? SUMMARY ANSWER: About four in five women with normogonadotropic anovulation and CC failure had a live birth, with no evidence of a difference in pregnancy outcomes between the allocated groups. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: CC has long been used as first line treatment for ovulation induction in women with normogonadotropic anovulation. Between 2009 and 2015, a two-by-two factorial multicentre randomized clinical trial in 666 women with normogonadotropic anovulation and six cycles of CC failure was performed (M-ovin trial). This study compared a switch to gonadotrophins with continued treatment with CC for another six cycles, with or without IUI within 8 months. Switching to gonadotrophins increased the chance of conception leading to live birth by 11% over continued treatment with CC after six failed ovulatory cycles, at a cost of €15 258 per additional live birth. The addition of IUI did not significantly increase live birth rates. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: In order to investigate the long-term outcomes of switching to gonadotrophins versus continuing treatment with CC, and undergoing IUI versus continuing with intercourse, we conducted a follow-up study. The study population comprised all women who participated in the M-ovin trial. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The participating women were asked to complete a web-based questionnaire. The primary outcome of this study was cumulative live birth. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancies, multiple pregnancies, miscarriage, stillbirth, ectopic pregnancy, fertility treatments, neonatal outcomes and pregnancy complications. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We approached 564 women (85%), of whom 374 (66%) responded (184 allocated to gonadotrophins; 190 to CC). After a median follow-up time of 8 years, 154 women in the gonadotrophin group had a live birth (83.7%) versus 150 women in the CC group (78.9%) (relative risk (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.96-1.17). A second live birth occurred in 85 of 184 women (49.0%) in the gonadotrophin group and in 85 of 190 women (44.7%) in the CC group (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.83-1.29). Women allocated to gonadotrophins had a third live birth in 6 of 184 women (3.3%) and women allocated to CC had a third live birth in 14 of 190 women (7.4%). There were respectively 12 and 11 twins in the gonadotrophin and CC groups. The use of fertility treatments in the follow-up period was comparable between both groups. In the IUI group, a first live birth occurred in 158 of 192 women (82.3%) and while in the intercourse group, 146 of 182 women (80.2%) reached at least one live birth (RR: 1.03 95% CI 0.93-1.13; 2.13%, 95% CI -5.95, 10.21). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We have complete follow-up results for 57% of the women.There were 185 women who did not respond to the questionnaire, while 102 women had not been approached due to missing contact details. Five women had not started the original trial. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Women with normogonadotropic anovulation and CC failure have a high chance of reaching at least one live birth. In terms of pregnancy rates, the long-term differences between initially switching to gonadotrophins are small compared to continuing treatment with CC. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The original study received funding from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw number: 80-82310-97-12067). A.H. reports consultancy for development and implementation of a lifestyle App, MyFertiCoach, developed by Ferring Pharmaceutical Company. M.G. receives unrestricted grants for scientific research and education from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigatorgrant (GNT1176437). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva and Merck and travel support from Merck. All other authors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This follow-up study was registered in the OSF Register, https://osf.io/pf24m. The original M-ovin trial was registered in the Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR1449.

Birth-weight centile at term and school performance at 12 years of age: linked cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Birth weight, fetal growth and placental function influence cognitive development. The gradient of these associations is understudied, especially among those with a birth weight considered appropriate-for-gestational age. The aim of this study was to evaluate the associations between birth-weight centile and intellectual development in term/near-term infants across the entire birth-weight spectrum, in order to provide a basis for better understanding of the long-term implications of fetal growth restriction and reduced placental function. METHODS: This was a population-based cohort study of 266 440 liveborn singletons from uncomplicated pregnancies, delivered between 36 and 42 weeks of gestation. Perinatal data were obtained from the Dutch Perinatal Registry over the period 2003-2008 and educational data for children aged approximately 12 years were obtained from Statistics Netherlands over the period 2016-2019. Regression analyses were conducted to assess the association of birth-weight centile with school performance. The primary outcomes were mean school performance score, on a scale of 501-550, and proportion of children who reached higher secondary school level. RESULTS: Mean school performance score increased gradually with increasing birth-weight centile, from 533.6 in the 1st -5th birth-weight-centile group to 536.8 in the 81st -85th birth-weight-centile group. Likewise, the proportion of children at higher secondary school level increased with birth-weight centile, from 43% to 57%. Compared with the 81st -85th birth-weight-centile group, mean school performance score and proportion of children at higher secondary school level were significantly lower in all birth-weight-centile groups below the 80th centile, after adjusting for confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS: Birth-weight centile is associated positively with school performance at 12 years of age across the entire birth-weight spectrum, well beyond the conventional and arbitrary cut-offs for suspected fetal growth restriction. This underlines the importance of developing better tools to diagnose fetal growth restriction and reduced placental function, and to identify those at risk for associated short- and long-term consequences. © 2023 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Impact of fetal growth restriction on pregnancy outcome in women undergoing expectant management for preterm pre-eclampsia.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether coexisting fetal growth restriction (FGR) influences pregnancy latency among women with preterm pre-eclampsia undergoing expectant management. Secondary outcomes assessed were indication for delivery, mode of delivery and rate of serious adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of the Pre-eclampsia Intervention (PIE) and the Pre-eclampsia Intervention 2 (PI2) trial data. These randomized controlled trials evaluated whether esomeprazole and metformin could prolong gestation of women diagnosed with pre-eclampsia between 26 and 32 weeks of gestation undergoing expectant management. Delivery indications were deteriorating maternal or fetal status, or reaching 34 weeks' gestation. FGR (defined by Delphi consensus) at the time of pre-eclampsia diagnosis was examined as a predictor of outcome. Only placebo data from PI2 were included, as the trial showed that metformin use was associated with prolonged gestation. All outcome data were collected prospectively from diagnosis of pre-eclampsia to 6 weeks after the expected due date. RESULTS: Of the 202 women included, 92 (45.5%) had FGR at the time of pre-eclampsia diagnosis. Median pregnancy latency was 6.8 days in the FGR group and 15.3 days in the control group (difference 8.5 days; adjusted 0.49-fold change (95% CI, 0.33-0.74); P < 0.001). FGR pregnancies were less likely to reach 34 weeks' gestation (12.0% vs 30.9%; adjusted relative risk (aRR), 0.44 (95% CI, 0.23-0.83)) and more likely to be delivered for suspected fetal compromise (64.1% vs 36.4%; aRR, 1.84 (95% CI, 1.36-2.47)). More women with FGR underwent a prelabor emergency Cesarean section (66.3% vs 43.6%; aRR, 1.56 (95% CI, 1.20-2.03)) and were less likely to have a successful induction of labor (4.3% vs 14.5%; aRR, 0.32 (95% CI, 0.10-1.00)), compared to those without FGR. The rate of maternal complications did not differ significantly between the two groups. FGR was associated with a higher rate of infant death (14.1% vs 4.5%; aRR, 3.26 (95% CI, 1.08-9.81)) and need for intubation and mechanical ventilation (15.2% vs 5.5%; aRR, 2.97 (95% CI, 1.11-7.90)). CONCLUSION: FGR is commonly present in women with early preterm pre-eclampsia and outcome is poorer. FGR is associated with shorter pregnancy latency, more emergency Cesarean deliveries, fewer successful inductions and increased rates of neonatal morbidity and mortality. © 2023 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Comparison of effect of CTG + STan with CTG alone on emergency Cesarean section rate: STan Australian Randomized controlled Trial (START).

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether use of ST analysis of the fetal electrocardiogram (STan) as an adjunct to continuous cardiotocography (CTG) reduces the rate of emergency Cesarean section (EmCS) compared with CTG alone. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled trial of patients with a singleton fetus in cephalic presentation at ≥ 36 weeks' gestation, requiring continuous electronic fetal monitoring during labor at a tertiary maternity hospital in Adelaide, Australia, between January 2018 and July 2021. Participants were randomized to undergo CTG + STan or CTG alone. The calculated sample size was 1818 participants. The primary outcome was EmCS. Secondary outcomes included metabolic acidosis, a composite adverse perinatal outcome, and other maternal and neonatal morbidity and safety outcomes. RESULTS: The present study enrolled 970 women, of whom 967 were included in the primary analysis. EmCS occurred in 107/482 (22.2%) deliveries in the CTG + STan arm and in 107/485 (22.1%) in the CTG arm (adjusted relative risk, 1.02 (95% CI, 0.81-1.27); P = 0.89). There was no difference in the rate of adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes between arms. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of STan as an adjunct to continuous CTG did not reduce the EmCS rate. The smaller-than-anticipated sample size meant that this study was underpowered to detect absolute differences of ≤ 5% and, therefore, this negative finding could be due to a Type-2 error. © 2023 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

The effectiveness of immediate versus delayed tubal flushing with oil-based contrast in women with unexplained infertility (H2Oil-timing study): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In women with unexplained infertility, tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography leads to significantly more live births as compared to tubal flushing with water-based contrast during hysterosalpingography. However, it is unknown whether incorporating tubal flushing with oil-based contrast in the initial fertility work-up results to a reduced time to conception leading to live birth when compared to delayed tubal flushing that is performed six months after the initial fertility work-up. We also aim to evaluate the effectiveness of tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography versus no tubal flushing in the first six months of the study. METHODS: This study will be an investigator-initiated, open-label, international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial with a planned economic analysis alongside the study. Infertile women between 18 and 39 years of age, who have an ovulatory cycle, who are at low risk for tubal pathology and have been advised expectant management for at least six months (based on the Hunault prediction score) will be included in this study. Eligible women will be randomly allocated (1:1) to immediate tubal flushing (intervention) versus delayed tubal flushing (control group) by using web-based block randomization stratified per study center. The primary outcome is time to conception leading to live birth with conception within twelve months after randomization. We assess the cumulative conception rate at six and twelve months as two co-primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes include ongoing pregnancy rate, live birth rate, miscarriage rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, number of complications, procedural pain score and cost-effectiveness. To demonstrate or refute a shorter time to pregnancy of three months with a power of 90%, a sample size of 554 women is calculated. DISCUSSION: The H2Oil-timing study will provide insight into whether tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography should be incorporated in the initial fertility work-up in women with unexplained infertility as a therapeutic procedure. If this multicenter RCT shows that tubal flushing with oil-based contrast incorporated in the initial fertility work-up reduces time to conception and is a cost-effective strategy, the results may lead to adjustments of (inter)national guidelines and change clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study was retrospectively registered in International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (Main ID: EUCTR2018-004153-24-NL).

The HERA (Hyper-response Risk Assessment) Delphi consensus definition of hyper-responders for in-vitro fertilization.

PURPOSE: To provide an agreed upon definition of hyper-response for women undergoing ovarian stimulation (OS)? METHODS: A literature search was performed regarding hyper-response to ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology. A scientific committee consisting of 5 experts discussed, amended, and selected the final statements in the questionnaire for the first round of the Delphi consensus. The questionnaire was distributed to 31 experts, 22 of whom responded (with representation selected for global coverage), each anonymous to the others. A priori, it was decided that consensus would be reached when ≥ 66% of the participants agreed and ≤ 3 rounds would be used to obtain this consensus. RESULTS: 17/18 statements reached consensus. The most relevant are summarized here. (I) Definition of a hyper-response: Collection of ≥ 15 oocytes is characterized as a hyper-response (72.7% agreement). OHSS is not relevant for the definition of hyper-response if the number of collected oocytes is above a threshold (≥ 15) (77.3% agreement). The most important factor in defining a hyper-response during stimulation is the number of follicles ≥ 10 mm in mean diameter (86.4% agreement). (II) Risk factors for hyper-response: AMH values (95.5% agreement), AFC (95.5% agreement), patient's age (77.3% agreement) but not ovarian volume (72.7% agreement). In a patient without previous ovarian stimulation, the most important risk factor for a hyper-response is the antral follicular count (AFC) (68.2% agreement). In a patient without previous ovarian stimulation, when AMH and AFC are discordant, one suggesting a hyper-response and the other not, AFC is the more reliable marker (68.2% agreement). The lowest serum AMH value that would place one at risk for a hyper-response is ≥ 2 ng/ml (14.3 pmol/L) (72.7% agreement). The lowest AFC that would place one at risk for a hyper-response is ≥ 18 (81.8% agreement). Women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) as per Rotterdam criteria are at a higher risk of hyper-response than women without PCOS with equivalent follicle counts and gonadotropin doses during ovarian stimulation for IVF (86.4% agreement). No consensus was reached regarding the number of growing follicles ≥ 10 mm that would define a hyper-response. CONCLUSION: The definition of hyper-response and its risk factors can be useful for harmonizing research, improving understanding of the subject, and tailoring patient care.

The cost-effectiveness of transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy versus hysterosalpingography in the work-up for subfertility.

STUDY QUESTION: Is a strategy starting with transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy (THL) cost-effective compared to a strategy starting with hysterosalpingography (HSG) in the work-up for subfertility? SUMMARY ANSWER: A strategy starting with THL is cost-effective compared to a strategy starting with HSG in the work-up for subfertile women. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Tubal pathology is a common cause of subfertility and tubal patency testing is one of the cornerstones of the fertility work-up. Both THL and HSG are safe procedures and can be used as a first-line tubal patency test. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This economic evaluation was performed alongside a randomized clinical trial comparing THL and HSG in 300 subfertile women, between May 2013 and October 2016. For comparisons of THL and HSG, the unit costs were split into three main categories: costs of the diagnostic procedure, costs of fertility treatments and the costs for pregnancy outcomes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Subfertile women scheduled for tubal patency testing were eligible. Women were randomized to a strategy starting with THL or a strategy starting with HSG. The primary outcome of the study was conception leading to a live birth within 24 months after randomization. The mean costs and outcomes for each treatment group were compared. We used a non-parametric bootstrap resampling of 1000 re-samples to investigate the effect of uncertainty and we created a cost-effectiveness plane and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We allocated 149 women to THL and 151 to HSG, and we were able to achieve complete follow-up of 142 versus 148 women, respectively. After the fertility work-up women were treated according to the Dutch guidelines and based on a previously published prognostic model. In the THL group, 83 women (58.4%) conceived a live born child within 24 months after randomization compared to 82 women (55.4%) in the HSG group (difference 3.0% (95% CI: -8.3 to 14.4)). The mean total costs per woman were lower in the THL group compared to the HSG group (THL group €4991 versus €5262 in the HSG group, mean cost difference = -€271 (95% CI -€273 to -€269)). Although the costs of only the diagnostic procedure were higher in the THL group, in the HSG group more women underwent diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopies and also had higher costs for fertility treatments. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our trial was conducted in women with a low risk of tubal pathology; therefore, the results of our study are not generalizable to women with high risk of tubal pathology. Furthermore, this economic analysis was based on the Dutch healthcare system, and possibly our results are not generalizable to countries with different strategies or costs for fertility treatments. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: After 2 years of follow-up, we found a live birth rate of 58.4% in the THL group versus 55.4% in the HSG group and a lower mean cost per woman in the THL group, with a cost difference of -€271. The findings of our trial suggest that a strategy starting with THL is cost-effective compared to a strategy starting with HSG in the workup for subfertile women. However, the cost difference between the two diagnostic strategies is limited compared to the total cost per woman in our study and before implementing THL as a first-line strategy for tubal patency testing, more research in other fields, such as patient preference and acceptance, is necessary. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The authors received no external financial support for the research. B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator Grant (GNT1176437). B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA, Guerbet. B.W.J.M. reports receiving travel support from Merck KGaA. C.T.P. reports consultancy for Guerbet, outside of this manuscript. All other authors have no conflicts to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR3462.

Intracervical insemination versus intrauterine insemination with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Is intracervical insemination (ICI) non-inferior to IUI with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle in terms of live birth? SUMMARY ANSWER: ICI with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle was inferior to IUI in terms of live birth. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Both ICI and IUI in the natural cycle are performed as first-line treatments in women who are eligible for donor sperm treatment. High-quality data on the effectiveness of ICI versus IUI with cryopreserved donor sperm in the natural cycle in terms of live birth is lacking. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an open-label multicentre randomized non-inferiority trial in the Netherlands and Belgium. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We randomly allocated women who were eligible for donor sperm treatment with cryopreserved donor semen to six cycles of ICI in the natural cycle or six cycles of IUI in the natural cycle. The primary outcome was conception within 8 months after randomization leading to a live birth. Secondary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and time to conception leading to live birth. We calculated relative risks (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% CI. Non-inferiority would be shown if the lower limit of the 95% RD CI was <-12%. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between June 2014 and February 2019, we included 421 women, of whom 211 women were randomly allocated to ICI and 210 to IUI. Of the 211 women allocated to ICI, 2 women were excluded, 126 women completed treatment according to protocol and 75 women did not complete 6 treatment cycles. Of the 210 women allocated to IUI, 3 women were excluded, 140 women completed treatment according to protocol and 62 women did not complete 6 treatment cycles. Mean female age was 34 years (SD ±4) in both interventions. Conception leading to live birth occurred in 51 women (24%) allocated to ICI and in 81 women (39%) allocated to IUI (RR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.84). This corresponds to an absolute RD of -15%; 95% CI: -24% to -6.9%, suggesting inferiority of ICI. ICI also resulted in a lower live birth rate over time (hazard ratio 0.58, 95% CI: 0.41-0.82). Our per-protocol analysis showed that, within the 8 months treatment horizon, 48 women (38%) had live births after ICI and 79 women (56%) had live births after IUI (RR 0.68, 95% CI: 0.52-0.88; RD -18%, 95% CI: -30% to -6%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was non-blinded owing to the nature of the interventions. We consider it unlikely that this has introduced performance bias, since pregnancy outcomes are objective outcome measures. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since ICI in the natural cycle was inferior to IUI in the natural cycle with cryopreserved donor sperm in terms of live birth rate, IUI is the preferred treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This trial received funding from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw project number 837002407). B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437), reports consultancy for ObsEva and has received research funding from Guerbet, Ferring and Merck. The other authors do not declare a COI. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4462. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 11 March 2014. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 03 June 2014.

Expectant management versus IUI in unexplained subfertility and a poor pregnancy prognosis (EXIUI study): a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: For couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, is 6 months expectant management (EM) inferior to IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS), in terms of live births? SUMMARY ANSWER: In couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, 6 months of EM is inferior compared to IUI-OS in terms of live births. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis are often treated with IUI-OS. In couples with unexplained subfertility and a relatively good prognosis for natural conception (>30% in 12 months), IUI-OS does not increase the live birth rate as compared to 6 months of EM. However, in couples with a poor prognosis for natural conception (<30% in 12 months), the effectiveness of IUI-OS is uncertain. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a non-inferiority multicentre randomized controlled trial within the infrastructure of the Dutch Consortium for Healthcare Evaluation and Research in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. We intended to include 1091 couples within 3 years. The couples were allocated in a 1:1 ratio to 6 months EM or 6 months IUI-OS with either clomiphene citrate or gonadotrophins. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied heterosexual couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception (<30% in 12 months). The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to a live birth. Non-inferiority would be shown if the lower limit of the one-sided 90% risk difference (RD) CI was less than minus 7% compared to an expected live birth rate of 30% following IUI-OS. We calculated RD, relative risks (RRs) with 90% CI and a corresponding hazard rate for live birth over time based on intention-to-treat and per-protocol (PP) analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between October 2016 and September 2020, we allocated 92 couples to EM and 86 to IUI-OS. The trial was halted pre-maturely owing to slow inclusion. Mean female age was 34 years, median duration of subfertility was 21 months. Couples allocated to EM had a lower live birth rate than couples allocated to IUI-OS (12/92 (13%) in the EM group versus 28/86 (33%) in the IUI-OS group; RR 0.40 90% CI 0.24 to 0.67). This corresponds to an absolute RD of minus 20%; 90% CI: -30% to -9%. The hazard ratio for live birth over time was 0.36 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.70). In the PP analysis, live births rates were 8 of 70 women (11%) in the EM group versus 26 of 73 women (36%) in the IUI-OS group (RR 0.32, 90% CI 0.18 to 0.59; RD -24%, 90% CI -36% to -13%) in line with inferiority of EM. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our trial did not reach the planned sample size, therefore the results are limited by the number of participants. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study confirms the results of a previous trial that in couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, EM is inferior to IUI-OS. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The trial was supported by a grant of the SEENEZ healthcare initiative. The subsidizing parties were The Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW 837004023, www.zonmw.nl) and the umbrella organization of 10 health insurers in The Netherlands. E.R.G. receives personal fees from Titus Health care outside the submitted work. M.G. declares unrestricted research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring not related to the presented work, paid to their institution VU medical centre. A.B.H. reports receiving travel and speakers fees from Nordic Pharma and Merck and he is member of the Nordic Pharma ANGEL group and of the Safety Monitoring Board of Womed. C.B.L. reports speakers fee from Inmed and Yingming, and his department receives research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet paid to VU medical centre. B.W.J.M. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437) and reports consultancy for ObsEva and Merck. M.v.W. received a grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development ZonMW (80-8520098-91072). F.M. received two grants from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development ZonMW (NTR 5599 and NTR 6590). The other authors report no competing interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial register NL5455 (NTR5599). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 18 December 2015. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 26 January 2017.

Role of placental, fetal and maternal cardiovascular markers in predicting adverse outcome in women with suspected or confirmed pre-eclampsia.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of placental, fetal and maternal cardiovascular markers in the prediction of adverse perinatal and maternal outcomes in women with suspected or confirmed pre-eclampsia. METHODS: This was a prospective prognostic accuracy study of women with suspected or confirmed pre-eclampsia who underwent a series of investigations to measure maternal hemodynamic indices, mean arterial pressure, augmentation index, ophthalmic artery peak systolic velocity (PSV) ratio, uterine artery pulsatility index (UtA-PI), fetal biometric and Doppler parameters, soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 (sFlt-1) and placental growth factor (PlGF). The performance of these markers, individually or in combination, in predicting adverse perinatal and maternal outcomes was then assessed using receiver-operating-characteristics (ROC)-curve analysis. Adverse maternal outcome was defined as one or more of severe hypertension, admission to the intensive care unit, eclampsia, placental abruption, HELLP syndrome, disseminated intravascular coagulation, platelets < 100 × 109 /L, creatinine > 90 µmol/L and alanine aminotransferase > 100 U/L. Adverse perinatal outcome was defined as one or more of preterm birth at or before 34 + 0 weeks, neonatal intensive care unit admission for > 48 h, respiratory distress syndrome, intraventricular hemorrhage, hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, necrotizing enterocolitis, retinopathy of prematurity and confirmed fetal infection. RESULTS: We recruited 126 women with suspected (n = 31) or confirmed (n = 95) pre-eclampsia at a median gestational age of 33.9 weeks (interquartile range, 30.9-36.3 weeks). Pregnancies with adverse perinatal outcome compared to those without had a higher median UtA-PI (1.3 vs 0.8; P < 0.001), ophthalmic artery PSV ratio (0.8 vs 0.7; P = 0.01) and umbilical artery PI percentile (82.0 vs 68.5; P < 0.01) and lower median estimated fetal weight percentile (4.0 vs 43.0; P < 0.001), abdominal circumference percentile (4.0 vs 63.0; P < 0.001), middle cerebral artery PI percentile (28.0 vs 58.5; P < 0.001) and cerebroplacental ratio percentile (18.0 vs 46.5; P < 0.001). Pregnancies with adverse perinatal outcome also had a higher median sFlt-1 (8208.0 pg/mL vs 4508.0 pg/mL; P < 0.001), lower PlGF (27.2 pg/mL vs 76.3 pg/mL; P < 0.001) and a higher sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (445.4 vs 74.4; P < 0.001). The best performing individual marker for predicting adverse perinatal outcome was the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (area under the ROC curve (AUC), 0.87 (95% CI, 0.81-0.93)), followed by estimated fetal weight (AUC, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.73-0.89)). Women who experienced adverse maternal outcome had a higher median sFlt-1 level (7471.0 pg/mL vs 5131.0 pg/mL; P < 0.001) and sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (204.3 vs 93.3; P < 0.001) and a lower PlGF level (37.0 pg/mL vs 66.1 pg/mL; P = 0.01) and estimated fetal weight percentile (16.5 vs 37.0; P = 0.04). All markers performed poorly in predicting adverse maternal outcome, with sFlt-1 (AUC, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.60-0.79)) and sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (AUC, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.59-0.78)) demonstrating the best individual performance. The addition of cardiovascular, fetal or other placental indices to the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio did not improve the prediction of adverse maternal or perinatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The sFlt-1/PlGF ratio performs well in predicting adverse perinatal outcomes but is a poor predictor of adverse maternal outcomes in women with suspected or diagnosed pre-eclampsia. The addition of cardiovascular or fetal indices to the model is unlikely to improve the prognostic performance of the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio. © 2022 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Maternal and fetal characteristics for predicting risk of Cesarean section following induction of labor: pooled analysis of PROBAAT trials.

OBJECTIVE: Induction of labor (IOL) is one of the most widely used obstetric interventions. However, one-fifth of IOLs result in Cesarean section (CS). We aimed to assess maternal and fetal characteristics that influence the likelihood of CS following IOL, according to the indication for CS. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of pooled data from four randomized controlled trials, including women undergoing IOL at term who had a singleton pregnancy and an unfavorable cervix, intact membranes and the fetus in cephalic presentation. The main outcomes of this analysis were CS for failure to progress (FTP) and CS for suspected fetal compromise (SFC). Restricted cubic splines were used to determine whether continuous maternal and fetal characteristics had a non-linear relationship with outcome. Optimal cut-offs for those characteristics with a non-linear pattern were determined based on the maximum area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) were computed, using multivariable logistic regression analysis, for the associations between optimally categorized characteristics and outcome. RESULTS: Of a total of 2990 women undergoing IOL, 313 (10.5%) had CS for FTP and 227 (7.6%) had CS for SFC. The risk of CS for FTP was increased in women aged 31-35 years compared with younger women (aOR, 1.51 (95% CI, 1.15-1.99)), in nulliparous compared with parous women (aOR, 8.07 (95% CI, 5.34-12.18)) and in Sub-Saharan African compared with Caucasian women (aOR, 2.09 (95% CI, 1.33-3.28)). Higher body mass index (BMI) increased incrementally the risk of CS for FTP (aOR, 1.06 (95% CI, 1.04-1.08)). High birth-weight percentile was also associated with an increased risk of CS due to FTP (aOR, 2.66 (95% CI, 1.74-4.07) for birth weight between the 80.0th and 89.9th percentiles and aOR, 4.08 (95% CI, 2.75-6.05) for birth weight ≥ 90th percentile, as compared with birth weight between the 20.0th and 49.9th percentiles). For CS due to SFC, higher maternal age (aOR, 1.09 (95% CI, 1.05-1.12)) and BMI (aOR, 1.05 (95% CI, 1.03-1.08)) were associated with an incremental increase in risk. The risk of CS for SFC was increased in nulliparous compared with parous women (aOR, 5.91 (95% CI, 3.76-9.28)) and in South Asian compared with Caucasian women (aOR, 2.50 (95% CI, 1.23-5.10)). Birth weight < 10.0th percentile increased significantly the risk of CS due to SFC (aOR, 1.93 (95% CI, 1.22-3.05)), as compared with birth weight between the 20.0th and 49.9th percentiles. Bishop score did not demonstrate a significant association with the risk of CS for FTP or for SFC. CONCLUSIONS: In women undergoing IOL, maternal age, BMI, parity, ethnicity and birth-weight percentile are predictors of CS due to FTP and of CS due to SFC, but the direction and magnitude of the associations differ according to the indication for CS. These characteristics should be considered in combination with the Bishop score to stratify the risk of CS for different indications in women undergoing IOL. © 2021 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Consequences of cervical pessary for subsequent pregnancy: follow-up of randomized clinical trial (ProTWIN).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of cervical pessary, as a strategy to prevent preterm birth (PTB), on the outcome of subsequent pregnancy and maternal quality of life 4 years after the index twin pregnancy. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2012, the ProTWIN trial randomized women with a multiple pregnancy to pessary use vs standard care for the prevention of PTB. The trial showed no benefit in unselected women with a twin pregnancy, but showed a 60% reduction in poor perinatal outcomes in favor of the pessary group in the subgroup of women with a mid-trimester short cervix (cervical length < 38 mm). All women were invited to participate in a follow-up study 4 years after their participation in the ProTWIN trial. In this follow-up study, maternal quality of life was assessed using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire and women were asked separate questions about subsequent pregnancies. Results were compared between women who were randomized to the pessary vs the control group in the ProTWIN trial by calculating relative risk (RR) and 95% CI. Subgroup analysis was performed for women with a mid-trimester short cervix (cervical length < 38 mm). RESULTS: Of the 813 women included in the ProTWIN trial, 408 (50.2%) participated in this follow-up study, comprising 228 randomized to the pessary group and 180 to the control group in the original trial. The median interval between participation in the ProTWIN trial and participation in this follow-up study was 4.1 (interquartile range (IQR), 3.9-7.1) years. Ninety-eight (24.0%) participants tried to conceive after their participation in the ProTWIN trial. Of those, 22 (22.4%) women did not have a subsequent pregnancy (no difference between pessary and control groups), seven (7.1%) women had at least one miscarriage but no live birth, and 67 (68.4%) women had at least one live birth (35 in the pessary vs 32 in the control group; RR, 0.93 (95% CI, 0.8-1.07)). In two women, the pregnancy outcome was unknown. Preterm delivery (< 37 weeks of gestation) of the first live birth occurred in three women in the pessary vs one woman in the control group (all singleton; RR, 2.57 (95% CI, 0.28-23.44)). No differences were found between the pessary and control groups in the subgroup of women with mid-trimester short cervix, but the numbers analyzed were small. The median health state index score was 0.95 (IQR, 0.82-0.95), with no difference between the pessary and control groups. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that there are no long-term effects of pessary use on the outcome of subsequent pregnancies and maternal quality of life. Data on obstetric outcome were limited due to the small numbers. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Oil-based versus water-based contrast media for hysterosalpingography in infertile women of advanced age, with ovulation disorders or a high risk for tubal pathology: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial (H2Oil2 study).

BACKGROUND: In women with unexplained infertility, tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography (HSG) increases ongoing pregnancy and subsequent live birth rates when compared to tubal flushing with water-based contrast. It is currently unclear whether an HSG with oil-based contrast also results in more ongoing pregnancies and live births in women of advanced age, women with ovulation disorders, and women with potential tubal pathology when compared to an HSG with water-based contrast. METHODS: We plan an international, multicentre, open-label, randomized controlled trial (RCT) studying three groups of infertile women who have an indication for tubal patency testing according to their treating physician and additionally; (1) are 39 years of age or older, (2) have an ovulation disorder or (3) have a high risk for tubal pathology based on their medical history. Women with an allergy for iodinated contrast medium are excluded, as are women with diabetes, hyperprolactinemia or untreated hyper- or hypothyroidism, and women with a partner with severe male infertility. After informed consent, women will be randomly allocated to the intervention, tubal flushing with the use of oil-based contrast during HSG or the control group, tubal flushing with the use of water-based contrast during HSG in a 1:1 ratio by the web-based system Castor. The primary endpoint will be ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth with conception within six months after randomization. Secondary outcomes are other pregnancy outcomes, used fertility treatments, adverse events and cost-effectiveness. Based on the expected ongoing pregnancy rate of 17% in the control group and 27% in the intervention group, the sample size will be 930 women (465 per group). Study inclusion is expected to be complete in four years. DISCUSSION: This multicentre RCT will establish whether, for women of advanced age, women with ovulatory disease, and women who have a high risk for tubal pathology, there is a fertility enhancing effect of tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during HSG and whether the use of this contrast medium is cost-effective. Trial Registration The study was prospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Register on August 1st 2019 as 'H2Oil2' (reference number NL7925, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7925 ).

Cost-effectiveness of ovarian stimulation agents for IUI in couples with unexplained subfertility.

STUDY QUESTION: Which agent for ovarian stimulation (OS) is the most cost-effective option in terms of net benefit for couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI? SUMMARY ANSWER: In settings where a live birth is valued at €3000 or less, between €3000 and €55 000 and above €55 000, clomiphene citrate (CC), Letrozole and gonadotrophins were the most cost-effective option in terms of net benefit, respectively. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IUI-OS is a common first-line treatment for couples with unexplained subfertility and its increased uptake over the past decades and related personal or reimbursed costs are pressing concerns to patients and health service providers. However, there is no consensus on a protocol for conducting IUI-OS, with differences between countries, clinics and settings in the number of cycles, success rates, the agent for OS and the maximum number of dominant follicles in order to minimise the risk of a multiple pregnancy. In view of this uncertainty and the association with costs, guidance is needed on the cost-effectiveness of OS agents for IUI-OS. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We developed a decision-analytic model based on a decision tree that follows couples with unexplained subfertility from the start of IUI-OS to a protocoled maximum of six cycles, assuming couples receive four cycles on average within one year. We chose the societal perspective, which coincides with other perspectives such as that from health care providers, as the treatments are identical except for the stimulation agent. We based our model on parameters from a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials for IUI-OS. We compared the following three agents: CC (oral medication), Letrozole (oral medication) and gonadotrophins (subcutaneous injection). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The main health outcomes were cumulative live birth and multiple pregnancy. As the procedures are identical except for the agent used, we only considered direct medical costs of the agent during four cycles. The main cost-effectiveness measures were the differences in costs divided by the differences in cumulative live birth (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ICER) and the probability of the highest net monetary benefit in which costs for an agent were deducted from the live births gained. The live birth rate for IUI using CC was taken from trials adhering to strict cancellation criteria included in a network meta-analysis and extrapolated to four cycles. We took the relative risks for the live birth rate after Letrozole and gonadotrophins versus CC from that same network meta-analysis to estimate the remaining absolute live birth rates. The uncertainty around live birth rates, relative effectiveness and costs was assessed by probabilistic sensitivity analysis in which we drew values from distributions and repeated this procedure 20 000 times. In addition, we changed model assumptions to assess their influence on our results. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The agent with the lowest cumulative live birth rate over 4 IUI-OS cycles conducted within one year was CC (29.4%), followed by Letrozole (32.0%) and gonadotrophins (34.5%). The average costs per four cycles were €362, €434 and €1809, respectively. The ICER of Letrozole versus CC was €2809 per additional live birth, whereas the ICER of gonadotrophins versus Letrozole was €53 831 per additional live birth. When we assume a live birth is valued at €3000 or less, CC had the highest probability of maximally 65% to achieve the highest net benefit. Between €3000 and €55 000, Letrozole had the highest probability of maximally 62% to achieve the highest net benefit. Assuming a monetary value of €55 000 or more, gonadotrophins had the highest probability of maximally 56% to achieve the highest net benefit. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our model focused on population level and was thus based on average costs for the average number of four cycles conducted. We also based the model on a number of key assumptions. We changed model assumptions to assess the influence of these assumptions on our results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The high uncertainty surrounding our results indicate that more research is necessary on the relative effectiveness of using CC, Letrozole or gonadotrophins for IUI-OS in terms of the cumulative live birth rate. We suggest that in the meantime, CC or Letrozole are the preferred choice of agent. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was supported by ZonMw Doelmatigheidsonderzoek, grant 80-85200-98-91072. The funder had no role in the design, conduct or reporting of this work. BWM is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet and travel and research support from ObsEva, Merck and Guerbet. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Birthweight and other perinatal outcomes of singletons conceived after assisted reproduction compared to natural conceived singletons in couples with unexplained subfertility: follow-up of two randomized clinical trials.

STUDY QUESTION: Does assisted reproduction, such as ovarian stimulation and/or laboratory procedures, have impact on perinatal outcomes of singleton live births compared to natural conception in couples with unexplained subfertility? SUMMARY ANSWER: Compared to natural conception, singletons born after intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) had a lower birthweight, while singletons born after IVF had comparable birthweights, in couples with unexplained subfertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Singletons conceived by assisted reproduction have different perinatal outcomes such as low birthweight and a higher risk of premature birth than naturally conceived singletons. This might be due to the assisted reproduction, such as laboratory procedures or the ovarian stimulation, or to an intrinsic factor in couples with subfertility. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a prospective cohort study using the follow-up data of two randomized clinical trials performed in couples with unexplained subfertility. We evaluated perinatal outcomes of 472 live birth singletons conceived after assisted reproduction or after natural conception within the time horizon of the studies. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: To assess the possible impact of ovarian stimulation we compared the singletons conceived after IUI with FSH or clomiphene citrate (CC) and IVF in a modified natural cycle (IVF-MNC) or standard IVF with single embryo transfer (IVF-SET) to naturally conceived singletons in the same cohorts. To further look into the possible effect of the laboratory procedures, we put both IUI and IVF groups together into IUI-OS and IVF and compared both to singletons born after natural conception. We only included singletons conceived after fresh embryo transfers. The main outcome was birthweight presented as absolute weight in grams and gestational age- and gender-adjusted percentiles. We calculated differences in birthweight using regression analyses adjusted for maternal age, BMI, smoking, parity, duration of subfertility and child gender. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In total, there were 472 live birth singletons. Of the 472 singleton pregnancies, 209 were conceived after IUI-OS (136 with FSH and 73 with CC as ovarian stimulation), 138 after IVF (50 after IVF-MNC and 88 after IVF-SET) and 125 were conceived naturally.Singletons conceived following IUI-FSH and IUI-CC both had lower birthweights compared to naturally conceived singletons (adjusted difference IUI-FSH -156.3 g, 95% CI -287.9 to -24.7; IUI-CC -160.3 g, 95% CI -316.7 to -3.8). When we compared IVF-MNC and IVF-SET to naturally conceived singletons, no significant difference was found (adjusted difference IVF-MNC 75.8 g, 95% CI -102.0 to 253.7; IVF-SET -10.6 g, 95% CI -159.2 to 138.1). The mean birthweight percentile was only significantly lower in the IUI-FSH group (-7.0 percentile, 95% CI -13.9 to -0.2). The IUI-CC and IVF-SET group had a lower mean percentile and the IVF-MNC group a higher mean percentile, but these groups were not significant different compared to the naturally conceived group (IUI-CC -5.1 percentile, 95% CI -13.3 to 3.0; IVF-MNC 4.4 percentile, 95% CI -4.9 to 13.6; IVF-SET -1.3 percentile, 95% CI -9.1 to 6.4).Looking at the laboratory process that took place, singletons conceived following IUI-OS had lower birthweights than naturally conceived singletons (adjusted difference -157.7 g, 95% CI -277.4 to -38.0). The IVF group had comparable birthweights with the naturally conceived group (adjusted difference 20.9 g, 95% CI -110.8 to 152.6). The mean birthweight percentile was significantly lower in the IUI-OS group compared to the natural group (-6.4 percentile, 95% CI -12.6 to -0.1). The IVF group was comparable (0.7 percentile, 95% CI -6.1 to 7.6). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The results are limited by the number of cases. The data were collected prospectively alongside the randomized controlled trials, but analyzed as treated. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our data suggest IUI in a stimulated cycle may have a negative impact on the birthweight of the child and possibly on pre-eclampsia. Further research should look into the effect of different methods of ovarian stimulation on placenta pathology and pre-eclampsia in couples with unexplained subfertility using naturally conceived singletons in the unexplained population as a reference. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Both initial trials were supported by a grant from ZonMW, the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (INeS 120620027, SUPER 80-83600-98-10192). The INeS study also had a grant from Zorgverzekeraars Nederland, the Dutch association of healthcare insurers (09-003). B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC investigator Grant (GNT1176437) and reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck Merck KGaA, Guerbet and iGenomix, outside the submitted work. A.H. reports grants from Ferring Pharmaceutical company (the Netherlands), outside the submitted work. F.J.M.B. receives monetary compensation as a member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono (the Netherlands), Ferring Pharmaceutics BV (the Netherlands) and Gedeon Richter (Belgium), he receives personal fees from educational activities for Ferring BV (the Netherlands) and for advisory and consultancy work for Roche and he receives research support grants from Merck Serono and Ferring Pharmaceutics BV, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: INeS study Trial NL915 (NTR939); SUPER Trial NL3895 (NTR4057).