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).

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.

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 ).

Dilatation and curettage increases the risk of subsequent preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY QUESTION: Could dilatation and curettage (D&C), used in the treatment of miscarriage and termination of pregnancy, increase the risk of subsequent preterm birth? SUMMARY ANSWER: A history of curettage in women is associated with an increased risk of preterm birth in a subsequent pregnancy compared with women without such history. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: D&C is one of the most frequently performed procedures in obstetrics and gynaecology. Apart from the acknowledged but relatively rare adverse effects, such as cervical tears, bleeding, infection, perforation of the uterus, bowel or bladder, or Asherman syndrome, D&C has been suggested to also lead to an increased risk of preterm birth in the subsequent pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: In the absence of randomized data, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort and case-control studies. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We searched OVID MEDLINE and OVID EMBASE form inception until 21 May 2014. We selected cohort and case-control studies comparing subsequent preterm birth in women who had a D&C for first trimester miscarriage or termination of pregnancy and a control group of women without a history of D&C. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We included 21 studies reporting on 1 853 017 women. In women with a history of D&C compared with those with no such history, the odds ratio (OR) for preterm birth <37 weeks was 1.29 (95% CI 1.17; 1.42), while for very preterm birth the ORs were 1.69 (95% CI 1.20; 2.38) for <32 weeks and 1.68 (95% CI 1.47; 1.92) for <28 weeks. The risk remained increased when the control group was limited to women with a medically managed miscarriage or induced abortion (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.10; 1.28). For women with a history of multiple D&Cs compared with those with no D&C, the OR for preterm birth (<37 weeks) was 1.74 (95% CI 1.10; 2.76). For spontaneous preterm birth, the OR was 1.44 (95% CI 1.22; 1.69) for a history of D&C compared with no such history. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: There were no randomized controlled trials comparing women with and without a history of D&C and subsequent preterm birth. As a consequence, confounding may be present since the included studies were either cohort or case-control studies, not all of which corrected the results for possible confounding factors. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This meta-analysis shows that D&C is associated with an increased risk of subsequent preterm birth. The increased risk in association with multiple D&Cs indicates a causal relationship. Despite the fact that confounding cannot be excluded, these data warrant caution in the use of D&C for miscarriage and termination of pregnancy, the more so since less invasive options are available. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development, project number 80-82310-97-12066.

Chronic pelvic pain: evaluation of the epidemiology, baseline demographics, and clinical variables via a prospective and multidisciplinary approach.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is a common clinical condition with significant impact on quality of life. The etiology and pathogenesis of CPP is poorly understood. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To examine the epidemiology, base line demographics, and clinical variables, women with CPP were prospectively analysed by an integrated and synchronised approach. RESULTS: Of the 89 women with CPP analysed, the majority were assessed earlier, had a variety of surgical interventions and used pharmacological agents. Irritable bowel syndrome, dysfunction of the pelvic floor musculoskeletal system, and physical or sexual abuse were the most common diagnosed etiologies. Evaluation revealed an increased level of psychological impairment. DISCUSSION: CPP is a debilitating clinical condition and a result of complex interaction between different contributing factors. Patients will benefit from an orchestrated, multidisciplinary, and synchronized approach with attention paid to the different domains of pain. Treatment is mostly not curative; avoiding profound suffering despite persisting pain should be the goal.

Metastasis from breast cancer to an endometrial polyp; treatment options and follow-up. Report of a case and review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: The female genital tract is rarely involved by metastatic tumors. The most common anatomic locations are the ovaries and the vagina. A case is presented of metastatic breast carcinoma to the vulva and endometrial polyp, both exceptional. CASE REPORT: We report the case of an 83-year-old female who presented with vaginal bleeding. Lobular breast carcinoma was diagnosed earlier and during follow-up vulvar metastasis was detected. Hysteroscopic examination because of postmenopausal bleeding revealed an endometrial polyp which was resected. The morphology and immunohistochemistry of the polyp were consistent with lobular breast cancer: metastatic breast cancer to an endometrial polyp. After reviewing the literature 15 cases of metastatic breast carcinoma to endometrial polyps have been reported. The clinical presentation and course, risk factors, treatment and follow-up are discussed. CONCLUSION: Metastasis of a breast carcinoma to the vulva and an endometrial polyp are extremely rare, but clinicians should be aware of both phenomena.