ABSTRACT
STUDY QUESTION: Does hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) prior to hysterosalpingography (HSG) or HSG prior to HyFoSy affect visible tubal patency when compared HSG or HyFoSy alone? SUMMARY ANSWER: Undergoing either HyFoSy or HSG prior to tubal patency testing by the alternative method does not demonstrate a significant difference in visible tubal patency when compared to HyFoSy or HSG alone. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: HyFoSy and HSG are two commonly used visual tubal patency tests with a high and comparable diagnostic accuracy for evaluating tubal patency. These tests may also improve fertility, although the underlying mechanism is still not fully understood. One of the hypotheses points to a dislodgment of mucus plugs that may have disrupted the patency of the Fallopian tubes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a secondary analysis of the randomized controlled FOAM study, in which women underwent tubal patency testing by HyFoSy and HSG, randomized for order of the procedure. Participants either had HyFoSy first and then HSG, or vice versa. Here, we evaluate the relative effectiveness of tubal patency testing by HyFoSy or HSG prior to the alternative tubal patency testing method on visible tubal patency, compared to each method alone. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Infertile women aged between 18 and 41 years scheduled for tubal patency testing were eligible for participating in the FOAM study. Women with anovulatory cycles, endometriosis, or with a partner with male infertility were excluded. To evaluate the effect HyFoSy on tubal patency, we relied on HSG results by comparing the proportion of women with bilateral tubal patency visible on HSG in those who underwent and who did not undergo HyFoSy prior to their HSG (HyFoSy prior to HSG versus HSG alone). To evaluate the effect of HSG on tubal patency, we relied on HyFoSy results by comparing the proportion of women with bilateral tubal patency visible on HyFoSy in those who underwent and who did not undergo HSG prior to their HyFoSy (HSG prior to HyFoSy versus HyFoSy alone). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, we randomized 1160 women (576 underwent HyFoSy first followed by HSG, and 584 underwent HSG first followed by HyFoSy). Among the women randomized to HyFoSy prior to HSG, bilateral tubal patency was visible on HSG in 467/537 (87%) women, compared with 472/544 (87%) women who underwent HSG alone (risk difference 0.2%; 95% CI: -3.8% to 4.2%). Among the women randomized to HSG prior to HyFoSy, bilateral tubal patency was visible on HyFoSy in 394/471 (84%) women, compared with 428/486 (88%) women who underwent HyFoSy alone (risk difference -4.4%; 95% CI: -8.8% to 0.0%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The results of this secondary analysis should be interpreted as exploratory and cannot be regarded as definitive evidence. Furthermore, it has to be noted that pregnancy outcomes were not considered in this analysis. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Tubal patency testing by either HyFoSy or HSG, prior to the alternative tubal patency testing method does not significantly affect visible tubal patency, when compared to alternative method alone. This suggests that both methods may have comparable abilities to dislodge mucus plugs in the Fallopian tubes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The FOAM study was an investigator-initiated study, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm®-FOAM kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data. H.R.V. reports consultancy fees from Ferring. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford University Press in the role of Deputy Editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a Data Safety and Monitoring Board as an independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. M.v.W. is coordinating editor of Cochrane Fertility and Gynaecology. B.W.J.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC (GNT1176437) and research funding from Merck KGaA. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for Organon and Merck KGaA, and travel support from Merck KGaA. B.W.J.M. reports holding stocks of ObsEva. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring and travel and speaker fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746.
ABSTRACT
STUDY QUESTION: Does preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) by comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) of the first and second polar body to select embryos for transfer increase the likelihood of a live birth within 1 year in advanced maternal age women aged 36-40 years planning an ICSI cycle, compared to ICSI without chromosome analysis? SUMMARY ANSWER: PGT-A by CCS in the first and second polar body to select euploid embryos for transfer does not substantially increase the live birth rate in women aged 36-40 years. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: PGT-A has been used widely to select embryos for transfer in ICSI treatment, with the aim of improving treatment effectiveness. Whether PGT-A improves ICSI outcomes and is beneficial to the patients has remained controversial. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a multinational, multicentre, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial with intention-to-treat analysis. Of 396 women enroled between June 2012 and December 2016, 205 were allocated to CCS of the first and second polar body (study group) as part of their ICSI treatment cycle and 191 were allocated to ICSI treatment without chromosome screening (control group). Block randomization was performed stratified for centre and age group. Participants and clinicians were blinded at the time of enrolment until the day after intervention. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Infertile couples in which the female partner was 36-40 years old and who were scheduled to undergo ICSI treatment were eligible. In those assigned to PGT-A, array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) analysis of the first and second polar bodies of the fertilized oocytes was performed using the 24sure array of Illumina. If in the first treatment cycle all oocytes were aneuploid, a second treatment with PB array CGH was offered. Participants in the control arm were planned for ICSI without PGT-A. Main exclusion criteria were three or more previous unsuccessful IVF or ICSI cycles, three or more clinical miscarriages, poor response or low ovarian reserve. The primary outcome was the cumulative live birth rate after fresh or frozen embryo transfer recorded over 1 year after the start of the intervention. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 205 participants in the chromosome screening group, 50 (24%) had a live birth with intervention within 1 year, compared to 45 of the 191 in the group without intervention (24%), a difference of 0.83% (95% CI: -7.60 to 9.18%). There were significantly fewer participants in the chromosome screening group with a transfer (relative risk (RR) = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.74-0.89) and fewer with a miscarriage (RR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.26-0.90). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The targeted sample size was not reached because of suboptimal recruitment; however, the included sample allowed a 90% power to detect the targeted increase. Cumulative outcome data were limited to 1 year. Only 11 patients out of 32 with exclusively aneuploid results underwent a second treatment cycle in the chromosome screening group. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The observation that the similarity in birth rates was achieved with fewer transfers, less cryopreservation and fewer miscarriages points to a clinical benefit of PGT-A, and this form of embryo selection may, therefore, be considered to minimize the number of interventions while producing comparable outcomes. Whether these benefits outweigh drawbacks such as the cost for the patient, the higher workload for the IVF lab and the potential effect on the children born after prolonged culture and/or cryopreservation remains to be shown. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Illumina provided microarrays and other consumables necessary for aCGH testing of polar bodies. M.B.'s institution (UZBrussel) has received educational grants from IBSA, Ferring, Organon, Schering-Plough, Merck and Merck Belgium. M.B. has received consultancy and speakers' fees from Organon, Serono Symposia and Merck. G.G. has received personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, Ferring, Merck-Serono, Finox, TEVA, IBSA, Glycotope, Abbott and Gedeon-Richter as well as personal fees from VitroLife, NMC Healthcare, ReprodWissen, BioSilu and ZIVA. W.V., C.S., P.M.B., V.G., G.A., M.D., T.E.G., L.G., G.Ka., G.Ko., J.L., M.C.M., M.P., A.S., M.T., K.V., J.G. and K.S. declare no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01532284. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 7 February 2012. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 25 June 2012.