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.

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).

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 ).

Does the effectiveness of IUI in couples with unexplained subfertility depend on their prognosis of natural conception? A replication of the H2Oil study.

STUDY QUESTION: Can we replicate the finding that the benefit of IUI-ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) compared to expectant management for couples with unexplained subfertility depends on the prognosis of natural conception? SUMMARY ANSWER: The estimated benefit of IUI-OS did not depend on the prognosis of natural conception but did depend on when treatment was started after diagnosis, with starting IUI-OS later yielding a larger absolute and relative benefit of treatment. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IUI-OS is often the first-line treatment for couples with unexplained subfertility. Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared IUI-OS to expectant management using different thresholds for the prognosis of natural conception as inclusion criteria and found different results. In a previous study (a Dutch national cohort), it was found that the benefit of IUI-OS compared to expectant management seemed dependent on the prognosis of natural conception, but this finding warrants replication. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: We conducted a secondary analysis of the H2Oil study (n = 1119), a multicentre RCT that evaluated the effect of oil-based contrast versus water-based contrast during hysterosalpingography (HSG). Couples were randomized before HSG and followed up for 3-5 years. We selected couples with unexplained subfertility who received HSG and had follow-up or pregnancy data available. Follow-up was censored at the start of IVF, after the last IUI cycle or at last contact and was truncated at a maximum of 18 months after the fertility workup. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: The endpoint was time to conception leading to an ongoing pregnancy. We used the sequential Cox approach comparing in each month the ongoing pregnancy rates over the next 6 months of couples who started IUI-OS to couples who did not. We calculated the prognosis of natural conception for individual couples, updated this over consecutive failed cycles and evaluated whether prognosis modified the effect of starting IUI-OS. We corrected for known predictors of conception using inverse probability weighting. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Data from 975 couples were available. There were 587 couples who received at least one IUI-OS cycle within 18 months after HSG of whom 221 conceived leading to an ongoing pregnancy (rate: 0.74 per couple per year over a median follow-up for IUI of 5 months). The median period between HSG and starting IUI-OS was 4 months. Out of 388 untreated couples, 299 conceived naturally (rate: 0.56 per couple per year over a median follow-up of 4 months). After creating our mimicked trial datasets, starting IUI-OS was associated with a higher chance of ongoing pregnancy by a pooled, overall hazard ratio of 1.50 (95% CI: 1.19-1.89) compared to expectant management. We did not find strong evidence that the effect of treatment was modified by a couple's prognosis of achieving natural conception (Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC) decreased by 1 point). The effect of treatment was dependent on when couples started IUI-OS (AIC decreased by more than 2 points). The patterns of estimated absolute chances over time for couples with increasingly better prognoses were different from the previous study but the finding that starting later yields a larger benefit of treatment was similar. We found IUI-OS increased the absolute chance of pregnancy by at least 5% compared to expectant management. The absolute chance of pregnancy after IUI-OS seems less variable between couples and starting times of treatment than the absolute chance after expectant management. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: This is a secondary analysis, as the H2Oil trial was not designed with this research question in mind. Owing to sample size restrictions, it remained difficult to distinguish between the ranges of prognoses in which true benefit was found. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We replicated the finding that starting IUI-OS later after diagnosis yields a larger absolute and relative benefit of treatment. We did not replicate the dependency of the effect of IUI-OS on the prognosis of natural conception and could not identify clear thresholds for the prognosis of natural conception when IUI-OS was and/or was not effective. Because many of these couples still have good chances of natural conception at the time of diagnosis, we suggest clinicians should advise couples to delay the start of IUI-OS for several months to avoid unnecessary treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The H2Oil study (NTR 3270) was an investigator-initiated study that was funded by the two academic institutions (AMC and VUmc) of the Amsterdam UMC. The follow-up study (NTR 6577) was also an investigator-initiated study with funding by Guerbet, France. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data. B.W.M. is supported by an Investigator grant (GNT1176437) from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). K.D. reports receiving travel and speaker fees from Guerbet. B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Merck KGaA, iGenomix and Guerbet. V.M. reports receiving travel- and speaker fees as well as research grants from Guerbet.