Resumption of ovulation in anovulatory women with PCOS and obesity is associated with reduction of 11ß-hydroxyandrostenedione concentrations.

STUDY QUESTION: Is resumption of ovulation after a 6-month lifestyle intervention in women with PCOS and obesity associated with differential changes in endocrine and metabolic parameters (weight, insulin resistance, anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), and androgens) compared to women with PCOS who remained anovulatory? SUMMARY ANSWER: Resumption of ovulation after a 6-month lifestyle intervention in women with PCOS and obesity is associated with changes in serum 11ß-hydroxyandrostenedione (11OHA4) concentrations. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Lifestyle interventions have been shown to reduce clinical and biochemical hyperandrogenism in women with PCOS. Weight loss of 5-10% may reverse anovulatory status, thereby increasing natural conception rates. However, the mechanisms underlying why some women with PCOS remain anovulatory and others resume ovulation after weight loss are unclear. Reproductive characteristics at baseline and a greater degree of change in endocrine and metabolic features with lifestyle intervention may be crucial for ovulatory response. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We used data and samples originating from an earlier randomized controlled trial (RCT), which examined the efficacy of a 6-month lifestyle intervention prior to infertility treatment compared to prompt infertility treatment on live birth rate in women with obesity. A total of 577 women with obesity (BMI > 29 kg/m2) were randomized between 2009 and 2012. Anovulatory women with PCOS who were allocated to the intervention arm of the original RCT (n = 95) were included in the current analysis. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We defined women as having resumed ovulation (RO+) based on the following criteria: spontaneous pregnancy; or assignment to expectant management; or IUI in natural cycles as the treatment strategy after lifestyle intervention. Steroid hormones were measured using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Generalized estimating equations with adjustment for baseline measures and interaction between group and time was used to examine differences in changes of endocrine and metabolic parameters between RO+ (n = 34) and persistently anovulatory women (RO-, n = 61) at 3 and 6 months after intervention. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: At baseline, the mean ± SD age was 27.5 ± 3.6 years in the RO+ group and 27.9 ± 4.1 years in the RO- group (P = 0.65), and the mean ± SD weights were 101.2 ± 9.5 kg and 105.0 ± 14.6 kg, respectively (P = 0.13). Baseline AMH concentrations showed significant differences between RO+ and RO- women (median and interquartile range [IQR] 4.7 [3.2; 8.3] versus 7.2 [5.3; 10.8] ng/ml, respectively). Baseline androgen concentrations did not differ between the two groups. During and after lifestyle intervention, both groups showed weight loss; changes in 11OHA4 were significantly different between the RO+ and RO groups (P-value for interaction = 0.03). There was a similar trend for SHBG (interaction P-value = 0.07), and DHEA-S (interaction P-value = 0.06), with the most pronounced differences observed in the first 3 months. Other parameters, such as AMH and FAI, decreased over time but with no difference between the groups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: No high-resolution transvaginal ultrasonography was used to confirm ovulatory status at the end of the lifestyle program. The small sample size may limit the robustness of the results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Reduction of androgen concentrations during and after lifestyle intervention is associated with recovery of ovulatory cycles. If our results are confirmed in other studies, androgen concentrations could be monitored during lifestyle intervention to provide individualized recommendations on the timing of resumption of ovulation in anovulatory women with PCOS and obesity. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was supported by a grant from ZonMw, the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (50-50110-96-518). The Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the UMCG received an unrestricted educational grant from Ferring Pharmaceuticals BV, The Netherlands. A.H. reports consultancy for the development and implementation of a lifestyle App MyFertiCoach developed by Ferring Pharmaceutical Company. All other authors have no conflicts to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The LIFEstyle RCT was registered at the Dutch trial registry (NTR 1530).

Thin endometrial lining: is it more prevalent in patients utilizing preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disease (PGT-M) and related to prior hormonal contraceptive use?

STUDY QUESTION: Is a thin endometrial lining before ovulation triggering more prevalent in patients utilizing preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disease (PGT-M) compared to the regular IVF/ICSI population and is this associated with prior hormonal contraceptive use? SUMMARY ANSWER: Thin (<8 mm) endometrial lining is more prevalent in PGT-M patients compared to the regular IVF/ICSI population and is associated with both longer prior hormonal contraceptive use and a shorter cessation interval of hormonal contraceptives before IVF/ICSI treatment. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Thin endometrial lining has been associated with lower pregnancy rates in IVF/ICSI cycles and increased chances of miscarriage and low birth weight. Endometrial thinning and atrophy occur during hormonal contraceptive use. Patients utilizing PGT-M typically use hormonal contraceptives up until treatment to avoid the risk of conception of a genetically affected child. Whether this could negatively affect endometrial thickness achieved during subsequent IVF/ICSI cycles is not known. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A retrospective case control study was performed, including all PGT-M patients attending the University Medical Centre Groningen (cases), between 2009 and 2018. The control group consisted of two non-PGT IVF/ICSI patients for each PGT-M patient, matched for age and treatment period. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: First cycles of 122 PGT-M patients and 240 controls were included. Cessation interval of hormonal contraceptives was categorized as late cessation (cessation <1 year prior to treatment) or early cessation (>1 year prior to treatment). Endometrial thickness was routinely measured on the day of hCG triggering or 1 day prior. The prevalence of an endometrial lining <8 mm was compared between PGT-M patients and controls. Hormonal contraceptive use (both duration and cessation interval) was compared between both groups. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors for thin endometrial lining. In addition, cycle and pregnancy outcomes were compared within control/PGT-M groups between patients with endometrial lining > or <8 mm. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Thin endometrial lining on the day of hCG triggering was found significantly more often in the PGT-M group, compared to controls: 32% vs 11% (mean difference 21.0%, 95% CI: 11.7, 30.3%). As expected, more patients in the PGT-M group ceased their hormonal contraception late (<1 year): 64% vs 2% in the control group (mean difference 61.9%, 95% CI: 53.0, 70.8%). Average duration of hormonal contraceptive use was 10.6 years in the PGT-M group vs 9.3 years in controls (mean difference 1.3 years, 95% CI: 0.2, 2.3 years). Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified late cessation (OR: 6.0, 95% CI: 1.9-19.2) and duration of prior hormonal contraceptive use (OR per year increase 1.1, 95% CI: 1.0-1.2) as significant independent risk factors for a thin endometrial lining. In relation to outcome, we found a statistically significant increase in miscarriage rate in PGT-M patients with an endometrial lining <8 mm compared to those with an endometrial lining >8 mm (20.0% vs 1.7%, mean difference 18.3%, 95% CI: 2.3, 34.3%). A trend towards lower birth weight and gestation- and gender-adjusted birth weight (z-score) was also found in this group. No statistically significant differences were detected in pregnancy rate, live birth rate, or incidence of preterm delivery or SGA. Within the control group, no statistically significant differences were found in outcomes between patients with an endometrial lining <8 compared to an endometrial lining >8 mm. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study is retrospective. Various types of hormonal contraceptives were reported which possibly exert different effects on the endometrial lining. In relation to pregnancy outcome measures, numbers were very limited; therefore, no firm conclusions should be drawn. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study provides further insight into the role of prior hormonal contraceptive use as a possible contributor to the occurrence of thin endometrial lining during ART treatment. Future studies should provide more information on its clinical relevance, to determine whether PGT-M patients can be reassured, or should be counselled to stop hormonal contraceptive use and change to an alternative contraceptive method prior to PGT treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No specific funding was used and no conflicts of interests are declared. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

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.

Protocol for a randomized controlled multicenter trial assessing the efficacy of leuprorelin for severe polycystic liver disease: the AGAINST-PLD study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with severe polycystic liver disease (PLD), there is a need for new treatments. Estrogens and possibly other female sex hormones stimulate growth in PLD. In some patients, liver volume decreases after menopause. Female sex hormones could therefore be a target for therapy. The AGAINST-PLD study will examine the efficacy of the GnRH agonist leuprorelin, which blocks the production of estrogen and other sex hormones, to reduce liver growth in PLD. METHODS: The AGAINST-PLD study is an investigator-driven, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Institutional review board (IRB) approval was received at the University Medical Center of Groningen and will be collected in other sites before opening these sites. Thirty-six female, pre-menopausal patients, with a very large liver volume for age (upper 10% of the PLD population) and ongoing liver growth despite current treatment options will be randomized to direct start of leuprorelin or to 18 months standard of care and delayed start of leuprorelin. Leuprorelin is given as 3.75 mg subcutaneously (s.c.) monthly for the first 3 months followed by 3-monthly depots of 11.25 mg s.c. The trial duration is 36 months. MRI scans to measure liver volume will be performed at screening, 6 months, 18 months, 24 months and 36 months. In addition, blood will be drawn, DEXA-scans will be performed and questionnaires will be collected. This design enables comparison between patients on study treatment and standard of care (first 18 months) and within patients before and during treatment (whole trial). Main outcome is annualized liver growth rate compared between standard of care and study treatment. Secondary outcomes are PLD disease severity, change in liver growth within individuals and (serious) adverse events. The study is designed as a prospective open-label study with blinded endpoint assessment (PROBE). DISCUSSION: In this trial, we combined the expertise of hepatologist, nephrologists and gynecologists to study the effect of leuprorelin on liver growth in PLD. In this way, we hope to stop liver growth, reduce symptoms and reduce the need for liver transplantation in severe PLD. Trial registration Eudra CT number 2020-005949-16, registered at 15 Dec 2020. https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2020-005949-16 .

Economic evaluation of endometrial scratching before the second IVF/ICSI treatment: a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial (SCRaTCH trial).

STUDY QUESTION: Is a single endometrial scratch prior to the second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment cost-effective compared to no scratch, when evaluated over a 12-month follow-up period? SUMMARY ANSWER: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for an endometrial scratch was €6524 per additional live birth, but due to uncertainty regarding the increase in live birth rate this has to be interpreted with caution. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Endometrial scratching is thought to improve the chances of success in couples with previously failed embryo implantation in IVF/ICSI treatment. It has been widely implemented in daily practice, despite the lack of conclusive evidence of its effectiveness and without investigating whether scratching allows for a cost-effective method to reduce the number of IVF/ICSI cycles needed to achieve a live birth. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This economic evaluation is based on a multicentre randomized controlled trial carried out in the Netherlands (SCRaTCH trial) that compared a single scratch prior to the second IVF/ICSI treatment with no scratch in couples with a failed full first IVF/ICSI cycle. Follow-up was 12 months after randomization.Economic evaluation was performed from a healthcare and societal perspective by taking both direct medical costs and lost productivity costs into account. It was performed for the primary outcome of biochemical pregnancy leading to live birth after 12 months of follow-up as well as the secondary outcome of live birth after the second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment (i.e. the first after randomization). To allow for worldwide interpretation of the data, cost level scenario analysis and sensitivity analysis was performed. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: From January 2016 until July 2018, 933 women with a failed first IVF/ICSI cycle were included in the trial. Data on treatment and pregnancy were recorded up until 12 months after randomization, and the resulting live birth outcomes (even if after 12 months) were also recorded.Total costs were calculated for the second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment and for the full 12 month period for each participant. We included costs of all treatments, medication, complications and lost productivity costs. Cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out by calculating ICERs for scratch compared to control. Bootstrap resampling was used to estimate the uncertainty around cost and effect differences and ICERs. In the sensitivity and scenario analyses, various unit costs for a single scratch were introduced, amongst them, unit costs as they apply for the United Kingdom (UK). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: More live births occurred in the scratch group, but this also came with increased costs over a 12-month period. The estimated chance of a live birth after 12 months of follow-up was 44.1% in the scratch group compared to 39.3% in the control group (risk difference 4.8%, 95% CI -1.6% to +11.2%). The mean costs were on average €283 (95% CI: -€299 to €810) higher in the scratch group so that the point average ICER was €5846 per additional live birth. The ICER estimate was surrounded with a high level of uncertainty, as indicated by the fact that the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) showed that there is an 80% chance that endometrial scratching is cost-effective if society is willing to pay ∼€17 500 for each additional live birth. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: There was a high uncertainty surrounding the effects, mainly in the clinical effect, i.e. the difference in the chance of live birth, which meant that a single straightforward conclusion could not be ascertained as for now. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first formal cost-effectiveness analysis of endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment. The results presented in this manuscript cannot provide a clear-cut expenditure for one additional birth, but they do allow for estimating costs per additional live birth in different scenarios once the clinical effectiveness of scratching is known. As the SCRaTCH trial was the only trial with a follow-up of 12 months, it allows for the most complete estimation of costs to date. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by ZonMW, the Dutch organization for funding healthcare research. A.E.P.C., F.J.M.B., E.R.G. and C.B. L. reported having received fees or grants during, but outside of, this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register (NL5193/NTR 5342).

Effect of parental and ART treatment characteristics on perinatal outcomes.

STUDY QUESTION: Do parental characteristics and treatment with ART affect perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies? SUMMARY ANSWER: Both parental and ART treatment characteristics affect perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Previous studies have shown that singleton pregnancies resulting from ART are at risk of preterm birth. ART children are lighter at birth after correction for duration of gestation and at increased risk of congenital abnormalities compared to naturally conceived children. This association is confounded by parental characteristics that are also known to affect perinatal outcomes. It is unclear to which extent parental and ART treatment characteristics independently affect perinatal outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: All IVF clinics in the Netherlands (n = 13) were requested to provide data on all ART treatment cycles (IVF, ICSI and frozen-thawed embryo transfers (FET)), performed between 1 January 2000, and 1 January 2011, which resulted in a pregnancy. Using probabilistic data-linkage, these data (n = 36 683) were linked to the Dutch Perinatal Registry (Perined), which includes all children born in the Netherlands in the same time period (n = 2 548 977). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Analyses were limited to singleton pregnancies that resulted from IVF, ICSI or FET cycles. Multivariable models for linear and logistic regression were fitted including parental characteristics as well as ART treatment characteristics. Analyses were performed separately for fresh cycles and for fresh and FET cycles combined. We assessed the impact on the following perinatal outcomes: birth weight, preterm birth below 37 or 32 weeks of gestation, congenital malformations and perinatal mortality. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The perinatal outcomes of 31 184 out of the 36 683 ART treatment cycles leading to a pregnancy were retrieved through linkage with the Perined (85% linkage). Of those, 23 671 concerned singleton pregnancies resulting from IVF, ICSI or FET. Birth weight was independently associated with both parental and ART treatment characteristics. Characteristics associated with lower birth weight included maternal hypertensive disease, non-Dutch maternal ethnicity, nulliparity, increasing duration of subfertility, hCG for luteal phase support (compared to progesterone), shorter embryo culture duration, increasing number of oocytes retrieved and fresh embryo transfer. The parental characteristic with the greatest effect size on birth weight was maternal diabetes (adjusted difference 283 g, 95% CI 228-338). FET was the ART treatment characteristic with the greatest effect size on birth weight (adjusted difference 100 g, 95% CI 84-117) compared to fresh embryo transfer. Preterm birth was more common among mothers of South-Asian ethnicity. Preterm birth was less common among multiparous women and women with 'male factor' as treatment indication (compared to 'tubal factor'). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Due to the retrospective nature of our study, we cannot prove causality. Further limitations of our study were the inability to adjust for mothers giving birth more than once in our dataset, missing values for several variables and limited information on parental lifestyle and general health. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Multiple parental and ART treatment characteristics affect perinatal outcomes, with birth weight being influenced by the widest range of factors. This highlights the importance of assessing both parental and ART treatment characteristics in studies that focus on the health of ART-offspring, with the purpose of modifying these factors where possible. Our results further support the hypothesis that the embryo is sensitive to its early environment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by Foreest Medical School, Alkmaar, the Netherlands (grants: FIO 1307 and FIO 1505). B.W.M. reports grants from NHMRC and consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA, iGenomics and Guerbet. F.B. reports research support grants from Merck Serono and personal fees from Merck Serono. A.C. reports travel support from Ferring BV. and Theramex BV. and personal fees from UpToDate (Hyperthecosis), all outside the remit of the current work. The remaining authors report no conflict of interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Is home-based monitoring of ovulation to time frozen embryo transfer a cost-effective alternative for hospital-based monitoring of ovulation? Study protocol of the multicentre, non-inferiority Antarctica-2 randomised controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: The objective of this trial is to compare the effectiveness and costs of true natural cycle (true NC-) frozen embryo transfer (FET) using urinary LH tests to modified NC-FET using repeated ultrasound monitoring and ovulation trigger to time FET in the NC. Secondary outcomes are the cancellation rates of FET (ovulation before hCG or no dominant follicle, no ovulation by LH urine test, poor embryo survival), pregnancy outcomes (miscarriage rate, clinical pregnancy rates, multiple ongoing pregnancy rates, live birth rates, costs) and neonatal outcomes (including gestational age, birthweight and sex, congenital abnormalities or diseases of babies born). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: FET is at the heart of modern IVF. To allow implantation of the thawed embryo, the endometrium must be prepared either by exogenous oestrogen and progesterone supplementation (artificial cycle (AC)-FET) or by using the NC to produce endogenous oestradiol before and progesterone after ovulation to time the transfer of the thawed embryo (NC-FET). During an NC-FET, women visit the hospital repeatedly and receive an ovulation trigger to time FET (i.e. modified (m)NC-FET or hospital-based monitoring). From the woman's point of view, a more natural approach using home-based monitoring of the ovulation with LH urine tests to allow a natural ovulation to time FET may be desired (true NC-FET or home-based monitoring). STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This is a multicentre, non-inferiority prospective randomised controlled trial design. Consenting women will undergo one FET cycle using either true NC-FET or mNC-FET based on randomisation. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Based on our sample size calculation, the study group will consist of 1464 women between 18 and 45 years old who are scheduled for FET. Women with anovulatory cycles, women who need ovulation induction and women with a contra indication for pregnancy will be excluded. The primary outcome is ongoing pregnancy. Secondary outcomes are cancellation rates of FET, pregnancy outcomes (including miscarriage rate, clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy rate and live birth rate). Costs will be estimated by counting resource use and calculating unit prices. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study received a grant from the Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw 843002807; www.zonmw.nl). ZonMw has no role in the design of the study, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data or writing of the manuscript. F.B. reports personal fees from member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, grants from Research support grant Merck Serono, outside the submitted work. A.E.P.C. reports and Unrestricted grant of Ferring B.V. to the Center for Reproductive medicine, no personal fee. Author up-to-date on Hyperthecosis. Congress meetings 2019 with Ferring B.V. and Theramex B.V. M.G. reports Department research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring (location VUMC) outside the submitted work. E.R.G. reports personal fees from Titus Health Care, outside the submitted work. C.B.L. reports grants from Ferring, grants from Merck, from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. The other authors have none to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register (Trial NL6414 (NTR6590), https://www.trialregister.nl/). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 23 July 2017. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 10 April 2018.

Endometrial scratching in women with one failed IVF/ICSI cycle-outcomes of a randomised controlled trial (SCRaTCH).

STUDY QUESTION: Does endometrial scratching in women with one failed IVF/ICSI treatment affect the chance of a live birth of the subsequent fresh IVF/ICSI cycle? SUMMARY ANSWER: In this study, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch group, with a likely certainty range between -0.7% and +9.9%. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Since the first suggestion that endometrial scratching might improve embryo implantation during IVF/ICSI, many clinical trials have been conducted. However, due to limitations in sample size and study quality, it remains unclear whether endometrial scratching improves IVF/ICSI outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The SCRaTCH trial was a non-blinded randomised controlled trial in women with one unsuccessful IVF/ICSI cycle and assessed whether a single endometrial scratch using an endometrial biopsy catheter would lead to a higher live birth rate after the subsequent IVF/ICSI treatment compared to no scratch. The study took place in 8 academic and 24 general hospitals. Participants were randomised between January 2016 and July 2018 by a web-based randomisation programme. Secondary outcomes included cumulative 12-month ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth rate. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women with one previous failed IVF/ICSI treatment and planning a second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment were eligible. In total, 933 participants out of 1065 eligibles were included (participation rate 88%). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: After the fresh transfer, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch compared to control group (110/465 versus 88/461, respectively, risk ratio (RR) 1.24 [95% CI 0.96-1.59]). These data are consistent with a true difference of between -0.7% and +9.9% (95% CI), indicating that while the largest proportion of the 95% CI is positive, scratching could have no or even a small negative effect. Biochemical pregnancy loss and miscarriage rate did not differ between the two groups: in the scratch group 27/153 biochemical pregnancy losses and 14/126 miscarriages occurred, while this was 19/130 and 17/111 for the control group (RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.71-2.07) and RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.38-1.40), respectively). After 12 months of follow-up, 5.1% more live births were observed in the scratch group (202/467 versus 178/466), of which the true difference most likely lies between -1.2% and +11.4% (95% CI). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study was not blinded. Knowledge of allocation may have been an incentive for participants allocated to the scratch group to continue treatment in situations where they may otherwise have cancelled or stopped. In addition, this study was powered to detect a difference in live birth rate of 9%. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The results of this study are an incentive for further assessment of the efficacy and clinical implications of endometrial scratching. If a true effect exists, it may be smaller than previously anticipated or may be limited to specific groups of women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Studying this will require larger sample sizes, which will be provided by the ongoing international individual participant data-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42017079120). At present, endometrial scratching should not be performed outside of clinical trials. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by ZonMW, the Dutch organisation for funding healthcare research. J.S.E. Laven reports grants and personal fees from AnshLabs (Webster, Tx, USA), Ferring (Hoofddorp, The Netherlands) and Ministry of Health (CIBG, The Hague, The Netherlands) outside the submitted work. A.E.P. Cantineau reports 'other' from Ferring BV, personal fees from Up to date Hyperthecosis, 'other' from Theramex BV, outside the submitted work. E.R. Groenewoud reports grants from Titus Health Care during the conduct of the study. A.M. van Heusden reports personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees from Ferring, personal fees from Goodlife, outside the submitted work. F.J.M. Broekmans reports personal fees as Member of the external advisory board for Ferring BV, The Netherlands, personal fees as Member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, The Netherlands, personal fees as Member of the external advisory for Gedeon Richter, Belgium, personal fees from Educational activities for Ferring BV, The Netherlands, grants from Research support grant Merck Serono, grants from Research support grant Ferring, personal fees from Advisory and consultancy work Roche, outside the submitted work. C.B. Lambalk reports grants from Ferring, grants from Merck, grants from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NL5193/NTR 5342). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 31 July 2015. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 26 January 2016.

Continuous oral contraceptives versus long-term pituitary desensitization prior to IVF/ICSI in moderate to severe endometriosis: study protocol of a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTIONS: The primary objective is to investigate if continuous use of oral contraceptives is non-inferior compared to long-term pituitary desensitization with a GnRH agonist prior to IVF/ICSI in patients with moderate to severe endometriosis with regard to treatment efficacy. Secondary objectives concern treatment safety and cost-effectiveness. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Long-term pituitary desensitization with a GnRH agonist for 3-6 months prior to IVF/ICSI improves clinical pregnancy rates in women suffering from endometriosis. However, discussion about this treatment strategy exists because of its uncomfortable side effects. Alternatively, IVF/ICSI pre-treatment with continuously administered oral contraceptives may offer fewer side-effects and lower (in)direct costs, as well as encouraging IVF outcomes in women with endometriosis. To date, these two different IVF/ICSI pre-treatment strategies in women with endometriosis have not been directly compared. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: An open-label, parallel two-arm randomized controlled multicenter trial is planned, including patients with moderate to severe endometriosis. To demonstrate an absolute difference of 13% (delta of 10% with non-inferiority margin of 3%) with a power of 80% 137 patients per group are sufficient. Taking into account a withdrawal of patients of 10% and a cancelation rate of embryo transfer after ovarian pick up of 10% (for instance due to fertilization failure), the sample size calculation is rounded off to 165 patients per group; 330 patients in total will be included. After informed consent, eligible patients will be randomly allocated to the intervention or reference group by using web based block randomization stratified per centre. Study inclusion is expected to be complete in 3-5 years. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: The research population consists of patients with moderate to severe endometriosis (ASRM III/IV) who are scheduled for their first, second or third IVF/ICSI treatment attempt. Women aged over 41 years, younger than 18 years, with a known contraindication for the use of oral contraceptives and/or GnRH agonists or with severe male factor infertility will be excluded from participation. After informed consent patients are allocated to the intervention group (one-phase oral contraceptive continuously during three subsequent months) or the reference group (three Leuprorelin 3.75 mg i.m./s.c. depot injections during three subsequent months). Tibolon 2.5 mg can be given daily as add-back therapy in the reference group. After 3 months of pre-treatment the IVF/ICSI stimulation phase will be started. The primary outcome is live birth rate after fresh embryo transfer. Secondary outcomes are cumulative live birth rate after one IVF/ICSI treatment cycle (including fresh and frozen embryo transfers up to 15 months after randomization), ongoing pregnancy rate and time to pregnancy. In addition, treatment outcome parameters, adverse events, side-effects during the first 3 months, complications, recurrence of endometriosis (complaints), quality of life, patient preferences, safety and costs effectiveness will be reported. Measurements will be performed at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 months after randomization. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: All authors have no conflict of interest related to this manuscript. The department of reproductive medicine of the Amsterdam UMC location VUmc has received several research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring not related to the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The trial is registered as the COPIE trial (Continuous use of Oral contraceptives as an alternative for long-term Pituitary desensitization with a GnRH agonist prior to IVF/ICSI in Endometriosis patients) in the Dutch Trial Register (Ref. No. NTR6357, http://www.trialregister.nl). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 16 March 2017. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: Enrollment is planned for November 2018.

Stimulation of the ovaries in women with breast cancer undergoing fertility preservation: Alternative versus standard stimulation protocols; the study protocol of the STIM-trial.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy for breast cancer may have a negative impact on reproductive function due to gonadotoxicity. Fertility preservation via banking of oocytes or embryos after ovarian stimulation with FSH can increase the likelihood of a future live birth. It has been hypothesized that elevated serum estrogen levels during ovarian stimulation may induce breast tumour growth. This has led to the use of alternative stimulation protocols with addition of tamoxifen or letrozole. The effectiveness of these stimulation protocols in terms of oocyte yield is unknown. METHODS/DESIGN: Randomized open-label trial comparing ovarian stimulation plus tamoxifen and ovarian stimulation plus letrozole with standard ovarian stimulation in the course of fertility preservation. The study population consists of women with breast cancer who opt for banking of oocytes or embryos, aged 18-43years at randomisation. Primary outcome is the number of oocytes retrieved at follicle aspiration. Secondary outcomes are number of mature oocytes retrieved, number of oocytes or embryos banked and peak E2 levels during ovarian stimulation. DISCUSSION: Concerning the lack of evidence on which stimulation protocol should be used in women with breast cancer and the growing demand for fertility preservation, there is an urgent need to undertake this study. By performing this study, we will be able to closely monitor the effects of various stimulation protocols in women with breast cancer and pave the way for long term follow up on the safety of this procedure in terms of breast cancer prognosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR4108.

Impact of appendicitis during pregnancy: no delay in accurate diagnosis and treatment.

BACKGROUND: Acute appendicitis during pregnancy may be associated with serious maternal and/or fetal complications. To date, the optimal clinical approach to the management of pregnant women suspected of having acute appendicitis is subject to debate. The purpose of this retrospective study was to provide recommendations for prospective clinical management of pregnant patients with suspected appendicitis. METHOD: Case records of all pregnant patients suspected of having appendicitis whom underwent appendectomy at our hospital between 1990 and 2010 were reviewed. RESULTS: Appendicitis was histologically verified in fifteen of twenty-one pregnant women, of whom six were diagnosed with perforated appendicitis. Maternal morbidity was seen in two cases. Premature delivery occurred in two out of six cases with perforated appendicitis cases and two out of six cases following a negative appendectomy. Perinatal mortality did not occur. CONCLUSION: Both (perforated) appendicitis and negative appendectomy during pregnancy are associated with a high risk of premature delivery. Clinical presentation and imaging remains vital in deciding whether surgical intervention is indicated. We recommend to cautiously weigh the risks of delay until correct diagnosis with associated increased risk of appendiceal perforation and the risk of unnecessary surgical intervention. Based upon current literature, we recommend clinicians to consider an MRI following an inconclusive or negative abdominal ultrasound aiming to improve diagnostic accuracy to reduce the rate of negative appendectomies. Accurate and prompt diagnosis of acute appendicitis should be strived for to avoid unnecessary exploration and to aim for timely surgical intervention in pregnant women suspected of having appendicitis.

The addition of GnRH antagonists in intrauterine insemination cycles with mild ovarian hyperstimulation does not increase live birth rates--a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: This multicenter, double-blinded RCT investigated the efficacy of GnRH antagonists in cycles with mild ovarian hyperstimulation (MOH) followed by IUI in subfertile women. METHODS: Couples diagnosed with unexplained, male factor subfertility or associated with the presence of minimal or mild endometriosis were randomized with a computer-generated list of numbers by a third party in a double-blinded setting to receive either a GnRH antagonists or a placebo in 12 institutional or academic hospitals. All women were treated with recombinant FSH in a low-dose step-up regimen starting on Day 2-4 of the cycle. A GnRH antagonist was added when one or more follicles of 14 mm diameter or more were visualized. When at least one follicle reached a size of ≥18 mm, ovulation was induced by hCG injection. A single IUI was performed 38-40 h later. Couples were offered a maximum of three consecutive cycles. The primary outcome of the trial was live births. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy rates, multiple pregnancy rates, miscarriages and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate. RESULTS: A total of 233 couples were included from January 2006 to February 2009, starting 572 treatment cycles. Live birth rates were not significantly different between the group treated with GnRH antagonist (8.4%; 23/275) and the placebo group (12%; 36/297) (P = 0.30). Three twin pregnancies occurred in the GnRH antagonist group and two twin pregnancies in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Adding a GnRH antagonist in cycles with MOH in an IUI program does not increase live birth rates. Dutch Trial Register no: NTR497.

Ovarian stimulation protocols (anti-oestrogens, gonadotrophins with and without GnRH agonists/antagonists) for intrauterine insemination (IUI) in women with subfertility.

BACKGROUND: Intrauterine insemination (IUI) combined with ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) has been demonstrated to be an effective form of treatment for subfertile couples. Several ovarian stimulation protocols combined with IUI have been proposed, but it is still not clear which stimulation protocol and which dose is the most cost-effective. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate ovarian stimulation protocols for intrauterine insemination for all indications. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched for all publications which described randomised controlled trials comparing different ovarian stimulation protocols followed by IUI. We searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's Central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). We searched the electronic databases of MEDLINE (January 1966 to present) and EMBASE (1980 to present). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials only were considered for inclusion in this review. Trials comparing different ovarian stimulation protocols combined with IUI were selected and reviewed in detail. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors independently assess trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Forty three trials involving 3957 women were included. There were 11 comparisons in this review. Pregnancy rates are reported here since results of live birth rates were lacking. Seven studies (n = 556) were pooled comparing gonadotrophins with anti-oestrogens showing significant higher pregnancy rates with gonadotrophins (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.7). Five studies (n = 313) compared anti-oestrogens with aromatase inhibitors reporting no significant difference (OR 1.2 95% CI 0.64 to 2.1). The same could be concluded comparing different types of gonadotrophins (9 studies included, n = 576). Four studies (n = 391) reported the effect of adding a GnRH agonist which did not improve pregnancy rates (OR 0.98 95% CI 0.6 to 1.6), although it resulted in significant higher multiple pregnancy rates (OR 2.9 95% CI 1.0 to 8). Data of three studies (n = 299) showed no convincing evidence of adding a GnRH antagonist to gonadotrophins (OR 1.5 95% CI 0.83 to 2.8). The results of two studies (n = 297) reported no evidence of benefit in doubling the dose of gonadotrophins (OR 1.2 95% 0.67 to 1.9) although the multiple pregnancy rates and OHSS rates were increased. For the remaining five comparisons only one or none studies were included. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Robust evidence is lacking but based on the available results gonadotrophins might be the most effective drugs when IUI is combined with ovarian hyperstimulation. When gonadotrophins are applied it might be done on a daily basis. When gonadotrophins are used for ovarian stimulation low dose protocols are advised since pregnancy rates do not differ from pregnancy rates which result from high dose regimen, whereas the chances to encounter negative effects from ovarian stimulation such as multiples and OHSS are limited with low dose gonadotrophins. Further research is needed for each comparison made.

Intrauterine insemination versus Fallopian tube sperm perfusion in non-tubal subfertility: a systematic review based on a Cochrane review.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this review was to compare the efficacy of Fallopian tube sperm perfusion (FSP) with intrauterine insemination (IUI) in the treatment of non-tubal subfertility. METHODS: The principles of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group were employed. Only randomized controlled studies comparing FSP with IUI were included in this review. The main outcome measures included live birth rates and pregnancy rates per couple. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies were found performing the comparison of interest. Overall six studies involving 474 couples were included in the meta-analysis. One study only assessed live birth rates, which resulted in no difference in outcome between FSP and IUI [odds ratio (OR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39-3.53]. The results in pregnancy rate per couple revealed no statistically significant difference between FSP and IUI (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.77-4.05). Subgroup analysis revealed that couples suffering from unexplained subfertility clearly benefit from FSP over IUI (OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.73-4.78). Excluding studies which used the Foley catheter for tubal perfusion resulted in a significant difference favouring FSP for all indications (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.54-3.80). CONCLUSIONS: There is firm evidence that FSP gives rise to higher pregnancy rates in couples with unexplained subfertility and should therefore be advised in these couples. For other indications FSP has not been proven more effective compared with IUI. Results showed that the Foley catheter might not be effective for FSP. Future research should focus on comparing different types of catheters.

Intrauterine insemination versus fallopian tube sperm perfusion for non tubal infertility.

BACKGROUND: Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) together with intrauterine insemination (IUI) is commonly offered to couples with infertility factors not involving the fallopian tubes. Intrauterine insemination gained its popularity because it is simple, non-invasive and cost-effective technique. Another simple non invasive method was introduced called fallopian tube sperm perfusion (FSP). This technique was developed to ensure the presence of higher sperm densities in the fallopian tubes at the time of ovulation than standard IUI provides. Fallopian tube sperm perfusion is based on pressure injection of 4 ml of sperm suspension with attempt of sealing of the cervix to prevent semen reflux. The IUI technique on the other hand is based on intrauterine injection of 0.5 ml of sperm suspension without flushing the tubes. A number of randomised controlled trials have been published comparing the efficacy of FSP with standard IUI. There were considerable variations in the results. The aim of this review was to determine whether outcomes differ between FSP and IUI in improving the probability of conception. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether outcomes differ between fallopian tube sperm perfusion and intrauterine insemination in the treatment of non tubal subfertility resulting in pregnancies and live births. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Menstrual Disorders & Subfertility Group trials register (24 March 2003), MEDLINE (January 1966 to July 2003) and EMBASE (January 1988 to July 2003). Abstracts of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (1987 to 2003) and European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (1987 to 2003) meetings were searched with the same key- or text words. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled studies comparing fallopian tube sperm perfusion with intrauterine insemination were included in this review. The method of allocation was assessed to determine whether each study was truly randomised or pseudo-randomised. Only first period data of cross-over trials were included for analysis. Couples who have been trying to conceive for at least one year were included but only when the female partner had patent tubes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent reviewers (AC and MJ) selected the trials for inclusion based on the quality of the studies. MAIN RESULTS: Overall six studies involving 474 couples were included in the meta-analysis. Only one study assessed live birth rates (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.39 3.53). The results for pregnancy rate per couple were statistically significant with FSP showing higher pregnancy rates (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.79 using the odds ratio with the fixed effect model. To check the results the random effect model was used, which gave a wider confidence interval which crossed the line of no significance (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.77 to 4.05). As a result, these outcomes should be interpreted with caution. Subgroup analysis revealed that couples suffering from unexplained subfertility benefit from FSP over IUI, resulting in significantly higher pregnancy rates (OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.73 to 4.78). Excluding studies which used the Foley catheter for tubal perfusion resulted in a significant difference favouring FSP for all indications (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.54 to 3.80). REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: FSP may be more effective for non-tubal subfertility, but the significant heterogeneity should be taken into account. As a result no advice based on the meta-analysis could be given for the treatment of non-tubal subfertility. Subgroup analysis, which did not show evidence of statistical heterogeneity, suggested that couples with unexplained infertility may benefit from FSP over IUI in terms of higher pregnancy rates. FSP may therefore be advised in couples with unexplained subfertility. Results suggested the possibility of differential effectiveness of FSP depending on catheter choice.

Single versus double intrauterine insemination in stimulated cycles for subfertile couples: a systematic review based on a Cochrane review.

UNLABELLED: This paper is based on a Cochrane review published in The Cochrane Library, issue 1, 2003 (see www.update- software.com) with permission from The Cochrane Collaboration and Update Software. Cochrane reviews are regularly updated as new information becomes available and in response to comments and criticisms, and The Cochrane Library should be consulted for the most recent version of the review. BACKGROUND: The objective of this review was to determine, from the best available evidence, the difference in outcome using single versus double intrauterine insemination (IUI) in stimulated cycles for subfertile couples. METHODS: The principles of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group were employed. Randomized controlled trials with a parallel design, comparing single versus double IUI in subfertile couples, would be eligible. The main outcome measures included live birth rate and pregnancy rate per couple (and per cycle). RESULTS: Three studies involving 386 women were included. The results of pregnancy rate per couple, of two studies showed no significant effect of using double insemination [Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.45; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-2.70]. The results of pregnancy rate per cycle of the included studies favoured double insemination, however this is not an eligible outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of two trials, double intrauterine insemination showed no significant benefit over single IUI in the treatment of subfertile couples with partner semen. There are no meaningful data to offer advice on the basis of this review. A randomized controlled trial of single versus double IUI is justified.