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 ).

Trends in research on pain relief during oocyte retrieval for IVF/ICSI: a systematic, methodological review.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the methodological validity and usefulness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on pain relief during oocyte retrieval for IVF and ICSI? SUMMARY ANSWER: Key methodological characteristics such as randomization, allocation concealment, primary outcome measure and sample size calculation were inadequately reported in 33-43% of the included RCTs, and a broad heterogeneity is revealed in the studied outcome measures. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A Cochrane review on conscious sedation and analgesia for women undergoing oocyte retrieval concluded that the overall quality of evidence was low or very low, mainly owing to poor reporting. This, and heterogeneity of studied outcome measures, limits generalizability and eligibility of results for meta-analysis. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: For this review, a systematic search for RCTs on pain relief during oocyte retrieval was performed on 20 July 2020 in CENTRAL CRSO, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, Web of Science, Portal Regional da BVS and Open Grey. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: RCTs with pain or patient satisfaction as an outcome were included and analysed on a set of methodological and clinical characteristics, to determine their validity and usefulness. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Screening of 2531 articles led to an inclusion of 51 RCTs. Randomization was described inadequately in 33% of the RCTs. A low-risk method of allocation concealment was reported in 55% of the RCTs. Forty-nine percent of the RCTs reported blinding of participants, 33% of blinding personnel and 43% of blinding the outcome assessor. In 63% of the RCTs, the primary outcome was stated, but a sample size calculation was described in only 57%. Data were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle in 73%. Treatment groups were not treated identically other than the intervention of interest in 10% of the RCTs. The primary outcome was intraoperative pain in 28%, and postoperative pain in 2%. The visual analogue scale (VAS) was the most used pain scale, in 69% of the RCTs in which pain was measured. Overall, nine other scales were used. Patient satisfaction was measured in 49% of the RCTs, for which 12 different methods were used. Occurrence of side-effects and complications were assessed in 77% and 49% of the RCTs: a definition for these was lacking in 13% and 20% of the RCTs, respectively. Pregnancy rate was reported in 55% of the RCTs and, of these, 75% did not adequately define pregnancy. To improve the quality of future research, we provide recommendations for the design of future trials. These include use of the VAS for pain measurement, use of validated questionnaires for measurement of patient satisfaction and the minimal clinically relevant difference to use for sample size calculations. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Consensus has not been reached on some methodological characteristics, for which we formulated recommendations. To prevent further heterogeneity in research on this topic, recommendations were formulated based on expert opinion, or on the most used method thus far. Future research may provide evidence to base new recommendations on. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Use of the recommendations given for design of trials on this topic can increase the generalizability of future research, increasing eligibility for meta-analyses and preventing wastefulness. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No specific funding was obtained for this study. S.B. reports being the editor-in-chief of Human Reproduction Open. For this manuscript, he was not involved with the handling process within Human Reproduction Open, or with the final decision. Furthermore, S.B. reports personal fees from Remuneration from Oxford University Press as editor-in-chief of Human Reproduction Open, personal fees from Editor and contributing author, Reproductive Medicine for the MRCOG, Cambridge University Press. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest in relation to the work presented. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Improving shared decision-making in a clinical obstetric ward by using the three questions intervention, a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) is an important aspect of modern health care. Many studies evaluated different interventions to improve SDM, however, none in an inpatient clinical setting. A tool that has been proven effective in an outpatient department is the three questions intervention. These questions are created for patients to get optimal information from their medical team and to make an informed medical decision. In this study, we evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of this simple intervention on SDM in the obstetric inpatient department of a university hospital in the Netherlands. METHOD: This is a clinical pilot before and after study, using mixed methods with quantitative and qualitative data collection. The three questions were stated on a card; (i.e. 1) What are my options; 2) What are the possible benefits and harms of those options; 3) How likely are each of those benefits and harms to happen to me?). The study period lasted 6 weeks in which all patients admitted to the obstetric ward were asked to participate in the study. In the first 3 weeks patients did not receive the three questions intervention (pre-intervention group). In the final 3 weeks all patients included received the intervention (intervention group). The main quantitative outcome measure was the level of SDM measured using the SDM-Q9 questionnaire at discharge (range 0-100). In addition, interviews with four patients of the intervention group were conducted and qualitatively analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were included in the pre-intervention group, 29 patients in the intervention group. The mean score of the SDM-Q9 in the pre-intervention group was 65.5 (SD 22.83) and in the intervention group 63.2 (SD 20.21), a not statistically significant difference. In the interviews, patients reported the three questions to be very useful. They used the questions mainly as a prompt and encouragement to ask more specific questions. DISCUSSION: No difference in SDM was found between the two groups, possibly because of a small sample size. Yet the intervention appeared to be feasible and simple to use in an inpatient department. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of implementation of these three questions on a larger scale.

Differences in quality of life and emotional status between infertile women and their partners.

STUDY QUESTION: Do the quality of life (QoL) and the risk factors for emotional problems during and after treatment of infertile women differ from their partners? SUMMARY ANSWER: Women have lower levels of fertility-related QoL, and more and differing risk factors for emotional problems during and after treatment than their partners. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY?: The psychological impact of infertility in patients negatively affects their QoL and is also related to increased discontinuation of treatment. Moreover, psychological factors might positively affect pregnancy rates. However, it is still unclear if differences in QoL and emotional status exist between infertile women and their partners. So far, research mainly focused on generic instruments to measure patients' QoL in the area of fertility care. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A cross-sectional study of infertile couples within 32 Dutch fertility clinics. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We included infertile women and their partners (both heterosexual and lesbian couples) under any treatment and at any stage of treatment in one of the 32 participating clinics. Per clinic, 25-75 patients were randomly selected depending on clinic size. In total, 1620 women and their partners were invited separately to complete the FertiQoL and SCREENIVF questionnaires to measure their level of QoL and risk factors for emotional problems during and after treatment, respectively. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 946 women (response rate 58%) and 670 partners (response rate 41%) completed the questionnaire set. As 250 women and 150 partners were already pregnant, questionnaires from 696 women and 520 partners could be analysed. Women scored significantly lower on the FertiQoL total scores [B = -6.31; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -7.63 to 4.98] and three of the FertiQoL subscales (Emotional, Mind-Body and Social) than their partners, indicating lower QoL. Scores on the SCREENIVF questionnaire were significantly higher for women (B = 0.22; 95% CI = 0.06-0.38), indicating that women are more at risk for developing emotional problems (and these factors differed from those of their partners) during and after fertility treatment than their partners. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although the number of participants is high (n = 1216), the relatively low response rate, especially for partners (41%), may have influenced the results through selection bias. An analysis of non-responders could not be performed. The FertiQoL and SCREENIVF questionnaires, which have been validated only in women starting a first IVF cycle, should also be validated for studying partners. In addition, the SCREENIVF questionnaire has been validated in Dutch women only and further research in an international setting is also required. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our study results represent the Dutch infertile population as more than one-third of all Dutch clinics participated in the study. As the FertiQoL questionnaire is an internationally validated questionnaire already, these results can be put in a more broader and international perspective. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was supported by Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), The Netherlands. There are no competing interests.

Predicting dropout in fertility care: a longitudinal study on patient-centredness.

STUDY QUESTION: Are clinic factors, including patients' experiences with patient-centred care, associated with dropout in fertility care? SUMMARY ANSWER: Clinic factors, including patients' experiences with patient-centred care, are not related to dropout. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In fertility care, a significant proportion of patients do not achieve pregnancy because they discontinue treatment prematurely. Many studies have tried to identify factors predicting dropout, showing incompatible results. However, these studies mainly focus on factors at the treatment and patient level, while clinic factors have received little attention. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This prospective, longitudinal study was nested within a large RCT, which aims to improve the level of patient-centredness of Dutch fertility care. Of the 1620 infertile women who were invited to participate, the baseline measurement of the study (T0) included 693 women who completed a questionnaire about their experiences with patient-centred fertility care. The follow-up of the patients was 1 year (T1). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: All included women suffered from infertility and were undergoing treatment in one of the 32 Dutch clinics involved in the trial. Levels of patient-centredness were determined using the Patient-Centredness Questionnaire-Infertility (PCQ-Infertility) at T0. Meanwhile, a professionals' questionnaire was used to gather additional information on characteristics of the clinic (e.g. the number of patients per year or the presence of a fertility nurse). After 1 year, at T1 measurement, patients completed a questionnaire on their current status in fertility care, including their main reason for discontinuation if applicable. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 693 non-pregnant women completed the questionnaire set at T0 and 534 women (77.1%) provided consent for follow-up. At T1 measurement, 434 women (81.3%) completed the questionnaire and 153 of these women (35.2%) continued treatment while 76 women (17.5%) dropped out. Another 175 women (40.3%) had achieved pregnancy and 30 patients (7.9%) were advised to discontinue treatment for medical reasons. Neither levels of patient-centredness nor the additional clinic characteristics differed significantly between dropouts and compliers. However, patients who did not receive assisted reproduction treatment (ART; e.g. underwent intrauterine insemination, IUI) before they dropped out had significantly lower scores on the PCQ-Infertility subscale 'Respect for patients' values' than patients who continued their treatment [odds ratio (OR) 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-0.95]. Patients who received ART and, subsequently, dropped out had higher scores on the PCQ-Infertility subscale 'Patient involvement' than those receiving non-ART (OR 2.39; 95% CI 1.02-5.59). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We were not able to follow-up a significant proportion (ca. 19%) of the 1620 women who were invited for T0 measurement, which might have biased our results. We also excluded patients who were still in the diagnostic work-up stage and this might have influenced our results as it is known that patients dropout at this stage. As the PCQ-Infertility was validated in patients who were already undergoing treatment, we decided to focus on this patient group only. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The results of this study provide a better insight into those factors influencing dropout from the perspective of factors in the clinic itself. Although most clinic factors were not related to dropout, clinic factors might be of use when predicting dropout for specific patient groups, such as patients receiving ART and non-ART. Future research should involve an exploration of more specific predictors of dropout at the patient, treatment and clinic levels. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This work was supported by Merck Serono, the Netherlands. No competing interests declared.

How patient-centred care relates to patients' quality of life and distress: a study in 427 women experiencing infertility.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate to what extent patients' experiences with fertility care are associated with their quality of life (QoL), and levels of anxiety and depression. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional questionnaire study within 29 Dutch fertility clinics, including women with fertility problems. Through multilevel regression analyses, associations between patients' QoL (FertiQoL) and distress [anxiety and depression; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)] and their experiences with fertility care [patient-centredness questionnaire (PCQ)-infertility] were determined. For all multilevel models, R² and intra-cluster correlation coefficients were calculated. RESULTS: This study included 427 non-pregnant patients who filled out the FertiQoL, HADS and PCQ-infertility (response rate 76%). Multilevel regression analysis showed significant associations between the PCQ total scale, the total FertiQoL scale (B = 0.25), and HADS subscales (B = -0.22 and -0.18). Of the variance in patients' experiences, 13% (=R²) could be explained by their perceived QoL, 12% by their level of anxiety and 10% by their level of depression. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-centredness in fertility care and the patients' QoL and anxiety and depression scores are related. Paying attention to these variables could lead to positive care experiences and improved patient-centredness of care. Future research should focus on identifying causal relationships among these variables.