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.

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).

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.

Treatment effect of oil-based contrast is related to experienced pain at HSG: a post-hoc analysis of the randomised H2Oil study.

STUDY QUESTION: Does pain or volume of used contrast medium impact the effectiveness of oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography (HSG)? SUMMARY ANSWER: In women who report moderate to severe pain during HSG, the use of oil-based contrast resulted in more ongoing pregnancies compared to the use of water-based contrast, whereas in women who reported mild or no pain, no difference in ongoing pregnancies was found. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: We recently showed that in infertile women undergoing HSG, the use of oil-based contrast results in more ongoing pregnancies within 6 months as compared to the use of water-based contrast. However, the underlying mechanism of this fertility-enhancing effect remains unclear. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a post-hoc analysis of the H2Oil study, a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the therapeutic effect of oil- and water-based contrast at HSG. Here, we evaluated the impact of pain experienced at HSG and volume of used contrast media during HSG on ongoing pregnancy. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In a subset of 400 participating women, pain during HSG by means of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (range: 0.0-10.0 cm) was reported, while in 512 women, we registered the volume of used contrast (in millilitres). We used logistic regression analyses to assess whether pain and volume of used contrast media modified the effect of oil-based contrast on ongoing pregnancy rates. Data were analysed according to intention-to-treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In 400 women in whom pain scores were reported, the overall median pain score was 5.0 (Interquartile range (IQR) 3.0-6.8) (oil group (n = 199) 4.8 (IQR 3.0-6.4); water group (n = 201) 5.0 (IQR 3.0-6.7); P-value 0.28). There was a significant interaction between pain (VAS ≤5 versus VAS ≥6) and the primary outcome ongoing pregnancy (P-value 0.047). In women experiencing pain (VAS ≥6), HSG with oil-based contrast resulted in better 6-month ongoing pregnancy rates compared to HSG with water-based contrast (49.4% versus 29.6%; RR 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5), while in women with a pain score ≤5, 6-month ongoing pregnancy rates were not significantly different between the use of oil- (28.8%) versus water-based contrast (29.2%) (RR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.66-1.5). In the 512 women in whom we recorded contrast, median volume was 9.0 ml (IQR 5.7-15.0) in the oil group versus 8.0 ml (IQR 5.9-13.0) in the water group, respectively (P-value 0.72). Volume of used contrast was not found to modify the effect of oil-based contrast on ongoing pregnancy (P-value for interaction 0.23). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This was a post-hoc analysis that should be considered as hypothesis generating. The RCT was restricted to infertile ovulatory women, younger than 39 years of age and with a low risk for tubal pathology. Therefore, our results should not be generalised to infertile women who do not share these features. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The underlying mechanism of the fertility-enhancing effect induced by HSG with the use of oil-based contrast remains unclear. However, these findings suggest a possible mechanistic pathway, that is increasing intrauterine pressure occurring prior to dislodging pregnancy hindering debris or mucus plugs from the proximal part of otherwise normal fallopian tubes. This information might help in the search of the underlying fertility-enhancing mechanism found by using oil-based contrast during HSG. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The original H2Oil RCT was an investigator-initiated study that was funded by the two academic institutions (AMC and VUmc) of the Amsterdam UMC. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports consultancy for Guerbet. H.V. reports consultancy fees from Ferring. C.B.L. reports speakers' fees from Ferring and research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. V.M. reports receiving travel and speakers fees as well as research grants from Guerbet. B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet and travel and research grants from Merck KGaA and Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflict of interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The H2Oil study was registered at the Netherlands Trial Registry (NTR 3270). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 1 February 2012. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 3 February 2012.

Endometrial scratching in women with implantation failure after a first IVF/ICSI cycle; does it lead to a higher live birth rate? The SCRaTCH study: a randomized controlled trial (NTR 5342).

BACKGROUND: Success rates of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) are approximately 30%, with the most important limiting factor being embryo implantation. Mechanical endometrial injury, also called 'scratching', has been proposed to positively affect the chance of implantation after embryo transfer, but the currently available evidence is not yet conclusive. The primary aim of this study is to determine the effect of endometrial scratching prior to a second fresh in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) cycle on live birth rates in women with a failed first IVF/ICSI cycle. METHOD: Multicenter randomized controlled trial in Dutch academic and non-academic hospitals. A total of 900 women will be included of whom half will undergo an endometrial scratch in the luteal phase of the cycle prior to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation using an endometrial biopsy catheter. The primary endpoint is the live birth rate after the 2nd fresh IVF/ICSI cycle. Secondary endpoints are costs, cumulative live birth rate (after the full 2nd IVF/ICSI cycle and over 12 months of follow-up); clinical and ongoing pregnancy rate; multiple pregnancy rate; miscarriage rate and endometrial tissue parameters associated with implantation failure. DISCUSSION: Multiple studies have been performed to investigate the effect of endometrial scratching on live birth rates in women undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles. Due to heterogeneity in both the method and population being scratched, it remains unclear which group of women will benefit from the procedure. The SCRaTCH trial proposed here aims to investigate the effect of endometrial scratching prior to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in a large group of women undergoing a second IVF/ICSI cycle. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR 5342 , registered July 31st, 2015. PROTOCOL VERSION: Version 4.10, January 4th, 2017.

Deciding about fertility preservation after specialist counselling.

STUDY QUESTION: How do female patients experience fertility preservation (FP) consultation (FPC) with a specialist in reproductive medicine and subsequent decision-making on FP? SUMMARY ANSWER: Most patients had positive experiences with FPC, but negative experiences were found to be associated with decisional conflict and decision regret. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: When confronted with a need for gonadotoxic treatment, girls and young women will have to make an irreversible decision with regard to FP. Patients may experience decisional conflict and develop regret about their decision during follow-up. Patients' opportunities to ask questions during FPC and their knowledge about FP have been inversely related to decisional conflict. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A questionnaire on experiences with FPC, designed after qualitative research, was retrospectively distributed to 108 patients to whom FP was offered after FPC between July 2008 and July 2013. Aiming to minimize recall bias, we defined a subgroup of patients counselled since 2011 who had not yet tried to conceive after FPC. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Patients were aged ≥16 years and had either cancer or a benign disease that required gonadotoxic therapy. They received FPC in a single university hospital in the Netherlands. Apart from patients' experiences, patients' characteristics, decisional conflict and decision regret were assessed. MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 64 patients (59.3%) responded to the questionnaire. Patients generally had positive experiences with FPC, but indicated room for improvement. Negative experiences were associated with decisional conflict regarding the FP decision (not enough time for counselling: P < 0.0001; not having the opportunity to ask all questions during FPC: P < 0.0001; not feeling supported by the counsellor during decision-making: P = 0.0003; not all applicable options were discussed: P = 0.0001; benefits and disadvantages of FP options were not clearly explained: P = 0.0005). Decisional conflict was correlated to decision regret (P < 0.0001). In the subgroup of patients counselled after 2011 who had not tried to conceive (n = 33), similar results as for the total study population were found for the association of patient experiences with decisional conflict. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Given our retrospective design, we were not informed about the causality of the associations observed. We studied Dutch patients who were counselled in a single centre and were at least 16 years old when filling in the questionnaire. This may limit the generalizability of our data to other settings and populations. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: More attention should be paid to improving FPC care. Interventions aiming at improving patients' comprehension of the topic of FP and their feelings of being supported in decision-making are advisable. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This work was supported by the Radboud Institute for Health and an unconditional grant from Merck Serono. The authors have declared no conflicts of interest with respect to this work.