SOMA-trial: surgery or medication for women with an endometrioma? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial and cohort study.

STUDY QUESTIONS: The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment of women suffering from pain due to an ovarian endometrioma when compared to treatment with medication (analgesia and/or hormones). The primary outcome is defined as successful pain reduction (-30% reduction of pain) measured by the numeric rating scale (NRS) after 6 months. Secondary outcomes include successful pain reduction after 12 and 18 months, quality of life, affective symptoms, cost-effectiveness, recurrence rate, need of adjuvant medication after surgery, ovarian reserve, adjuvant surgery and budget impact. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Evidence suggests that both medication and surgical treatment of an ovarian endometrioma are effective in reducing pain and improving quality of life. However, there are no randomised studies that compare surgery to treatment with medication. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This study will be performed in a research network of university and teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. A multicentre randomised controlled trial and parallel prospective cohort study in patients with an ovarian endometrioma, with the exclusion of patients with deep endometriosis, will be conducted. After obtaining informed consent, eligible patients will be randomly allocated to either treatment arm (medication or surgery) by using web-based block randomisation stratified per centre. A successful pain reduction is set at a 30% decrease on the NRS at 6 months after randomisation. Based on a power of 80% and an alpha of 5% and using a continuity correction, a sample size of 69 patients in each treatment arm is needed. Accounting for a drop-out rate of 25% (i.e. loss to follow up), we need to include 92 patients in each treatment arm, i.e. 184 in total. Simultaneously, a cohort study will be performed for eligible patients who are not willing to be randomised because of a distinct preference for one of the two treatment arms. We intend to include 100 women in each treatment arm to enable standardization by inverse probability weighting, which means 200 patients in total. The expected inclusion period is 24 months with a follow-up of 18 months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Premenopausal women (age ≥ 18 years) with pain (dysmenorrhoea, pelvic pain or dyspareunia) and an ovarian endometrioma (cyst diameter ≥ 3 cm) who visit the outpatient clinic will make up the study population. Patients with signs of deep endometriosis will be excluded. The primary outcome is successful pain reduction, which is defined as a 30% decrease of pain on the NRS at 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include successful pain reduction after 12 and 18 months, quality of life and affective symptoms, cost-effectiveness (from a healthcare and societal perspective), number of participants needing additional surgery, need of adjuvant medication after surgery, ovarian reserve and recurrence rate of endometriomas. Measurements will be performed at baseline, 6 weeks and 6, 12 and 18 months after randomisation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study is funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development, project number 80-85200-98-91041. The Department of Reproductive Medicine of the Amsterdam UMC location VUmc has received several research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck KGaA and Ferring not related to the submitted work. B.W.J. Mol is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet. V. Mijatovic reports grants from Guerbet, grants from Merck and grants from Ferring outside the submitted work. All authors declare that they have no competing interests concerning this publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register (NTR 7447, http://www.trialregister.nl). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 2 January 2019. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: First inclusion in randomised controlled trial October 4, 2019. First inclusion in cohort May 22, 2019.

Word catheter and marsupialisation in women with a cyst or abscess of the Bartholin gland (WoMan-trial): a randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare recurrence of a cyst or abscess of the Bartholin gland after surgical treatment using a Word catheter or marsupialisation. DESIGN: Multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Eighteen hospitals in the Netherlands and one hospital in England. POPULATION: Women with a symptomatic cyst or abscess of the Bartholin gland. METHODS: Women were randomised to treatment with Word catheter or marsupialisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was recurrence of the cyst or abscess within 1 year of treatment. The secondary outcomes included pain during and after treatment (measured on a 10-point scale), use of analgesics, and time from diagnosis to treatment. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. To assess whether marsupialisation would reduce the recurrence rate by 5% (from 20 to 15%) we needed to include 160 women (alpha error 0.05, beta error 0.2). RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-one women were randomly allocated to treatment by Word catheter (n = 82) or marsupialisation (n = 79) between August 2010 and May 2014. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Recurrence occurred in 10 women (12%) allocated to Word catheter versus eight women (10%) allocated to marsupialisation: relative risk (RR) 1.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64-1.91; P = 0.70. Pain scores after treatment were also comparable. In the first 24 hours after treatment, 33% used analgesics in the Word catheter group versus 74% in the marsupialisation group (P < 0.001). Time from diagnosis to treatment was 1 hour for placement of Word catheter versus 4 hours for marsupialisation (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In women with an abscess or cyst of the Bartholin gland, treatment with Word catheter and marsupialisation results in comparable recurrence rates. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Comparable recurrence rates for treatment of Bartholinic abscess/cyst with Word catheter and marsupialisation.

MisoREST: surgical versus expectant management in women with an incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment for miscarriage: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Is curettage more effective than expectant management in case of an incomplete evacuation after misoprostol treatment for first trimester miscarriage? SUMMARY ANSWER: Curettage leads to a higher chance of complete evacuation but expectant management is successful in at least 76% of women with an incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment for first trimester miscarriage. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In 5-50% of the women treated with misoprostol, there is a suspicion of incomplete evacuation of the uterus on sonography. Although these women generally have minor symptoms, such a finding often leads to additional curettage. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: From June 2012 until July 2014, we conducted a nationwide multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT). Women who had had primary misoprostol treatment for miscarriage with sonographic evidence of incomplete evacuation of the uterus were randomly allocated to either curettage or expectant management (1:1), using a web-based application. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We included 59 women in 27 hospitals; 30 were allocated to curettage and 29 were allocated to expectant management. A successful outcome was defined as sonographic finding of an empty uterus 6 weeks after randomization. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Baseline characteristics of both groups were comparable. Empty uterus on sonography or uneventful clinical follow-up was seen in 29/30 women (97%) allocated to curettage compared with 22/29 women (76%) allocated to expectant management (RR 1.3, 95% CI 1.03-1.6) with complication rates of 10% versus 10%, respectively (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.21-4.4). In the group allocated to curettage, no woman required re-curettage, while two women (6.7%) underwent hysteroscopy (for other or unknown reasons). In the women allocated to expectant management, curettage was performed in four women (13.8%) and three women (10.3%) underwent hysteroscopy. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Due to a strong patient preference, mainly for expectant management, the targeted sample size could not be included and the trial was stopped prematurely. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: In women suspected of incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol, curettage is more effective than expectant management. However, expectant management is equally safe and prevents curettage for most of the women. This finding could further restrain the use of curettage in the treatment of first trimester miscarriage. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development, project number 80-82310-97-12066. There were no conflicts of interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register NTR3310, http://www.trialregister.nl TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 27 February 2012. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 12 June 2012.

[Reduction of patient discomfort, risks and costs, but not pregnancies, by a mild strategy for in-vitro fertilisation]. / Minder risico's, patiëntenongemak en kosten, maar niet minder zwangerschappen in de milde behandelstrategie voor ivf.

OBJECTIVE: To compare a so-called mild in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment strategy with the standard IVF treatment on the following aspects: the chance of a pregnancy resulting in full-term live birth within 1 year, patient discomfort, multiple pregnancies, and costs. DESIGN: Randomised, open-label, prospective trial (www.controlledtrials.com, number ISRCTN35766970). METHOD: 404 patients were assigned to undergo either a mild treatment, consisting of ovarian stimulation with a gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist combined with single embryo transfer, or the standard treatment consisting of prolonged stimulation with a GnRH agonist combined with the transfer of two embryos. The primary outcome measures were: (1) the percentage of cumulative pregnancies within one year after randomisation leading to full-term live birth; (2) total costs per couple and child up to 6 weeks after expected delivery; and (3) overall patient discomfort. Analysis was done according to the intention-to-treat principle and was intended to show that the mild treatment was not inferior to the standard treatment; the non-inferiority threshold was -12.5%. RESULTS: The proportion of cumulative pregnancies resulting in full-term live birth after 1 year was 43.4% in the mild and 44.7% in the standard treatment group. The lower limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval was equal to -9.8%. The respective proportion of couples with multiple pregnancies was 0.5% versus 13.1% (p < 0.0001), and the average total costs were Euro 8,333.- versus Euro 10,745.- (difference: Euro 2,412.-, 95% CI: 703-4,131). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with regard to anxiety, depression, physical discomfort, and sleep quality. CONCLUSION: After 1 year of treatment, the cumulative percentage of pregnancies leading to full-term live birth and the total patient discomfort were the same for the mild treatment (average 2.3 IVF-cycles) and the standard treatment (average 1.7 IVF-cycles). The mild treatment significantly reduced the number of multiple pregnancies and the overall costs.

Cumulative live birth rates following IVF in 41- to 43-year-old women presenting with favourable ovarian reserve characteristics.

For women aged 41-43 years old, success rates in IVF are generally poor. This study aimed to assess cumulative live birth rate related to treatment costs over a maximum of three IVF cycles in selected women who were considered to still have adequate ovarian reserve. Fifty-five patients (38% of the total cohort, n = 144) were excluded from IVF treatment based on low antral follicle count (<5 follicles) and/or elevated basal FSH (>15 IU/l). Of those admitted, 66 (74%) actually started and completed a total of 125 IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Treatment resulted in 10 live births (8% per cycle). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed a realistic cumulative live birth rate after three cycles of 17%. The direct medical costs per live birth were calculated to be approximately 44,000 euro. These results show that selection towards favourable ovarian reserve status in the female age group 41-43 years yielded disappointing results in terms of cumulative live birth rates after IVF. In view of the costs raised per live birth, improvement of selection parameters for treatment in this age group is warranted.

Prevention of multiple pregnancies after IVF in women 38 and older: a randomized study.

The objective of this study was to answer the question of whether a double instead of triple embryo transfer strategy in patients over 38 years would substantially reduce the number of multiple pregnancies while maintaining the chance of a term live birth at an acceptable level. A randomized controlled two-centre trial was performed. Forty-five patients, 38 years or older, were randomized. Double embryo transfer over a maximum of four cycles (DET group) or triple embryo transfer over a maximum of three cycles (TET group) was performed. The cumulative term live birth rate was 47.3% after four cycles in the DET group and 40.5% after three cycles in the TET group. The difference between the DET and the TET group was 6.8% in favour of the DET group (95% CI -25 to 38). The multiple pregnancy rates in the DET and TET group were 0% (95% CI 0 to 24) and 30% (95% CI 7 to 65) respectively (P = 0.05). In the DET patients, the mean number of treatment cycles was 2.9 compared with 2.1 in the TET group (P = 0.01). In women of 38 years and older, double embryo transfer after IVF may result in similar cumulative term live birth rates compared with triple embryo transfer, provided that a higher number of treatment cycles is accepted.

Expected poor responders on the basis of an antral follicle count do not benefit from a higher starting dose of gonadotrophins in IVF treatment: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of doubling the starting dose of gonadotrophins on the ovarian response in IVF patients with a low antral follicle count (AFC). METHODS: Fifty-two patients with an AFC of <5 follicles of 2-5 mm diameter before starting their first IVF cycle participated in this randomized controlled trial. They were randomized by opening a sealed envelope, receiving either 150 IU (group I, n = 26) or 300 IU (group II, n = 26) of rFSH as a starting dose. The main outcome measures of the study were number of oocytes, poor response (<4 oocytes at retrieval or cancellation due to insufficient follicle growth) and ongoing pregnancy (12 weeks of gestation). RESULTS: The groups were comparable regarding patient characteristics and outcome of the IVF treatment. The median number of oocytes collected was 3 for both groups (P = 0.79). The difference in the mean number of oocytes was 0.3 oocytes in favour of group I (P=0.69). Sixty-five per cent of the patients in group I experienced a poor response and 62% in group II. The ongoing pregnancy rate was 8% in group I and 4% in group II (P = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: Expected poor response patients, defined as patients with an AFC <5, are likely not to benefit from a higher starting dose of gonadotrophins in IVF.

Female age in ART: when to stop?

With increasing age the probability of ongoing pregnancy established by the use of assisted reproduction technology (ART) decreases. As a result the question arises whether age limits for the application of ART should be established. From a literature review and ongoing research data it appears that the costs per child born greatly increase after the age of 40 for both intrauterine insemination with mild ovarian stimulation and in vitro fertilisation treatment, while in cases of 44 and over, prognosis is flat zero. The willingness to pay for extra costs will greatly determine whether and at what age strict limits should be applied. Fortunately, predictive factors for success, like the antral follicle count, may enable the identification of women over 40 and under 44 that still have favourable prospects, thereby decreasing the necessary costs per childbirth and allowing couples into ART programs that are often denied based solely on female age.

Use of stimulated serum estradiol measurements for the prediction of hyperresponse to ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilization (IVF).

PURPOSE: In ovarian stimulation an exaggerated ovarian response is often seen and is related to medical complications, such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), and increased patient discomfort. If it were possible to identify hyperresponders at an early stage of the stimulation phase, adaptation of the stimulation protocol would become feasible to minimize potential complications. Therefore, we studied the usefulness of measuring stimulated serum estradiol (E2) levels in predicting ovarian hyperresponse. METHODS: A total of 109 patients undergoing their first IVF treatment cycle using a long protocol with GnRH agonist was prospectively included. The E2 level was evaluated on day 3 and 5 of the stimulation phase. Two outcome measures were defined. The first was ovarian hyperresponse (collection of > or = 15 oocytes at retrieval and/or peak E2 > 10000 pmol/L, or cancellation due to > or = 30 follicles growing and/or peak E2 > 15000 pmol/L, or OHSS developed). The second outcome measure comprised a subgroup representing the more severe hyperresponders. named extreme-response (cancellation or OHSS developed). RESULTS: The data of 108 patients were analyzed. The predictive accuracy of E2 measured on stimulation day 3 towards ovarian hyperresponse was clearly lower than that of E2 measured on stimulation day 5 (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROCAUC) 0.75 and 0.81, respectively). For extreme-response the predictive accuracy of E2 measured on stimulation day 3 or 5 was comparable (ROCAUC 0.81 and 0.82, respectively). For both outcome measures the stimulated E2 tests yielded only acceptable specificity with moderate sensitivity at higher cutoff levels. Prediction of extreme-response seemed slightly more effective due to a lower error rate. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant predictive association between E2 levels measured on stimulation day 3 and 5 and both ovarian hyperresponse and extreme-response in IVF. However, the clinical value of stimulated E2 levels for the prediction of hyperresponse is low because of the modest sensitivity and the high false positive rate. For the prediction of extreme-response the clinical value of stimulated E2 levels is moderate.