Outpatient paracentesis for the management of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: study protocol for the STOP-OHSS randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is the most significant short-term complication of pharmacological ovarian stimulation. Symptoms range from mild abdominal discomfort to rare complications such as renal failure, thromboembolism and respiratory distress syndrome.Currently, clinical practice typically involves monitoring the patient until the condition becomes severe, at which point they are admitted to hospital, where drainage of ascitic fluid (paracentesis) may take place. Preliminary studies have indicated that earlier outpatient paracentesis may reduce the progression of OHSS and prevent hospitalisation in women. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This UK, multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, adaptive (group sequential with one interim analysis), open-label, superiority, confirmatory, group sequential, individually randomised controlled trial, with internal pilot will assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness and safety of outpatient paracentesis versus conservative management (usual care) for moderate or severe OHSS. 224 women from 20 National Health Service and private fertility units will be randomised (1:1) and followed up for up to 13.5 months. The primary outcome is the rate of OHSS related hospital admission of at least 24 hours within 28 days postrandomisation. The primary analysis will be an intention to treat with difference in hospitalisation rates as measure of treatment effect. Secondary outcomes include time to resolution of symptoms, patient satisfaction, adverse events and cost-effectiveness. A qualitative substudy will facilitate the feasibility of recruitment. Participant recruitment commenced in June 2022. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: London-Southeast Research Ethics Committee approved the protocol (reference: 22/LO/0015). Findings will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and abstracts to relevant national and international conferences, as well as being disseminated to trial participants and patient groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN71978064.

Clinical research nurse and midwife as an integral member of the Trial Management Group (TMG): much more than a resource to manage and recruit patients.

BACKGROUND: The clinical research nurse/midwife (CRN/M) makes a unique contribution to research delivery in the National Health Service, resulting from a close therapeutic relationship with research participants. Investment in research infrastructure has led to nurses and midwives undertaking extended roles to deliver clinical research and evidence demonstrates the important contributions they make to the clinical research process, quality of research outcomes and most importantly the safe expert care of research participants. The value of the CRN/M's contribution to the broader research team and acknowledgement of the importance of their input, however, remains unspecified and tacit in nature. AIM: To demonstrate the value a CRN/M has on overall trial design and performance when funded as a co-applicant and member of the Trial Management Group (TMG). METHOD: This briefing paper outlines the development and implementation of the CRN/M role and will describe its impact to promote the benefits of such a role as much more than a resource to recruit and manage participants. RESULTS: Recognising CRN/Ms expertise, knowledge and contribution within this context is a positive step for the research agenda, individual career development and opportunity to introduce innovative ways of working to benefit the research landscape, ultimately contributing to the growth of the body of evidence available to influence patient care. CONCLUSION: When a CRN/M is funded as a co-applicant and member of the TMG, the role has a positive demonstrable impact on overall trial success.

Managing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: A qualitative interview study with women and healthcare professionals.

AIM: To explore the experiences of women who have had ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, and healthcare professionals who care for them. BACKGROUND: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is a side effect of fertility treatment. Little research exists internationally that explores the experiences of women who have had this condition, or the healthcare professionals who manage it. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. METHODS: Eighteen interviews with women who had experienced ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (n = 10) and healthcare professionals (n = 8) in six UK fertility centres. Framework analysis was used. This paper is reported following COREQ guidelines. RESULTS: Women described a range of symptoms and severity, sometimes experiencing worrying physical health problems such as abdominal swelling and shortness of breath. The combination of the symptoms, and their management, on delaying future fertility treatment could cause emotional distress. Healthcare professionals at different centres described variation in practice, which generally involved 'active monitoring' until symptoms became severe, when women would be hospitalised. Women expressed feeling 'left in limbo' while waiting for symptoms to improve or worsen, and described a lack of control during this waiting period. Healthcare professionals felt they provided adequate information about ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and its management. This, however, did not align with women's perceptions that information, including potential delays to their fertility treatment, was missing. There was similar mismatch between women's and healthcare professionals' views of decision-making about fertility treatment following ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, including women's concerns about having to make rushed, unplanned decisions about their fertility treatment when they did not feel adequately informed to do so. CONCLUSION: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and its management can have a significant physical and emotional impact on women, and influence their fertility treatment. Improvements could be made to the information women receive about this condition, its management and its implications for wider fertility treatment. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Nurses have the skills and knowledge to support women through the physical and emotional stresses of fertility treatment. Therefore, they are well placed to provide specialist information and support for OHSS and ensure women are fully informed about all aspects of the condition, including how its management might delay fertility treatment.

Endometrial scratch to increase live birth rates in women undergoing first-time in vitro fertilisation: RCT and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In vitro fertilisation is a widely used reproductive technique that can be undertaken with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The endometrial scratch procedure is an in vitro fertilisation 'add-on' that is sometimes provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle, but there is a lack of evidence to support its use. OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of endometrial scratch compared with treatment as usual in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle (the 'Endometrial Scratch Trial') and (2) to undertake a systematic review to combine the results of the Endometrial Scratch Trial with those of previous trials in which endometrial scratch was provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, open-label, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomised (1 : 1) via a web-based system to receive endometrial scratch or treatment as usual using stratified block randomisation. The systematic review involved searching electronic databases (undertaken in January 2020) and clinicaltrials.gov (undertaken in September 2020) for relevant trials. SETTING: Sixteen UK fertility units. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 18-37 years, inclusive, undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle. The exclusion criteria included severe endometriosis, body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m2 and previous trauma to the endometrium. INTERVENTIONS: Endometrial scratch was undertaken in the mid-luteal phase of the menstrual cycle prior to in vitro fertilisation, and involved inserting a pipelle into the cavity of the uterus and rotating and withdrawing it three or four times. The endometrial scratch group then received usual in vitro fertilisation treatment. The treatment-as-usual group received usual in vitro fertilisation only. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was live birth after completion of 24 weeks' gestation within 10.5 months of egg collection. Secondary outcomes included implantation, pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, pain and tolerability of the procedure, adverse events and treatment costs. RESULTS: One thousand and forty-eight (30.3%) women were randomised to treatment as usual (n = 525) or endometrial scratch (n = 523) and were followed up between July 2016 and October 2019 and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the endometrial scratch group, 453 (86.6%) women received the endometrial scratch procedure. A total of 494 (94.1%) women in the treatment-as-usual group and 497 (95.0%) women in the endometrial scratch group underwent in vitro fertilisation. The live birth rate was 37.1% (195/525) in the treatment-as-usual group and 38.6% (202/523) in the endometrial scratch group: an unadjusted absolute difference of 1.5% (95% confidence interval -4.4% to 7.4%; p = 0.621). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes. Safety events were comparable across groups. No neonatal deaths were recorded. The cost per successful live birth was £11.90 per woman (95% confidence interval -£134 to £127). The pooled results of this trial and of eight similar trials found no evidence of a significant effect of endometrial scratch in increasing live birth rate (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.22). LIMITATIONS: A sham endometrial scratch procedure was not undertaken, but it is unlikely that doing so would have influenced the results, as objective fertility outcomes were used. A total of 9.2% of women randomised to receive endometrial scratch did not undergo the procedure, which may have slightly diluted the treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to support the theory that performing endometrial scratch in the mid-luteal phase in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle significantly improves live birth rate, although the procedure was well tolerated and safe. We recommend that endometrial scratch is not undertaken in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN23800982. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The endometrial scratch is a simple procedure that involves 'scratching' the lining of the womb (the endometrium). Several small studies have shown that undertaking this before the first in vitro fertilisation cycle may improve live birth rates; however, other studies have contradicted this. This large study was carried out to confirm whether or not having an endometrial scratch before the first in vitro fertilisation cycle would increase the number of women having a live birth compared with those having 'usual' in vitro fertilisation treatment (known as the 'control' group). We collected information about pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, pain during the procedure and costs of treatment to find out if there were any meaningful differences. A total of 1048 women aged between 18 and 37 years were randomly allocated to the two groups, so participants had a 50% chance of having the endometrial scratch. Women were followed up throughout their pregnancy to ascertain the outcome of their in vitro fertilisation cycle. Although the live birth rate was 1.5% higher in the endometrial scratch group (38.6%) than in the control group (37.1%), the difference was not large enough to show any benefit of having the procedure. Other outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, the procedure was safe and tolerable. We found that the cost of treatment was, on average, £316 per participant higher in the group that received endometrial scratch than in the control group; the difference was not large enough to show that receiving endometrial scratch was more cost-effective. We combined the results of this trial with those of previous trials that looked to answer a similar question, and found that, overall, the endometrial scratch procedure does not enhance the chances of achieving a live birth. We conclude that endometrial scratch before first-time in vitro fertilisation does not improve the outcome of treatment, and we recommend that this procedure is not undertaken prior to a first cycle of in vitro fertilisation.

Experiences of trial participants and site staff of participating in and running a large randomised trial within fertility (the endometrial scratch trial): a qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the experiences of endometrial scratch (ES) trial participants and site staff of trial recruitment and participation, in order to improve the experience of participants in future trials. DESIGN: Qualitative study of a subset of participants in the ES randomised controlled trial and a subset of trial site staff. SETTING: A purposeful sample of 9 of the 16 UK Fertility Units that participated in the trial. PARTICIPANTS: A purposeful sample of 27 trial participants and 7 site staff. RESULTS: Participants were largely happy with the recruitment practices, however, some were overwhelmed with the amount of information received. Interviewees had positive preconceptions regarding the possible effect of the ES on the outcome of their in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycle, which often originated from their own internet research and seemed to be exacerbated by how site staff described the intervention. Some participants appeared to not understand that receiving the ES could potentially reduce their chances of a successful IVF outcome. Those randomised to the control arm discussed feeling discontent; site staff developed mechanisms of dealing with this. CONCLUSIONS: A lack of equipoise in both study participants and the recruiting site staff led to trial participants having positive preconceptions of the potential impact of the ES on their upcoming IVF cycle. Trial participants may not have understood the potential harms of participating in a randomised trial. The trial information sheet did not clearly state this; further research should assess how such information should be presented to potential participants, to proportionately present the level of risk, but to not unduly discourage participation. The amount of information fertility patients require about a research study should also be investigated, in order to avoid participants feeling overwhelmed by the amount of information they receive prior to starting IVF. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN23800982.

A randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of the endometrial scratch procedure prior to first-time IVF, with or without ICSI.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the clinical-effectiveness and safety of the endometrial scratch (ES) procedure compared to no ES, prior to usual first time in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER: ES was safe but did not improve pregnancy outcomes when performed in the mid-luteal phase prior to the first IVF cycle, with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: ES is an 'add-on' treatment that is available to women undergoing a first cycle of IVF, with or without ICSI, despite a lack of evidence to support its use. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This pragmatic, superiority, open-label, multi-centre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial involving 1048 women assessed the clinical effectiveness and safety of the ES procedure prior to first time IVF, with or without ICSI, between July 2016 and October 2019. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants aged 18-37 years undergoing their first cycle of IVF, with or without ICSI, were recruited from 16 UK fertility clinics and randomised (1:1) by a web-based system with restricted access rights that concealed allocation. Stratified block randomisation was used to allocate participants to TAU or ES in the mid-luteal phase followed by usual IVF with or without ICSI treatment. The primary outcome was live birth after completing 24 weeks gestation within 10.5 months of egg collection. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In total, 1048 women randomised to TAU (n = 525) and ES (n = 523) were available for intention to treat analysis. In the ES group, 453 (86.6%) received the ES procedure. IVF, with or without ICSI, was received in 494 (94.1%) and 497 (95.0%) of ES and TAU participants respectively. Live birth rate was 37.1% (195/525) in the TAU and 38.6% (202/523) in the ES: an unadjusted absolute difference of 1.5% (95% CI -4.4% to 7.4%, P = 0.621). There were no statistical differences in secondary outcomes. Adverse events were comparable across groups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: A sham ES procedure was not undertaken in the control group, however, we do not believe this would have influenced the results as objective fertility outcomes were used. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the largest trial that is adequately powered to assess the impact of ES on women undergoing their first cycle of IVF. ES was safe, but did not significantly improve pregnancy outcomes when performed in the mid-luteal phase prior to the first IVF or ICSI cycle. We recommend that ES is not undertaken in this population. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Funded by the National Institute of Health Research. Stephen Walters is an National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator (2018 to present) and was a member of the following during the project: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Clinical Trials and Evaluation Committee (2011-2017), NIHR HTA Commissioning Strategy Group (2012 to 2017); NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research Committee (2020 to present); NIHR Pre doctoral Fellowship Committee (2019 to present). Dr. Martins da Silva reports grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; and is Associate editor of Human Reproduction and Editorial Board member of Reproduction and Fertility. Dr. Bhide reports grants from Bart's Charity and grants and non-financial support from Pharmasure Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN number: ISRCTN23800982. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 31 May 2016. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 04 July 2016.

Induced endometrial trauma (endometrial scratch) in the mid-luteal menstrual cycle phase preceding first cycle IVF/ICSI versus usual IVF/ICSI therapy: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Endometrial trauma commonly known as endometrial scratch (ES) has been shown to improve pregnancy rates in women with a history of repeated implantation failure undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF), with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). However, the procedure has not yet been fully explored in women having IVF/ICSI for the first time. This study aims to examine the effect of performing an ES in the mid-luteal phase prior to a first-time IVF/ICSI cycle on the chances of achieving a clinical pregnancy and live birth. If ES can influence this success rate, there would be a significant cost saving to the National Health Service through decreasing the number of IVF/ICSI cycles necessary to achieve a pregnancy, increase the practice of single embryo transfer and consequently have a large impact on risks and costs associated with multiple pregnancies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This 30-month, UK, multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial includes a 9-month internal pilot and health economic analysis recruiting 1044 women from 16 fertility units. It will follow up participants to identify if IVF/ICSI has been successful and live birth has occurred up to 6 weeks post partum. Primary analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis. A substudy of endometrial samples obtained during the ES will assess the role of immune factors in embryo implantation. Main trial recruitment commenced on January 2017 and is ongoing.Participants randomised to the intervention group will receive the ES procedure in the mid-luteal phase of the preceding cycle prior to first-time IVF/ICSI treatment versus usual IVF/ICSI treatment in the control group, with 1:1 randomisation. The primary outcome is live birth rate after completed 24 weeks gestation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: South Central-Berkshire Research Ethics Committee approved the protocol. Findings will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and abstracts to relevant national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN23800982; Pre-results.

Multi-marker assessment of ovarian reserve predicts oocyte yield after ovulation induction.

BACKGROUND: Many hormone and ultrasound measurements have been assessed as possible markers of ovarian reserve and to identify potential poor responders to ovulation induction. The objective of this study is to determine whether multiple biomarkers measured in blood samples collected immediately before commencement of ovulation induction for IVF can predict the outcome of ovarian stimulation. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study, including 356 unselected women undergoing ovulation induction/IVF at two centers. Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), inhibin B and FSH were measured before commencement of ovulation induction. The main outcome measures were the number of oocytes retrieved and pregnancy outcome. RESULTS: Univariate analyses showed that age, FSH, inhibin B and AMH were significant predictors for poor oocyte yield. AMH presented the highest receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (ROC(AUC)) of 0.827 indicating a good discriminating potential for predicting poor ovarian response, followed by FSH with an ROC(AUC) of 0.721. In the multivariate analysis, the variables age, FSH and AMH remained significant and the resulting model provided a high ROC(AUC) of 0.819. Women with an ovarian reserve test of <0.3 have more than a 75% chance of having their treatment cycle canceled, but a value over 0.73 indicates a 38% chance of pregnancy. Number of oocytes and oocyte yield per unit FSH administered were correlated with log model for no pregnancy (r = -0.217, P < 0.001 and r = -0.367, P < 0.001, respectively) but had limited predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: A derived estimate of ovarian reserve demonstrated superior ability for predicting oocyte yield after ovulation induction when compared with any single endocrine marker (AMH, inhibin B, FSH).