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.

Endometrial scratching prior to IVF; does it help and for whom? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the effect of endometrial scratching in patients with or without prior failed ART cycles on live birth (LBR) and clinical pregnancy rates (CPR)? SUMMARY ANSWER: It remains unclear if endometrial scratching improves the chance of pregnancy and, if so, for whom. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Endometrial scratching is hypothesized to improve embryo implantation in ART. Multiple studies have been published, but it remains unclear if endometrial scratching actually improves pregnancy rates and, if so, for which patients. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: For this review, a systematic search for published articles on endometrial scratching and ART was performed on 12 February 2018, in Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated endometrial scratching in the cycle prior to the stimulation cycle and reported CPR or LBR were included. RCTs investigating the effect of scratching during the stimulation cycle, or prior to cryo-thaw cycles were excluded. Studies were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The effect of scratching was assessed for three different patient groups: patients with no prior IVF/ICSI treatment (Group 0), patients with one failed full IVF/ICSI cycle, including cryo-thaw cycles (Group 1) and patients with two or more failed full IVF/ICSI cycles (Group 2). A meta-analysis was performed when statistical heterogeneity was low; otherwise, a descriptive analysis was performed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Fourteen RCTs involving 2537 participants were included. Most RCTs contained a high or unclear risk of bias on one or more items. Substantial clinical and statistical heterogeneity was present; therefore meta-analysis for LBR and CPR could only be performed on Group 1. For this group, no differences between scratch and control were found for both LBR (risk ratio (RR) 1.01 [95%CI 0.68-1.51]) and CPR (RR 1.04 [95%CI 0.74-1.45]). For Groups 0 and 2, pooled analysis could not be performed, and for both groups the results of the individual RCTs were negative, neutral and positive. Miscarriage and multiple pregnancy rates were evaluated for the three groups (0, 1 and 2) together. Both outcomes were not significantly different between scratch and control (miscarriage rate RR 0.82 [95%CI 0.57-1.17] and multiple pregnancy rate RR 1.06 [95%CI 0.84-1.35]). Subgroup analysis, excluding trials with a risk of unintentional endometrial injury in the control group, was performed for Group 0 and 2 for LBR and CPR, and for the overall groups for miscarriage rate and multiple pregnancy rate. This reduced the heterogeneity and allowed for pooled analysis in these subgroups. Results of pooled analysis for the subgroups of Group 0 and 2 showed no significant difference for LBR, but CPR was significantly improved after endometrial scratching (Group 0 RR 1.28 [95%CI 1.02-1.62] and Group 2 RR 2.03 [95%CI 1.20-3.43]). Subgroup analysis of the overall groups showed no significant difference for miscarriage and multiple pregnancy rate. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The main limitations were that many RCTs had a high or unclear risk of bias on one or several items, clinical heterogeneity was still present despite categorizing into three populations, and that not all RCTs could be included in the analyses because separate data for our three groups could not be provided. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: It remains unclear if endometrial scratching improves the chance of pregnancy for women undergoing ART and, if so, for whom. This means endometrial scratching should not be offered in daily practice until results from large and well-designed RCTs and an individual patient data analysis become available. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No specific funding was sought for the study. The Department of Reproductive Medicine and Gynaecology funds of the University Medical Center of Utrecht were used to support the authors throughout the study period and preparation of the manuscript. None of the authors has a conflict of interest to declare. REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

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.

Association between levator hiatal dimensions on ultrasound during first pregnancy and mode of delivery.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the association between levator hiatal dimensions, measured using transperineal ultrasound, in women during their first pregnancy and the subsequent mode of delivery, stratified by the indication for intervention. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, 280 nulliparous women with a singleton pregnancy were invited for transperineal ultrasound examination at 12 and 36 weeks' gestation. Their levator hiatal dimensions were measured at rest, on pelvic floor muscle contraction and on Valsalva maneuver. The subsequent mode of delivery was classified into five categories: spontaneous vaginal delivery, instrumental vaginal delivery owing to fetal distress, instrumental vaginal delivery owing to failure to progress, Cesarean section owing to fetal distress and Cesarean section owing to failure to progress. Levator hiatal dimensions according to mode of delivery were compared by analysis of variance and Tukey's post-hoc test. Since multiple comparison tests were performed, the statistical significance level was corrected using the Bonferroni method. RESULTS: Of the 252 women included, those who delivered by Cesarean section because of failure to progress had a significantly smaller levator hiatal transverse diameter on pelvic floor contraction at 12 weeks' gestation than did women who had a spontaneous vaginal delivery (Tukey's post-hoc test, P < 0.001). There was also a trend towards a smaller hiatal area on pelvic floor contraction at 12 weeks' gestation in women who delivered by Cesarean section because of failure to progress compared to women who had a spontaneous vaginal delivery (Tukey's post-hoc test, P = 0.005). In women who had an instrumental vaginal delivery because of failure to progress there was a trend towards a smaller levator hiatal anteroposterior diameter on pelvic floor contraction at 36 weeks' gestation compared with women who had a spontaneous vaginal delivery (Tukey's post-hoc test, P = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: Smaller levator hiatal dimensions on pelvic floor contraction during first pregnancy are associated with a subsequent instrumental vaginal delivery or a Cesarean section owing to failure to progress.