Clinical outcomes of uninterrupted embryo culture with or without time-lapse-based embryo selection versus interrupted standard culture (SelecTIMO): a three-armed, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Time-lapse monitoring is increasingly used in fertility laboratories to culture and select embryos for transfer. This method is offered to couples with the promise of improving pregnancy chances, even though there is currently insufficient evidence for superior clinical results. We aimed to evaluate whether a potential improvement by time-lapse monitoring is caused by the time-lapse-based embryo selection method itself or the uninterrupted culture environment that is part of the system. METHODS: In this three-armed, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, couples undergoing in-vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection were recruited from 15 fertility clinics in the Netherlands and randomly assigned using a web-based, computerised randomisation service to one of three groups. Couples and physicians were masked to treatment group, but embryologists and laboratory technicians could not be. The time-lapse early embryo viability assessment (EEVA; TLE) group received embryo selection based on the EEVA time-lapse selection method and uninterrupted culture. The time-lapse routine (TLR) group received routine embryo selection and uninterrupted culture. The control group received routine embryo selection and interrupted culture. The co-primary endpoints were the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate within 12 months in all women and the ongoing pregnancy rate after fresh single embryo transfer in a good prognosis population. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered on the ICTRP Search Portal, NTR5423, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: 1731 couples were randomly assigned between June 15, 2017, and March 31, 2020 (577 to the TLE group, 579 to the TLR group, and 575 to the control group). The 12-month cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate did not differ significantly between the three groups: 50·8% (293 of 577) in the TLE group, 50·9% (295 of 579) in the TLR group, and 49·4% (284 of 575) in the control group (p=0·85). The ongoing pregnancy rates after fresh single embryo transfer in a good prognosis population were 38·2% (125 of 327) in the TLE group, 36·8% (119 of 323) in the TLR group, and 37·8% (123 of 325) in the control group (p=0·90). Ten serious adverse events were reported (five TLE, four TLR, and one in the control group), which were not related to study procedures. INTERPRETATION: Neither time-lapse-based embryo selection using the EEVA test nor uninterrupted culture conditions in a time-lapse incubator improved clinical outcomes compared with routine methods. Widespread application of time-lapse monitoring for fertility treatments with the promise of improved results should be questioned. FUNDING: Health Care Efficiency Research programme from Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development and Merck.

No pain relief by virtual reality during hysterosalpingography (HSG): results from a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Is virtual reality (VR) an effective non-pharmacological tool to reduce procedural pain during hysterosalpingography (HSG)? SUMMARY ANSWER: An HSG with VR does not reduce procedural pain scores compared to an HSG without VR. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: An HSG is often experienced as painful and uncomfortable. VR has been proven successful to reduce acute procedural pain during a variety of medical procedures and interventions. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a two-centre open-label randomized controlled trial between January 2021 and October 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women scheduled for HSG as part of their infertility work-up were screened for participation. After informed consent, women were randomized between HSG with or without VR. Due to the nature of the intervention, the study was not blinded. VR was administered by a head-mounted device displaying nature movies and/or relaxation exercises. The primary endpoint was procedural pain measured using VAS (scale 0.0-10.0 cm). Procedural pain was divided into overall pain score and peak pain score during the procedure. It was measured immediately after HSG. Secondary endpoints included patient satisfaction, VR preferences, and adverse effects of VR. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We included a total of 134 women, 69 to the intervention group (HSG with VR) and 65 to the control group (HSG without VR). The mean VAS for peak pain was 6.80 cm (SD 2.25) in the intervention group versus 6.60 cm (SD 2.40) in the control group (mean difference 0.28 (95% CI -0.57, 1.12), P = 0.52). The mean VAS for overall pain was 5.00 cm (SD 2.10) in the intervention group versus 4.90 cm (SD 2.13) in the control group (mean difference 0.06 (95% CI -0.71, 0.84), P = 0.88). The expectation that VR would be a good distraction from pain during HSG was correlated with both overall and peak pain scores. When correcting for this expectation, we found that women in the intervention group reported significantly higher scores, both in peak (adjusted MD 0.58 (95% CI -0.81, 1.97), P = 0.021) and overall (adjusted MD 0.43 (95% CI -0.84, 1.71), P = 0.013) pain, compared to the control group. There were no differences in the prevalence of symptoms that were considered as adverse effects of VR. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was not blinded. Reasons for declining participation in the study were anxiety or wanting full control during HSG, which might have created selection bias. The distraction score possibly indicates that the level of VR immersiveness was not optimal due to the lack of sound and/or the type of VR applications. Future studies should investigate whether more immersive or interactive VR applications could decrease procedural pain scores during HSG. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since VR does not reduce procedural pain, this additional tool should not be used during HSG. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): There was no external funding for this study. KR and AvH report receiving a travel grant from Merck outside the scope of this study. BM is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) investigator grant (GNT1176437) and BM reports consultancy for Merck, Organon, and Norgine and travel and research funding from Merck. BM holds stock for ObsEva. CL reports receiving research grants from Merck, and Ferring. KD and VM report receiving travel and speaker's fees from Guerbet and research grants from Guerbet. VM also reports research grants from Merck and Ferring. The remaining authors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The trial is registered prospectively in the Netherlands Trial Register (trialregister.nl registration number NL9203, currently accessible on trialsearch.who.int). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 16-01-2021. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: The first participant was enrolled on 19 January 2021.

A short versus a long time interval between semen collection and intrauterine insemination: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does a short interval (i.e. ≤90 min), compared to a long interval (i.e. ≥180 min), between semen collection and intrauterine insemination (IUI) increase the cumulative chance of an ongoing pregnancy after six IUI cycles? SUMMARY ANSWER: A long interval between semen collection and IUI resulted in a borderline significant improvement in cumulative ongoing pregnancies and a statistically significant shorter time to pregnancy. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Retrospective studies assessing the effect of the time interval between semen collection and IUI on pregnancy outcomes have shown inconclusive results. Some studies have indicated a beneficial effect of a short interval between semen collection and IUI on IUI outcomes, while others have not found any differences. To date, no prospective trials have been published on this subject. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The study was performed as a non-blinded, single-center RCT with 297 couples undergoing IUI treatment in a natural or stimulated cycle. The study was conducted between February 2012 and December 2018. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and an indication for IUI were randomly assigned for up to six IUI cycles into either the control group (long interval, i.e. 180 min or more between semen collection and insemination) or the study group (short interval, i.e. insemination as soon as possible after semen processing and within 90 min of semen collection). The study was carried out in an academic hospital-based IVF center in the Netherlands. The primary endpoint of the study was ongoing pregnancy rate per couple, defined as a viable intrauterine pregnancy at 10 weeks after insemination. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In the short interval group, 142 couples were analyzed versus 138 couples in the long interval group. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the long interval group (71/138; 51.4%) compared to that in the short interval group (56/142; 39.4%; relative risks 0.77; 95% CI 0.59-0.99; P = 0.044). The time to pregnancy was significantly shorter in the long interval group (log-rank test, P = 0.012). A Cox regression analysis showed similar results (adjusted hazard ratio 1.528, 95% CI 1.074-2.174, P = 0.019). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Limitations of our study are the non-blinded design, the long inclusion and follow-up period of nearly seven years and the large number of protocol violations, especially because they predominantly occurred in the short interval group. The non-significant results in the per-protocol (PP) analyses and the weaknesses of the study should be taken into account in the assessment of the borderline significance of the results in the ITT analyses. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Because it is not necessary to perform the IUI immediately after semen processing, there can be more time available to choose the optimum work-flow and clinic occupancy. Clinics and laboratories should find their optimal timing of insemination, considering the time between human chorionic gonadotropin injection and insemination in relation to the sperm preparation techniques used as well as the storage time and conditions until insemination. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): There were no external funding and no competing interests to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch trial registry, trial registration number NTR3144. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 14 November 2011. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLLMENT: 5 February 2012.

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).

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).

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 ).

Male microchimerism in females: a quantitative study of twin pedigrees to investigate mechanisms.

STUDY QUESTION: Does having a male co-twin, older brothers, or sons lead to an increased probability of persistent male microchimerism in female members of twin pedigrees? SUMMARY ANSWER: The presence of a male co-twin did not increase risk of male microchimerism and the prevalence of male microchimerism was not explained by having male offspring or by having an older brother. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Microchimerism describes the presence of cells within an organism that originate from another zygote and is commonly described as resulting from pregnancy in placental mammals. It is associated with diseases with a female predilection including autoimmune diseases and pregnancy-related complications. However, microchimerism also occurs in nulliparous women; signifying gaps in the understanding of risk factors contributing to persistent microchimerism and the origin of the minor cell population. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This cross-sectional study composed of 446 adult female participants of the Netherlands Twin Register (NTR). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants included in the study were female monozygotic (MZ) twins, female dizygotic same-sex twins and females of dizygotic opposite-sex twin pairs, along with the mothers and sisters of these twins. Peripheral blood samples collected from adult female participants underwent DNA extraction and were biobanked prior to the study. To detect the presence of male-origin microchimerism, DNA samples were tested for the relative quantity of male specific Y chromosome gene DYS14 compared to a common ß-globin gene using a highly sensitive quantitative PCR assay. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We observed a large number of women (26.9%) having detectable male microchimerism in their peripheral blood samples. The presence of a male co-twin did not increase risk of male microchimerism (odds ratio (OR) = 1.23: SE 0.40, P = 0.61) and the prevalence of male microchimerism was not explained by having male offspring (OR 0.90: SE 0.19, P = 0.63) or by having an older brother (OR = 1.46: SE 0.32, P = 0.09). The resemblance (correlation) for the presence of microchimerism was similar (P = 0.66) in MZ pairs (0.27; SE 0.37) and in first-degree relatives (0.091; SE 0.092). However, age had a positive relationship with the presence of male microchimerism (P = 0.02). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: After stratifying for variables of interest, some participant groups resulted in a low numbers of subjects. We investigated microchimerism in peripheral blood due to the proposed mechanism of cell acquisition via transplacental blood exchange; however, this does not represent global chimerism in the individual and microchimerism may localize to numerous other tissues. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Immune regulation during pregnancy is known to mitigate allosensitization and support tolerance to non-inherited antigens found on donor cells. While unable to identify a specific source that promotes microchimerism prevalence within pedigrees, this study points to the underlying complexities of natural microchimerism in the general population. These findings support previous studies which have identified the presence of male microchimerism among women with no history of pregnancy, suggesting alternative sources of microchimerism. The association of detectable male microchimerism with age is suggestive of additional factors including time, molecular characteristics and environment playing a critical role in the prevalence of persistent microchimerism. The present study necessitates investigation into the molecular underpinnings of natural chimerism to provide insight into women's health, transplant medicine and immunology. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work is funded by Royal Netherlands Academy of Science Professor Award (PAH/6635 to D.I.B.); The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw)-Genotype/phenotype database for behavior genetic and genetic epidemiological studies (ZonMw 911-09-032); Biobanking and Biomolecular Research Infrastructure (BBMRI-NL, 184.021.007; 184.033.111); The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO)-Netherlands Twin Registry Repository (NWO-Groot 480-15-001/674); the National Institutes of Health-The Rutgers University Cell and DNA Repository cooperative agreement (NIMH U24 MH068457-06), Grand Opportunity grants Integration of genomics and transcriptomics in normal twins and major depression (NIMH 1RC2 MH089951-01), and Developmental trajectories of psychopathology (NIMH 1RC2 MH089995); and European Research Council-Genetics of Mental Illness (ERC 230374). C.B.L. declares a competing interest as editor-in-chief of Human Reproduction and his department receives unrestricted research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. All remaining authors have no conflict-of-interest to declare in regards to this work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Treatment-related fertility impairment in long-term female childhood, adolescent and young adult cancer survivors: investigating dose-effect relationships in a European case-control study (PanCareLIFE).

STUDY QUESTION: Which chemotherapeutic agents and body site-specific radiation fields are dose-dependently associated with an increased risk of fertility impairment in long-term female childhood, adolescent and young adulthood (CAYA) cancer survivors? SUMMARY ANSWER: Busulfan, lower abdominal radiotherapy (RT) and total body irradiation (TBI) seem to be associated with fertility impairment at any dose, whereas gonadotoxicity of melphalan and procarbazine is suggested at medium/high (>140 mg/m2) or high dose (>5600 mg/m2) therapy, respectively. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Several treatment-related fertility deficits, as assessed by both self-reported outcomes and hormonal markers are known to occur following treatment of CAYA cancer. However, knowledge regarding precise dose-related estimates of these treatment-related risks are scarce. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The current case-control study was nested within the PanCareLIFE cohort study. In total, 1332 CAYA survivors from 8 countries, 9 institutions and 11 cohorts, participated in and contributed data to the study. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: All participants were female 5-year CAYA cancer survivors. In total, 450 cases (fertility impaired survivors) and 882 matched controls (not fertility impaired survivors) were included. Fertility impairment was defined using both questionnaire data (primary or secondary amenorrhea; use of artificial reproductive techniques; unfulfilled wish to conceive) and hormonal data (FSH and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH)). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to investigate the effect of (i) alkylating agent exposure, and (ii) dose categories for individual chemotherapeutic agents and for RT-exposed body sites. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A positive dose-effect relationship between cyclophosphamide equivalent dose (CED) score and fertility impairment was found, with survivors with a CED score > 7121 mg/m2 being at a significantly increased risk of fertility impairment (odds ratio (95% CI) = 2.6 (1.9-3.6) P < 0.001). Moreover, cumulative dose variables of the following treatments were significantly associated with fertility impairment: busulfan, carmustine, cyclophosphamide, melphalan, procarbazine, lower abdominal RT and TBI. Busulfan, lower abdominal RT and TBI seem to be associated with fertility impairment at any dose, whereas gonadotoxicity of melphalan and procarbazine is suggested at medium/high (>140 mg/m2) or high dose (>5600 mg/m2) therapy, respectively. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our study may have been subject to selection bias since data from about half of the original base cohorts were available for the current study. This could impact the generalizability of our study results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We identified survivors at high risk for fertility impairment and, consequently, for a reduced or even absent reproductive life span. Both girls and young women who are about to start anti-cancer treatment, as well as adult female survivors, should be counselled about future parenthood and referred to a reproductive specialist for fertility preservation, if desired. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study has received funding from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no. 602030. There are no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: n/a.

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.

Effect of single- versus double-layer uterine closure during caesarean section on postmenstrual spotting (2Close): multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether double-layer uterine closure after a first caesarean section (CS) is superior compared with single-layer uterine closure in terms of postmenstrual spotting and niche development in the uterine caesarean scar. DESIGN: Multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial. SETTING: Thirty-two hospitals in the Netherlands. POPULATION: A total of 2292 women aged ≥18 years undergoing a first CS were randomly assigned to each procedure (1:1): 1144 women were assigned to single-layer uterine closure and 1148 women were assigned to double-layer uterine closure. METHODS: Single-layer unlocked closure and double-layer unlocked closure, with the second layer imbricating the first. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of days with postmenstrual spotting during one menstrual cycle 9 months after CS. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: perioperative and menstrual characteristics; transvaginal ultrasound measurements. RESULTS: A total of 774 (67.7%) women from the single-layer group and 770 (67.1%) women from the double-layer group were evaluable for the primary outcome, as a result of drop-out and amenorrhoea. The mean number of postmenstrual spotting days was 1.33 (bootstrapped 95% CI 1.12-1.54) after single-layer closure and 1.26 (bootstrapped 95% CI 1.07-1.45) after double-layer closure (adjusted mean difference -0.07, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.22, P = 0.810). The operative time was 3.9 minutes longer (95% CI 3.0-4.9 minutes, P < 0.001) and niche prevalence was 4.7% higher (95% CI 0.7-8.7%, P = 0.022) after double-layer closure. CONCLUSIONS: The superiority of double-layer closure compared with single-layer closure in terms of postmenstrual spotting after a first CS was not shown. Long-term obstetric follow-up of our trial is needed to assess whether uterine caesarean closure guidelines should be adapted. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Double-layer uterine closure is not superior for postmenstrual spotting after a first caesarean; single-layer closure performs slightly better on other outcomes.

The stepwise development of an interactive web-based sex education programme for subfertile couples: the Pleasure & Pregnancy programme.

STUDY QUESTION: Can we develop a web-based sex education programme (programme running in a web browser) that addresses the needs of subfertile couples who are advised expectant management for at least 6 months? SUMMARY ANSWER: The 'Pleasure & Pregnancy' programme addresses couples' needs, is likely to improve couples' sexual functioning, and is subsequently hypothesised to improve the chance of natural pregnancy. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: According to professional guidelines (e.g. the Netherlands and UK) couples with unexplained subfertility and a good chance of natural pregnancy, should be advised at least 6 months of expectant management. Adherence to expectant management is challenging as couples and gynaecologist prefer a more active approach. Targeting sexuality may be useful as subfertility is a risk factor for decreased sexual functioning. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A novel programme was developed according to the three steps of the Medical Research Councils' (MRC) framework. First, relevant literature was explored. Second, an interdisciplinary expert panel developed a theory (based on a systematic literature review and patient interviews) on how the chance of natural conception can be improved. Third, the expected process and outcomes were modelled. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Two licenced clinical sexologists, two gynaecologists, a clinical embryologist and two midwife-researchers, all from Belgium and the Netherlands, proposed components for the sex education programme. PubMed was searched systematically for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the proposed components in different patient populations. The needs of 12 heterosexual Dutch or Belgian couples who were advised expectant management were explored with in-depth interviews. The content and delivery characteristics of the novel programme were described in detail with the aid of 'Intervention Taxonomy'. To model the outcomes, a protocol for an RCT was designed, registered and submitted for publication. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: To help maintain or improve sexual functioning, mainly pleasure, and hence increase pregnancy rates, the web-based Pleasure & Pregnancy programme contains a combination of psychosexual education and couple communication, mindfulness and sensate focus exercises. Information on the biology of conception and interaction with fertility clinic staff and peers were added based on couples' needs to increase potential acceptability. LIMITATIONS AND REASON FOR CAUTION: This paper outlines the development phase of a sex education programme according to the MRC-framework. Whether the Pleasure & Pregnancy programme actually is acceptable, improves sexual functioning, increases pregnancy rates and is cost-effective remains to be determined. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: No previous interactive web-based sex education programme has aimed to increase the natural pregnancy rate of subfertile couples by targeting their sexual pleasure. The Pleasure & Pregnancy programme addresses couples' needs and its effect on sexual functioning and pregnancy rate is plausible but remains to be demonstrated by an RCT which is currently ongoing. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Funding was provided by The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw), Flanders Research Foundation and the University of Amsterdam. C.B.L. is editor-in-chief of Human Reproductionbut was blinded to all parts of the peer review process. The remaining authors have no conflict of interest to report. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Home- or hospital-based monitoring to time frozen embryo transfer in the natural cycle? Patient-reported outcomes and experiences from the Antarctica-2 randomised controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported experiences (PREs) in home-based monitoring compared to those in hospital-based monitoring of ovulation for scheduling frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Women undergoing either home-based or hospital-based monitoring experience an increase in anxiety/sadness symptoms over time, but women undergoing home-based monitoring felt more empowered during the treatment and classified the monitoring as more discreet compared to hospital-based monitoring. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: FET is at the heart of modern IVF. The two types of FET cycles that are mainly are used are artificial cycle FET, using artificial preparation of the endometrium with exogenous progesterone and oestrogen, and natural cycle FET (NC-FET). During a natural cycle FET, women visit the hospital repeatedly and receive an ovulation trigger to time FET (i.e. modified NC-FET or hospital-based monitoring). The previously published Antarctica randomised controlled trial (NTR 1586) showed that modified NC-FET is more cost-effective compared to artificial cycle FET. From the women's point of view a more natural approach using home-based monitoring of ovulation with LH urine tests to time FET may be desired (true NC-FET or home-based monitoring). Currently, the multicentre Antarctica-2 randomised controlled trial (RCT) is comparing the cost-effectiveness of home-based monitoring of ovulation with that of hospital-based monitoring of ovulation. The Antarctica-2 RCT enables us to study PROs, defined as the view of participating women of their healthcare status, and PREs, defined as the perception of the received care of participating women, in both FET strategies. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: PROs and PREs were assessed alongside the Antarctica-2 RCT. PROs were assessed using the validated EuroQol-5D-5L questionnaire. Currently, there are no guidelines for assessing PREs in this population. Therefore, members of the Dutch Patient Organisation for Couples with Fertility Problems (FREYA) filled out an online survey and selected the following PREs to assess (i) anxiety about missing ovulation, (ii) perceived level of partner participation, (iii) level of discretion, (iv) feeling of empowerment and (v) satisfaction with treatment. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women participating in the RCT also participated in PRO and PRE assessment. We assessed PROs and PREs at three time points: (i) before randomisation, (ii) at the time of the FET and (iii) at the time of the pregnancy test. A sample size of 200 participants was needed to find a difference of 0.3 with a standard deviation in both groups of 0.7, an alpha of 5%, power of 80% and a drop-out rate of 10%. We performed mixed model analysis for between-group comparison of treatment and time effects. MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 260 women were randomised. Of these, 132 women were treated with home-based monitoring and 128 women were treated with hospital-based monitoring. Data before randomisation were available for 232 women (home-based monitoring n = 116, hospital-based monitoring n = 116). For the PROs, we found a significant increase in anxiety/sadness symptoms over time (P < 0.001) in both groups. We found no treatment effect of home-based versus hospital-based monitoring for the PROs (P = 0.8). Concerning the PRES, we found that women felt more empowered during home-based monitoring (P = 0.001) and classified the home-based monitoring as more discreet (P = 0.000) compared to the hospital-based monitoring. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The results are applicable only to women undergoing NC-FET and not to women undergoing artificial cycle FET. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Apart from clinical outcomes, PROs and PREs are also of importance in clinical decision-making and to support tailoring treatment even more specifically to the wishes of patients. Measurement of PROs and PREs should therefore be incorporated in future clinical research. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The Antarctica-2 RCT is supported by a grant of the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw 843002807). J.B. receives unconditional educational grants from Merck Serono and Ferring and is a member of the medical advisory board of Ferring. C.L. reports that his department receives unrestricted research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. E.G. receives personal fees from Titus Health Care outside submitted work. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Trial NL6414 (NTR6590). TRIAL REGISTER DATE: 23 July 2017. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 10 April 2018.

Thyroid function in neonates conceived after hysterosalpingography with iodinated contrast.

STUDY QUESTION: Does exposure to preconceptional hysterosalpingography (HSG) with iodinated oil-based contrast affect neonatal thyroid function as compared to iodinated water-based contrast? SUMMARY ANSWER: Preconceptional HSG with iodinated contrast did not influence the neonatal thyroid function. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: HSG is a commonly applied tubal patency test during fertility work-up in which either oil- or water-based contrast is used. Oil-based contrast contains more iodine compared to water-based contrast. A previous study in an East Asian population found an increased risk of congenital hypothyroidism (CH) in neonates whose mothers were exposed to high amounts of oil-based contrast during HSG. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a retrospective data analysis of the H2Oil study, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing HSG with the use of oil- versus water-based contrast during fertility work-up. After an HSG with oil-based contrast, 214 women had an ongoing pregnancy within 6 months leading to a live birth compared to 155 women after HSG with water-based contrast. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Of the 369 women who had a live born infant, 208 consented to be approached for future research and 138 provided informed consent to collect data on the thyroid function tests of their offspring (n = 140). Thyroid function tests of these children were retrieved from the Dutch neonatal screening program, which includes the assessment of total thyroxine (T4) in all newborns, followed by thyroid-stimulating hormone only in those with a T4 level of ≤ -0.8 SD score. Furthermore, amount of contrast medium used and time between HSG and conception were compared between the two study groups. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Data were collected from 140 neonates conceived after HSG with oil-based (n = 76) or water-based (n = 64) contrast. The median T4 concentration was 87.0 nmol/l [76.0-96.0] in the oil group and 90.0 nmol/l [78.0-106.0] in the water group (P = 0.13). None of the neonates had a positive screening result for CH.The median amount of contrast medium used was 9.0 ml [interquartile range (IQR), 6.0-11.8] in the oil-group and 10.0 ml [IQR, 7.5-14.0] in the water group (P = 0.43). No influence of the amount of contrast on the effect of contrast group on T4 concentrations was found (P-value for interaction, 0.37). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: A relatively small sample size and possible attrition at follow-up are limitations of this study. Although our results suggest that the use of iodinated contrast media for HSG is safe for the offspring, the impact of a decrease in maternal thyroid function on offspring neurodevelopment could not be excluded, as data on maternal thyroid function after HSG and during conception were lacking. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: As HSG with oil-based contrast does not affect thyroid function of the offspring, there is no reason to withhold this contrast to infertile women undergoing HSG. Future studies should investigate whether HSG with iodinated contrast influences the periconceptional maternal thyroid function and, consequently, offspring neurodevelopment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study received no funding. The original H2Oil RCT was an investigator-initiated study that was funded by the two academic institutions (Academic Medical Center and VU University Medical Center) of the Amsterdam UMC. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis and intrepretation of the data. I.R. reports receiving travel fee from Guerbet. C.B.L. reports speakers fee from Ferring in the past and research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. K.D. reports receiving travel fee and speakers fee from Guerbet. B.W.M. is supported by a 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. V.M. reports receiving travel fee and speakers fee as well as research grants from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register NTR 7526 (Neonates born after the H2Oil study), NTR 3270 (original H2Oil study), www.trialregister.nl.

Reduced pregnancy and live birth rates after in vitro fertilization in women with previous Caesarean section: a retrospective cohort study.

STUDY QUESTION: Does a previous Caesarean section affect reproductive outcomes, including live birth, in women after IVF or ICSI? SUMMARY ANSWER: A previous Caesarean section impairs live birth rates after IVF or ICSI compared to a previous vaginal delivery. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Rates of Caesarean sections are rising worldwide. Late sequelae of a Caesarean section related to a niche (Caesarean scar defect) include gynaecological symptoms and obstetric complications. A systematic review reported a lower pregnancy rate after a previous Caesarean section (RR 0.91 CI 0.87-0.95) compared to a previous vaginal delivery. So far, studies have been unable to causally differentiate between problems with fertilisation, and the transportation or implantation of an embryo. Studying an IVF population allows us to identify the effect of a previous Caesarean section on the implantation of embryos in relation to a previous vaginal delivery. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We retrospectively studied the live birth rate in women who had an IVF or ICSI treatment at the IVF Centre, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, between 2006 and 2016 with one previous delivery. In total, 1317 women were included, of whom 334 had a previous caesarean section and 983 had previously delivered vaginally. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: All secondary infertile women, with only one previous delivery either by caesarean section or vaginal delivery, were included. If applicable, only the first fresh embryo transfer was included in the analyses. Patients who did not intend to undergo embryo transfer were excluded. The primary outcome was live birth. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used with adjustment for possible confounders ((i) age; (ii) pre-pregnancy BMI; (iii) pre-pregnancy smoking; (iv) previous fertility treatment; (v) indication for current fertility treatment: (a) tubal, (b) male factor and (c) endometriosis; (vi) embryo quality; and (vii) endometrial thickness), if applicable. Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Baseline characteristics of both groups were comparable. Live birth rates were significantly lower in women with a previous caesarean section than in women with a previous vaginal delivery, 15.9% (51/320) versus 23.3% (219/941) (OR 0.63 95% CI 0.45-0.87) in the ITT analyses. The rates were also lower for ongoing pregnancy (20.1 versus 28.1% (OR 0.64 95% CI 0.48-0.87)), clinical pregnancy (25.7 versus 33.8% (OR 0.68 95% CI 0.52-0.90)) and biochemical test (36.2 versus 45.5% (OR 0.68 95% CI 0.53-0.88)). The per protocol analyses showed the same differences (live birth rate OR 0.66 95% CI 0.47-0.93 and clinical pregnancy rate OR 0.72 95% CI 0.54-0.96). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study is limited by its retrospective design. Furthermore, 56 (16.3%) cases lacked data regarding delivery outcomes, but these were equally distributed between the two groups. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The lower clinical pregnancy rates per embryo transfer indicate that implantation is hampered after a caesarean section. Its relation with a possible niche (caesarean scar defect) in the uterine caesarean scar needs further study. Our results should be discussed with clinicians and patients who consider an elective caesarean section. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Not applicable. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study has been registered in the Dutch Trial Register (Ref. No. NL7631 http://www.trialregister.nl).

Gonadotrophins or clomiphene citrate in women with normogonadotropic anovulation and CC failure: does the endometrium matter?

STUDY QUESTION: Is endometrial thickness (EMT) a biomarker to select between women who should switch to gonadotropins and those who could continue clomiphene citrate (CC) after six failed ovulatory cycles? SUMMARY ANSWER: Using a cut-off of 7 mm for EMT, we can distinguish between women who are better off switching to gonadotropins and those who could continue CC after six earlier failed ovulatory CC cycles. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: For women with normogonadotropic anovulation, CC has been a long-standing first-line treatment in conjunction with intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI). We recently showed that a switch to gonadotropins increases the chance of live birth by 11% in these women over continued treatment with CC after six failed ovulatory cycles, at a cost of €15 258 per additional live birth. It is unclear whether EMT can be used to identify women who can continue on CC with similar live birth rates without the extra costs of gonadotropins. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Between 8 December 2008 and 16 December 2015, 666 women with CC failure were randomly assigned to receive an additional six cycles with a change to gonadotropins (n = 331) or an additional six cycles continuing with CC (n = 335), both in conjunction with intercourse or IUI. The primary outcome was conception leading to live birth within 8 months after randomisation. EMT was measured mid-cycle before randomisation during their sixth ovulatory CC cycle. The EMT was available in 380 women, of whom 190 were allocated to gonadotropins and 190 were allocated to CC. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: EMT was determined in the sixth CC cycle prior to randomisation. We tested for interaction of EMT with the treatment effect using logistic regression. We performed a spline analysis to evaluate the association of EMT with chance to pregnancy leading to a live birth in the next cycles and to determine the best cut-off point. On the basis of the resulting cut-off point, we calculated the relative risk and 95% CI of live birth for gonadotropins versus CC at EMT values below and above this cut-off point. Finally, we calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Mid-cycle EMT in the sixth cycle interacted with treatment effect (P < 0.01). Spline analyses showed a cut-off point of 7 mm. There were 162 women (45%) who had an EMT ≤ 7 mm in the sixth ovulatory cycle and 218 women (55%) who had an EMT > 7 mm. Among the women with EMT ≤ 7 mm, gonadotropins resulted in a live birth in 44 of 79 women (56%), while CC resulted in a live birth in 28 of 83 women (34%) (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.13-2.19). Per additional live birth with gonadotropins, the ICER was €9709 (95% CI: €5117 to €25 302). Among the women with EMT > 7 mm, gonadotropins resulted in a live birth in 53 of 111 women (48%) while CC resulted in a live birth in 52 of 107 women (49%) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75-1.29). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This was a post hoc analysis of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and therefore mid-cycle EMT measurements before randomisation during their sixth ovulatory CC cycle were not available for all included women. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: In women with six failed ovulatory cycles on CC and an EMT ≤ 7 mm in the sixth cycle, we advise switching to gonadotropins, since it improves live birth rate over continuing treatment with CC at an extra cost of €9709 to achieve one additional live birth. If the EMT > 7 mm, we advise to continue treatment with CC, since live birth rates are similar to those with gonadotropins, without the extra costs. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The original MOVIN trial received funding from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw number: 80-82310-97-12067). C.B.L.A. reports unrestricted grant support from Merck and Ferring. B.W.M. is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for Merck, ObsEva, IGENOMIX and Guerbet. All other authors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR1449.

Low prevalence of male microchimerism in women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome.

STUDY QUESTION: Is there an increased prevalence of male microchimerism in women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser (MRKH) syndrome, as evidence of fetal exposure to blood and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) from a (vanished) male co-twin resulting in regression of the Müllerian duct derivatives? SUMMARY ANSWER: Predominant absence of male microchimerism in adult women with MRKH syndrome does not support our hypothesis that intrauterine blood exchange with a (vanished) male co-twin is the pathophysiological mechanism. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The etiology of MRKH is unclear. Research on the phenotype analogous condition in cattle (freemartinism) has yielded the hypothesis that Müllerian duct development is inhibited by exposure to AMH in utero. In cattle, the male co-twin has been identified as the source for AMH, which is transferred via placental blood exchange. In human twins, a similar exchange of cellular material has been documented by detection of chimerism, but it is unknown whether this has clinical consequences. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: An observational case-control study was performed to compare the presence of male microchimerism in women with MRKH syndrome and control women. Through recruitment via the Dutch patients' association of women with MRKH (comprising 300 members who were informed by email or regular mail), we enrolled 96 patients between January 2017 and July 2017. The control group consisted of 100 women who reported never having been pregnant. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: After written informed consent, peripheral blood samples were obtained by venipuncture, and genomic DNA was extracted. Male microchimerism was detected by Y-chromosome-specific real-time quantitative PCR, with use of DYS14 marker. Possible other sources for microchimerism, for example older brothers, were evaluated using questionnaire data. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The final analysis included 194 women: 95 women with MRKH syndrome with a mean age of 40.9 years and 99 control women with a mean age of 30.2 years. In total, 54 women (56.8%) were identified as having typical MRKH syndrome, and 41 women (43.2%) were identified as having atypical MRKH syndrome (when extra-genital malformations were present). The prevalence of male microchimerism was significantly higher in the control group than in the MRKH group (17.2% versus 5.3%, P = 0.009). After correcting for age, women in the control group were 5.8 times more likely to have male microchimerism (odds ratio 5.84 (CI 1.59-21.47), P = 0.008). The mean concentration of male microchimerism in the positive samples was 56.0 male genome equivalent per 1 000 000 cells. The prevalence of male microchimerism was similar in women with typical MRKH syndrome and atypical MRKH syndrome (5.6% versus 4.9%, P = 0.884). There were no differences between women with or without microchimerism in occurrence of alternative sources of XY cells, such as older brothers, previous blood transfusion, or history of sexual intercourse. LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION: We are not able to draw definitive conclusions regarding the occurrence of AMH exchange during embryologic development in women with MRKH syndrome. Our subject population includes all adult women and therefore is reliant on long-term prevalence of microchimerism. Moreover, we have only tested blood, and, theoretically, the cells may have grafted anywhere in the body during development. It must also be considered that the exchange of AMH may occur without the transfusion of XY cells and therefore cannot be discovered by chimerism detection. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first study to test the theory that freemartinism causes the MRKH syndrome in humans. The study aimed to test the presence of male microchimerism in women with MRKH syndrome as a reflection of early fetal exposure to blood and AMH from a male (vanished) co-twin. We found that male microchimerism was only present in 5.3% of the women with MRKH syndrome, a significantly lower percentage than in the control group (17.2%). Our results do not provide evidence for an increased male microchimerism in adult women with MRKH as a product of intrauterine blood exchange. However, the significant difference in favor of the control group is of interest to the ongoing discussion on microchimeric cell transfer and the possible sources of XY cells. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): None. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch trial register, NTR5961.

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.

Gonadotrophins versus clomiphene citrate with or without IUI in women with normogonadotropic anovulation and clomiphene failure: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

STUDY QUESTION: Are six cycles of ovulation induction with gonadotrophins more cost-effective than six cycles of ovulation induction with clomiphene citrate (CC) with or without IUI in normogonadotropic anovulatory women not pregnant after six ovulatory cycles with CC? SUMMARY ANSWER: Both gonadotrophins and IUI are more expensive when compared with CC and intercourse, and gonadotrophins are more effective than CC. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In women with normogonadotropic anovulation who ovulate but do not conceive after six cycles with CC, medication is usually switched to gonadotrophins, with or without IUI. The cost-effectiveness of these changes in policy is unknown. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an economic evaluation of ovulation induction with gonadotrophins compared with CC with or without IUI in a two-by-two factorial multicentre randomized controlled trial in normogonadotropic anovulatory women not pregnant after six ovulatory cycles with CC. Between December 2008 and December 2015 women were allocated to six cycles with gonadotrophins plus IUI, six cycles with gonadotrophins plus intercourse, six cycles with CC plus IUI or six cycles with CC plus intercourse. The primary outcome was conception leading to a live birth achieved within 8 months of randomization. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis on direct medical costs. We calculated the direct medical costs of ovulation induction with gonadotrophins versus CC and of IUI versus intercourse in six subsequent cycles. We included costs of medication, cycle monitoring, interventions, and pregnancy leading to live birth. Resource use was collected from the case report forms and unit costs were derived from various sources. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for gonadotrophins compared to CC and for IUI compared to intercourse. We used non-parametric bootstrap resampling to investigate the effect of uncertainty in our estimates. The analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We allocated 666 women in total to gonadotrophins and IUI (n = 166), gonadotrophins and intercourse (n = 165), CC and IUI (n = 163), or CC and intercourse (n = 172). Mean direct medical costs per woman receiving gonadotrophins or CC were €4495 versus €3006 (cost difference of €1475 (95% CI: €1457-€1493)). Live birth rates were 52% in women allocated to gonadotrophins and 41% in those allocated to CC (relative risk (RR) 1.24:95% CI: 1.05-1.46). The ICER was €15 258 (95% CI: €8721 to €63 654) per additional live birth with gonadotrophins. Mean direct medical costs per woman allocated to IUI or intercourse were €4497 versus €3005 (cost difference of €1510 (95% CI: €1492-€1529)). Live birth rates were 49% in women allocated to IUI and 43% in those allocated to intercourse (RR = 1.14:95% CI: 0.97-1.35). The ICER was €24 361 (95% CI: €-11 290 to €85 172) per additional live birth with IUI. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We allowed participating hospitals to use their local protocols for ovulation induction and IUI, which may have led to variation in costs, but which increases generalizability. Indirect costs generated by transportation or productivity loss were not included. We did not evaluate letrozole, which is potentially more effective than CC. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Gonadotrophins are more effective, but more expensive than CC, therefore, the use of gonadotrophins in women with normogonadotropic anovulation who have not conceived after six ovulatory CC cycles depends on society's willingness to pay for an additional child. In view of the uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness estimate of IUI, these data are not sufficient to make recommendations on the use of IUI in these women. In countries where ovulation induction regimens are reimbursed, policy makers and health care professionals may use our results in their guidelines. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This trial was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw number: 80-82310-97-12067). The Eudract number for this trial is 2008-006171-73. The Sponsor's Protocol Code Number is P08-40. CBLA reports unrestricted grant support from Merck and Ferring. BWM is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for Merck, ObsEva and Guerbet. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR1449.

The vaginal microbiome as a predictor for outcome of in vitro fertilization with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a prospective study.

STUDY QUESTION: Is the presence or absence of certain vaginal bacteria associated with failure or success to become pregnant after an in vitro fertilization (IVF) or IVF with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF-ICSI) treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER: Microbiome profiling with the use of interspace profiling (IS-pro) technique enables stratification of the chance of becoming pregnant prior to the start of an IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Live-birth rates for an IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment vary between 25 and 35% per cycle and it is difficult to predict who will or will not get pregnant after embryo transfer (ET). Recently, it was suggested that the composition of the vaginal microbiota prior to treatment might predict pregnancy outcome. Analysis of the vaginal microbiome prior to treatment might, therefore, offer an opportunity to improve the success rate of IVF or IVF-ICSI. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: In a prospective cohort study, 303 women (age, 20-42 years) undergoing IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment in the Netherlands were included between June 2015 and March 2016. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Study subjects provided a vaginal sample before the start of the IVF or IVF-ICSI procedure. The vaginal microbiota composition was determined using the IS-pro technique. IS-pro is a eubacterial technique based on the detection and categorization of the length of the 16S-23S rRNA gene interspace region. Microbiome profiles were assigned to community state types based on the dominant bacterial species. The predictive accuracy of the microbiome profiles for IVF and IVF-ICSI outcome of fresh ET was evaluated by a combined prediction model based on a small number of bacterial species. From this cohort, a model was built to predict outcome of fertility treatment. This model was externally validated in a cohort of 50 women who were undergoing IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment between March 2018 and May 2018 in the Dutch division of the MVZ VivaNeo Kinderwunschzentrum Düsseldorf, Germany. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In total, the vaginal microbiota of 192 women who underwent a fresh ET could be analysed. Women with a low percentage of Lactobacillus in their vaginal sample were less likely to have a successful embryo implantation. The prediction model identified a subgroup of women (17.7%, n = 34) who had a low chance to become pregnant following fresh ET. This failure was correctly predicted in 32 out of 34 women based on the vaginal microbiota composition, resulting in a predictive accuracy of 94% (sensitivity, 26%; specificity, 97%). Additionally, the degree of dominance of Lactobacillus crispatus was an important factor in predicting pregnancy. Women who had a favourable profile as well as <60% L. crispatus had a high chance of pregnancy: more than half of these women (50 out of 95) became pregnant. In the external validation cohort, none of the women who had a negative prediction (low chance of pregnancy) became pregnant. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Because our study uses a well-defined study population, the results will be limited to the IVF or IVF-ICSI population. Whether these results can be extrapolated to the general population trying to achieve pregnancy without ART cannot be determined from these data. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our results indicate that vaginal microbiome profiling using the IS-pro technique enables stratification of the chance of becoming pregnant prior to the start of an IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment. Knowledge of their vaginal microbiota may enable couples to make a more balanced decision regarding timing and continuation of their IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment cycles. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was financed by NGI Pre-Seed 2014-2016, RedMedTech Discovery Fund 2014-2017, STW Valorisation grant 1 2014-2015, STW Take-off early phase trajectory 2015-2016 and Eurostars VALBIOME grant (reference number: 8884). The employer of W.J.S.S.C. has in collaboration with ARTPred acquired a MIND subsidy to cover part of the costs of this collaboration project. The following grants are received but not used to finance this study: grants from Innovatie Prestatie Contract, MIT Haalbaarheid, other from Dutch R&D tax credit WBSO, RedMedTech Discovery Fund, (J.D.d.J.). Grants from Ferring (J.S.E.L., K.F., C.B.L. and J.M.J.S.S.), Merck Serono (K.F. and C.B.L.), Dutch Heart Foundation (J.S.E.L.), Metagenics Inc. (J.S.E.L.), GoodLife (K.F.), Guerbet (C.B.L.). R.K. is employed by ARTPred B.V. during her PhD at Erasmus Medical Centre (MC). S.A.M. has a 100% University appointment. I.S.P.H.M.S., S.A.M. and A.E.B. are co-owners of IS-Diagnostics Ltd. J.D.d.J. is co-owner of ARTPred B.V., from which he reports personal fees. P.H.M.S. reports non-financial support from ARTPred B.V. P.H.M.S., J.D.d.J. and A.E.B. have obtained patents `Microbial population analysis' (9506109) and `Microbial population analysis' (20170159108), both licenced to ARTPred B.V. J.D.d.J. and A.E.B. report patent applications `Method and kit for predicting the outcome of an assisted reproductive technology procedure' (392EPP0) and patent `Method and kit for altering the outcome of an assisted reproductive technology procedure' by ARTPred. W.J.S.S.C. received personal consultancy and educational fees from Goodlife Fertility B.V. J.S.E.L. reports personal consultancy fees from ARTPred B.V., Titus Health B.V., Danone, Euroscreen and Roche during the conduct of the study. J.S.E.L. and N.G.M.B. are co-applicants on an Erasmus MC patent (New method and kit for prediction success of in vitro fertilization) licenced to ARTPred B.V. F.J.M.B. reports personal fees from Advisory Board Ferring, Advisory Board Merck Serono, Advisory Board Gedeon Richter and personal fees from Educational activities for Ferring, outside the submitted work. K.F. reports personal fees from Ferring (commercial sponsor) and personal fees from GoodLife (commercial sponsor). C.B.L. received speakers' fee from Ferring. J.M.J.S.S. reports personal fees and other from Merck Serono and personal fees from Ferring, unrelated to the submitted paper. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN83157250. Registered 17 August 2018. Retrospectively registered.