Safety of oil-based contrast medium for hysterosalpingography : a systematic review

Acknowledgements We would like to thank Mr B de Vries, Clinical Librarian at the Máxima MC for his assistance in developing the search strategies and his perseverance in retrieving the old manuscripts and Mrs J Dieleman for her statistical assistance. We want to thank our colleagues who helped to translate the non-English articles: Mrs G Bach, Professor JH Barker, Mrs IA Fomichev, Mrs L Jongmans, Dr C Nagata, Dr I Nedelcu, Dr MM Porath, Dr A Romano and Dr R Wang. This work was an investigator-initiated study and partly funded by Guerbet, France. Guerbet is the manufacturer of Lipiodol® Ultra Fluid. The funders had no influence in the study design, data collection, the analyses performed or the interpretation of the study data.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The ESEP study: Salpingostomy versus salpingectomy for tubal ectopic pregnancy; The impact on future fertility: A randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>For most tubal ectopic pregnancies (EP) surgery is the treatment of first choice. Whether surgical treatment should be performed conservatively (salpingostomy) or radically (salpingectomy) in women wishing to preserve their reproductive capacity, is subject to debate. Salpingostomy preserves the tube, but bears the risks of both persistent trophoblast and repeat ipsilateral tubal EP. Salpingectomy, avoids these risks, but leaves only one tube for reproductive capacity. This study aims to reveal the trade-off between both surgical options: whether the potential advantage of salpingostomy, i.e. a better fertility prognosis as compared to salpingectomy, outweighs the potential disadvantages, i.e. persistent trophoblast and an increased risk for a repeat EP.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>International multi centre randomised controlled trial comparing salpingostomy versus salpingectomy in women with a tubal EP without contra lateral tubal pathology. Hemodynamically stable women with a presumptive diagnosis of tubal EP, scheduled for surgery, are eligible for inclusion. Patients pregnant after in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and/or known documented tubal pathology are excluded. At surgery, a tubal EP must be confirmed. Only women with a tubal EP amenable to both interventions and a healthy contra lateral tube are included. Salpingostomy and salpingectomy are performed according to standard procedures of participating hospitals. Up to 36 months after surgery, women will be contacted to assess their fertility status at six months intervals starting form the day of the operation.</p> <p>The primary outcome measure is the occurrence of spontaneous viable intra uterine pregnancy. Secondary outcome measures are persistent trophoblast, repeat EP, all pregnancies including those resulting from IVF and financial costs. The analysis will be performed according to the intention to treat principle. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed within a decision analysis framework, based on costs per live birth, including IVF treatment whenever a spontaneous pregnancy does not occur. Patients' preferences will be assessed using a discrete choice experiment.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This trial will provide evidence on the trade off between salpingostomy and salpingectomy for tubal EP in view of the pros and cons of both interventions and will offer guidance to clinicians in making the right treatment choice.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37002267</p

The INeS study: prevention of multiple pregnancies: a randomised controlled trial comparing IUI COH versus IVF e SET versus MNC IVF in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility

BACKGROUND Multiple pregnancies are high risk pregnancies with higher chances of maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity. In the past decades the number of multiple pregnancies has increased. This trend is partly due to the fact that women start family planning at an increased age, but also due to the increased use of ART. Couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility generally receive intrauterine insemination IUI with controlled hormonal stimulation (IUI COH). The cumulative pregnancy rate is 40%, with a 10% multiple pregnancy rate. This study aims to reveal whether alternative treatments such as IVF elective Single Embryo Transfer (IVF e SET) or Modified Natural Cycle IVF (MNC IVF) can reduce the number of multiple pregnancy rates, but uphold similar pregnancy rates as IUI COH in couples with mild male or unexplained subfertility. Secondly, the aim is to perform a cost effective analyses and assess treatment preference of these couples. METHODS/DESIGN We plan a multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial in the Netherlands comparing six cycles of intra-uterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation or six cycles of Modified Natural Cycle (MNC) IVF or three cycles with IVF-elective Single Embryo Transfer (eSET) plus cryo-cycles within a time frame of 12 months. Couples with unexplained subfertility or mild male subfertility and a poor prognosis for treatment independent pregnancy will be included. Women with anovulatory cycles, severe endometriosis, double sided tubal pathology or serious endocrine illness will be excluded. Our primary outcome is the birth of a healthy singleton. Secondary outcomes are multiple pregnancy, treatment costs, and patient experiences in each treatment arm. The analysis will be performed according tot the intention to treat principle. We will test for non-inferiority of the three arms with respect to live birth. As we accept a 12.5% loss in pregnancy rate in one of the two IVF arms to prevent multiple pregnancies, we need 200 couples per arm (600 couples in total). DISCUSSION Determining the safest and most cost-effective treatment will ensure optimal chances of pregnancy for subfertile couples with substantially diminished perinatal and maternal complications. Should patients find the most cost-effective treatment acceptable or even preferable, this could imply the need for a world wide shift in the primary treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 52843371Alexandra J Bensdorp, Els Slappendel, Carolien Koks, Jur Oosterhuis, Annemieke Hoek, Peter Hompes, Frank Broekmans, Harold Verhoeve, Jan Peter de Bruin, Janne Meije van Weert, Maaike Traas, Jacques Maas, Nicole Beckers, Sjoerd Repping, Ben W Mol, Fulco van der Veen and Madelon van Wel

Cumulative live birth rates in low-prognosis women

No external funds were obtained for the present study. The OPTIMIST study was funded by The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMW number 171102020).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The OPTIMIST study: optimisation of cost effectiveness through individualised FSH stimulation dosages for IVF treatment. A randomised controlled trial

Contains fulltext : 109739.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Costs of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) are high, which is partly due to the use of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH). FSH is usually administered in a standard dose. However, due to differences in ovarian reserve between women, ovarian response also differs with potential negative consequences on pregnancy rates. A Markov decision-analytic model showed that FSH dose individualisation according to ovarian reserve is likely to be cost-effective in women who are eligible for IVF. However, this has never been confirmed in a large randomised controlled trial (RCT). The aim of the present study is to assess whether an individualised FSH dose regime based on an ovarian reserve test (ORT) is more cost-effective than a standard dose regime. METHODS/DESIGN: Multicentre RCT in subfertile women indicated for a first IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle, who are aged < 44 years, have a regular menstrual cycle and no major abnormalities at transvaginal sonography. Women with polycystic ovary syndrome, endocrine or metabolic abnormalities and women undergoing IVF with oocyte donation, will not be included. Ovarian reserve will be assessed by measuring the antral follicle count. Women with a predicted poor response or hyperresponse will be randomised for a standard versus an individualised FSH regime (150 IU/day, 225-450 IU/day and 100 IU/day, respectively). Participants will undergo a maximum of three stimulation cycles during maximally 18 months. The primary study outcome is the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate resulting in live birth achieved within 18 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are parameters for ovarian response, multiple pregnancies, number of cycles needed per live birth, total IU of FSH per stimulation cycle, and costs. All data will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed to assess whether the health and associated economic benefits of individualised treatment of subfertile women outweigh the additional costs of an ORT. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will be integrated into a decision model that compares cost-effectiveness of the three dose-adjustment strategies to a standard dose strategy. The study outcomes will provide scientific foundation for national and international guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR2657

Gonadotrophins versus clomifene citrate with or without intrauterine insemination in women with normogonadotropic anovulation and clomifene failure (M-OVIN):A randomised, two-by-two factorial trial

Background: In many countries, clomifene citrate is the treatment of first choice in women with normogonadotropic anovulation (ie, absent or irregular ovulation). If these women ovulate but do not conceive after several cycles with clomifene citrate, medication is usually switched to gonadotrophins, with or without intrauterine insemination. We aimed to assess whether switching to gonadotrophins is more effective than continuing clomifene citrate, and whether intrauterine insemination is more effective than intercourse. Methods: In this two-by-two factorial multicentre randomised clinical trial, we recruited women aged 18 years and older with normogonadotropic anovulation not pregnant after six ovulatory cycles of clomifene citrate (maximum of 150 mg daily for 5 days) from 48 Dutch hospitals. Women were randomly assigned using a central password-protected internet-based randomisation programme to receive six cycles with gonadotrophins plus intrauterine insemination, six cycles with gonadotrophins plus intercourse, six cycles with clomifene citrate plus intrauterine insemination, or six cycles with clomifene citrate plus intercourse. Clomifene citrate dosages varied from 50 to 150 mg daily orally and gonadotrophin starting dose was 50 or 75 IU daily subcutaneously. The primary outcome was conception leading to livebirth within 8 months after randomisation defined as any baby born alive after a gestational age beyond 24 weeks. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. We made two comparisons, one in which gonadotrophins were compared with clomifene citrate and one in which intrauterine insemination was compared with intercourse. This completed study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR1449. Findings: Between Dec 8, 2008, and Dec 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 666 women to gonadotrophins and intrauterine insemination (n=166), gonadotrophins and intercourse (n=165), clomifene citrate and intrauterine insemination (n=163), or clomifene citrate and intercourse (n=172). Women allocated to gonadotrophins had more livebirths than those allocated to clomifene citrate (167 [52%] of 327 women vs 138 [41%] of 334 women, relative risk [RR] 1·24 [95% CI 1·05–1·46]; p=0·0124). Addition of intrauterine insemination did not increase livebirths compared with intercourse (161 [49%] vs 144 [43%], RR 1·14 [95% CI 0·97–1·35]; p=0·1152). Multiple pregnancy rates for the two comparisons were low and not different. There were three adverse events: one child with congenital abnormalities and one stillbirth in two women treated with clomifene citrate, and one immature delivery due to cervical insufficiency in a woman treated with gonadotrophins. Interpretation: In women with normogonadotropic anovulation and clomifene citrate failure, a switch of treatment to gonadotrophins increased the chance of livebirth over treatment with clomifene citrate; there was no evidence that addition of intrauterine insemination does so. Funding: The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development

ALIFE2 study::low-molecular-weight heparin for women with recurrent miscarriage and inherited thrombophilia - study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background A large number of studies have shown an association between inherited thrombophilia and recurrent miscarriage. It has been hypothesized that anticoagulant therapy might reduce the number of miscarriages and stillbirth in these women. In the absence of randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of anticoagulant therapy in women with inherited thrombophilia and recurrent miscarriage, a randomized trial with adequate power that addresses this question is needed. The objective of the ALIFE2 study is therefore to evaluate the efficacy of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in women with inherited thrombophilia and recurrent miscarriage, with live birth as the primary outcome. Methods/Design Randomized study of LMWH plus standard pregnancy surveillance versus standard pregnancy surveillance alone. Study population: pregnant women of less than 7 weeks’ gestation, and confirmed inherited thrombophilia with a history of 2 or more miscarriages or intra-uterine fetal deaths, or both. Setting: multi-center study in centers from the Dutch Consortium of Fertility studies; centers outside the Netherlands are currently preparing to participate. Intervention: LMWH enoxaparin 40 mg subcutaneously once daily started prior to 7 weeks gestational age plus standard pregnancy surveillance or standard pregnancy surveillance alone. Main study parameters/endpoints: the primary efficacy outcome is live birth. Secondary efficacy outcomes include adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as miscarriage, pre-eclampsia, syndrome of hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets (HELLP syndrome), fetal growth restriction, placental abruption, premature delivery and congenital malformations. Safety outcomes include bleeding episodes, thrombocytopenia and skin reactions. Discussion After an initial period of slow recruitment, the recruitment rate for the study has increased. Improved awareness of the study and acknowledgement of the need for evidence are thought to be contributing to the improved recruitment rates. We aim to increase the number of recruiting centers in order to increase enrollment into the ALIFE2 study. The study website can be accessed via www.ALIFE2study.org. Trial registration The ALIFE2 study was registered on 19 March 2012 under registration number NTR336

Immune Suppression during Oncolotyic Virotherapy for High-Grade Glioma; Yes of No?

Oncolytic viruses have been seriously considered for glioma therapy over the last 20 years. The oncolytic activity of several oncolytic strains has been demonstrated against human glioma cell lines and in in vivo xenotransplant models. So far, four of these stains have additionally completed the first phase I/II trials in relapsed glioma patients. Though safety and feasibility have been demonstrated, therapeutic efficacy in these initial trials, when described, was only minor. The role of the immune system in oncolytic virotherapy for glioma remained much less studied until recent years. When investigated, the immune system, adept at controlling viral infections, is often hypothesized to be a strong hurdle to successful oncolytic virotherapy. Several preclinical studies have therefore aimed to improve oncolytic virotherapy efficacy by combining it with immune suppression or evasion strategies. More recently however, a new paradigm has developed in the oncolytic virotherapy field stating that oncolytic virus-mediated tumor cell death can be accompanied by elicitation of potent activation of innate and adaptive anti-tumor immunity that greatly improves the efficacy of certain oncolytic strains. Therefore, it seems the three-way interaction between oncolytic virus, tumor and immune system is critical to the outcome of antitumor therapy. In this review we discuss the studies which have investigated how the immune system and oncolytic viruses interact in models of glioma. The novel insights generated here hold important implications for future research and should be incorporated into the design of novel clinical trials.status: publishe