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

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

The long-term costs and effects of tubal flushing with oil-based versus water-based contrast during hysterosalpingography

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all the participating women, the hospitals and their staff, the research nurses and the staff of the Nationwide Consortium for Women's Health Research (NVOG Consortium; www.zorgevaluatienederland.nl ) for logistical support. Thanks also go to the H2Oil study group collaborators: Nan van Geloven, Jos W. R. Twisk, Peter M. van de Ven and Peter G. A. Hompes for their contributions to this study. 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 long-term follow-up study and economic analysis, both investigator-initiated studies, were funded by a research grant from Guerbet, France. The funders had no role in study design or collection, analysis or interpretation of the data. Declaration of interest: C.T.P. has received consultancy fees for external work from Guerbet, France. K.D. reports receiving travel and speakers fee from Guerbet. H.R.V. reports receiving consultancy fees from Ferring. M.G. works at the Department of Reproductive Medicine of the Amsterdam UMC (location AMC and location VUmc). Location VUmc has received several research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring. C.B.L. reports speakers fee from Ferring in the past, and his department receives research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. V.M. reports receiving travel and speakers fees as well as research grants from Guerbet. B.W.J.M. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). B.W.J.M. has received research grants from Merck and Guerbet. The other authors report no financial or commercial conflicts of interest.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Comparing the cumulative live birth rate of cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfers between IVF cycles:a study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled superiority trial (the ToF trial)

Introduction In vitro fertilisation (IVF) has evolved as an intervention of choice to help couples with infertility to conceive. In the last decade, a strategy change in the day of embryo transfer has been developed. Many IVF centres choose nowadays to transfer at later stages of embryo development, for example, transferring embryos at blastocyst stage instead of cleavage stage. However, it still is not known which embryo transfer policy in IVF is more efficient in terms of cumulative live birth rate (cLBR), following a fresh and the subsequent frozen-thawed transfers after one oocyte retrieval. Furthermore, studies reporting on obstetric and neonatal outcomes from both transfer policies are limited. Methods and analysis We have set up a multicentre randomised superiority trial in the Netherlands, named the Three or Fivetrial. We plan to include 1200 women with an indication for IVF with at least four embryos available on day 2 after the oocyte retrieval. Women are randomly allocated to either (1) control group: embryo transfer on day 3 and cryopreservation of supernumerary good-quality embryos on day 3 or 4, or (2) intervention group: embryo transfer on day 5 and cryopreservation of supernumerary good-quality embryos on day 5 or 6. The primary outcome is the cLBR per oocyte retrieval. Secondary outcomes include LBR following fresh transfer, multiple pregnancy rate and time until pregnancy leading a live birth. We will also assess the obstetric and neonatal outcomes, costs and patients' treatment burden. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol has been approved by the Central Committee on Research involving Human Subjects in the Netherlands in June 2018 (CCMO NL 64060.000.18). The results of this trial will be submitted for publication in international peer-reviewed and in open access journals. Trial registration number Netherlands Trial Register (NL 6857)

Tubal flushing with oil-based or water-based contrast at hysterosalpingography for infertility:long-term reproductive outcomes of a randomized trial

Objective: To determine the impact of oil -based versus water -based contrast on pregnancy and live birth rates <5 years after hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile women. Design: A 5 -year follow-up study of a multicenter randomized trial. Setting: Hospitals. Patient(s): Infertile women with an ovulatory cycle, 18 - 39 years of age, and having a low risk of tubal pathology. Intervention(s): Use of oil -based versus water -based contrast during HSG. Main Outcome Measure(s): Ongoing pregnancy, live births, time to ongoing pregnancy, second ongoing pregnancy. Result(s): A total of 1,119 women were randomly assigned to HSG with oil -based contrast (n = 557) or water -based contrast (n = 562). After 5 years, 444 of 555 women in the oil group (80.0%) and 419 of 559 women in the water group (75.0%) had an ongoing pregnancy (relative risk [RR] 1.07; 95% con fi dence interval [CI] 1.00 - 1.14), and 415 of 555 women in the oil group (74.8%) and 376 of 559 women in the water group (67.3%) had live births (RR 1.11; 95% CI 1.03 - 1.20). In the oil group, 228 pregnancies (41.1%) were conceived naturally versus 194 (34.7%) pregnancies in the water group (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.02 - 1.38). The time to ongoing pregnancy was signi fi cantly shorter in the oil group versus the water group (10.0 vs. 13.7 months; hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% CI 1.09 - 1.43). No difference was found in the occurrence of a second ongoing pregnancy. Conclusion(s): During a 5 -year time frame, ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates are higher after tubal fl ushing with oil -based contrast during HSG compared with water -based contrast. More pregnancies are naturally conceived and time to ongoing pregnancy is shorter after HSG with oil -based contrast. Clinical Trial Registration Number: Netherlands Trial Register (NTR) 3270 and NTR6577(www.trialregister.nl). (Fertil Steril (R) 2020;114:155-62. (C) 2020 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Individualized versus standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF/ICSI:An RCT. Part 1: The predicted poor responder

STUDY QUESTION: Does an increased FSH dose result in higher cumulative live birth rates in women with a predicted poor ovarian response, apparent from a low antral follicle count (AFC), scheduled for IVF or ICSI? SUMMARY ANSWER: In women with a predicted poor ovarian response (AFC <11) undergoing IVF/ICSI, an increased FSH dose (225/450 IU/day) does not improve cumulative live birth rates as compared to a standard dose (150 IU/day). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In women scheduled for IVF/ICSI, an ovarian reserve test (ORT) can predict ovarian response to stimulation. The FSH starting dose is often adjusted based on the ORT from the belief that it will improve live birth rates. However, the existing RCTs on this topic, most of which show no benefit, are underpowered. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Between May 2011 and May 2014, we performed an open-label multicentre RCT in women with an AFC <11 (Dutch Trial Register NTR2657). The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy achieved within 18 months after randomization and resulting in a live birth. We needed 300 women to assess whether an increased dose strategy would increase the cumulative live birth rate from 25 to 40% (two-sided alpha-error 0.05, power 80%). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women with an AFC ≤ 7 were randomized to an FSH dose of 450 IU/day or 150 IU/day, and women with an AFC 8–10 were randomized to 225 IU or 150 IU/day. In the standard group, dose adjustment was allowed in subsequent cycles based on pre-specified criteria. Both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the strategies were evaluated from an intention-to-treat perspective. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In total, 511 women were randomized, 234 with an AFC ≤ 7 and 277 with an AFC 8–10. The cumulative live birth rate for increased versus standard dosing was 42.4% (106/250) versus 44.8% (117/261), respectively [relative risk (RR): 0.95 (95%CI, 0.78–1.15), P = 0.58]. As an increased dose strategy was more expensive [delta costs/woman: €1099 (95%CI, 562–1591)], standard FSH dosing was the dominant strategy in our economic analysis. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Despite our training programme, the AFC might have suffered from inter-observer variation. As this open study permitted small dose adjustments between cycles, potential selective cancelling of cycles in women treated with 150 IU could have influenced the cumulative results. However, since first cycle live birth rates point in the same direction we consider it unlikely that the open design masked a potential benefit for the individualized strategy. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since an increased dose in women scheduled for IVF/ICSI with a predicted poor response (AFC <11) does not improve live birth rates and is more expensive, we recommend using a standard dose of 150 IU/day in these women

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 METEX study: Methotrexate versus expectant management in women with ectopic pregnancy: A randomised controlled trial

Background: Patients with ectopic pregnancy (EP) and low serum hCG concentrations and women with a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) and plateauing serum hCG levels are commonly treated with systemic methotrexate (MTX). However, there is no evidence that treatment in these particular subgroups of women is necessary as many of these early EPs may resolve spontaneously. The aim of this study is whether expectant management in women with EP or PUL and with low but plateauing serum hCG concentrations is an alternative to MTX treatment in terms of treatment success, future pregnancy, health related quality of life and costs. Methods/Design: A multicentre randomised controlled trial in TheNetherlands. Hemodynamically stable patients with an EP visible on transvaginal ultrasound and a plateauing serum hCG concentration < 1,500 IU/L or with a persisting PUL with plateauing serum hCG concentrations < 2,000 IU/L are eligible for the trial. Patients with a viable EP, signs of tubal rupture/abdominal bleeding, or a contra-indication for MTX will not be included. Expectant management is compared with systemic MTX in a single dose intramuscular regimen (1 mg/ kg) in an outpatient setting. Serum hCG levels are monitored weekly; in case of inadequately declining, systemic MTX is installed or continued. In case of hemodynamic instability and/or signs of tubal rupture, surgery is performed. The primary outcome measure is an uneventful decline of serum hCG to an undetectable level by the initial intervention. Secondary outcomes are (re)interventions (additional systemic MTX injections and/or surgery), treatment complications, health related quality of life, financial costs, and future fertility. Analysis is performed according to the intention to treat principle. Quality of life is assessed by questionnaires before and at three time points after randomisation. Costs are expressed as direct costs with data on costs and used resources in the participating centres. Fertility is assessed by questionnaires after 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. Patients' preferences will be assessed using a discrete choice experiment. Discussion: This trial will provide guidance on the present management dilemmas in women with EPs and PULs with low and plateauing serum hCG concentrations

Can hysterosalpingo-foam sonography replace hysterosalpingography as first-choice tubal patency test? A randomized non-inferiority trial

Funding Information: The FOAM study was an investigator-initiated study funded by ZonMw, The Netherlands organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). ZonMw funded the whole project. IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm-foamVR kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The FOAM study : Is Hysterosalpingo foam sonography (HyFoSy) a cost-effective alternative for hysterosalpingography (HSG) in assessing tubal patency in subfertile women? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

This is an investigator initiated trial, VU medical center Amsterdam is the sponsor, contact information: prof. CJM de Groot, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Tel: + 31-204444444. This study is funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development, project number 837001504. ZonMW gives financial support for the whole project. IQ Medical Ventures provides the ExEm FOAM® kits. The funding bodies have no role in the design of the study; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; and in writing the manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD