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.

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

Aspirin or anticoagulants for treating recurrent miscarriage in women without antiphospholipid syndrome

Background Since hypercoagulability might result in recurrent miscarriage, anticoagulant agents could potentially increase the live-birth rate in subsequent pregnancies in women with either inherited thrombophilia or unexplained recurrent miscarriage. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulant agents, such as aspirin and heparin, in women with a history of at least two miscarriages without apparent causes other than inherited thrombophilia. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (April 2008), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2007), and EMBASE (1980 to March 2007). We scanned bibliographies of all located articles for any unidentified articles. Selection criteria Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of anticoagulant treatment on the live-birth rate in women with a history of at least two miscarriages (up to 20 weeks of amenorrhoea) without apparent causes other than inherited thrombophilia were eligible. Interventions included aspirin, unfractionated heparin, and low molecular weight heparin for the prevention of miscarriage. One treatment could be compared with another or with placebo. Data collection and analysis Two authors assessed the trials for inclusion in the review and extracted the data. We double checked the data. Main results Two studies (189 participants) were included in the review. In one study, 54 pregnant women with recurrent miscarriage (RM) but no detectable anticardiolipin antibodies were randomised to low-dose aspirin or placebo. RM was defined as three or more consecutive miscarriages (occurring before 22 weeks' gestational age (based on last menstrual period)). Similar live-birth rates were observed with aspirin and placebo, both 81% (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.29). In the other study, 107 women with consecutive recurrent miscarriage without any apparent cause and no hereditary thrombophilia were randomised between enoxaparin and aspirin. Here RM was stated as three or more consecutive first trimester miscarriages or at least two consecutive second trimester miscarriages. Similar live birth rates were observed with enoxaparin and aspirin, respectively 82% and 84% (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.16). Authors' conclusions There is a paucity in studies on the efficacy and safety of aspirin and heparin in women with a history of at least two miscarriages without apparent causes other than inherited thrombophilia. The two reviewed trials studied different treatments and only one study was placebo-controlled. Neither of the studies showed a benefit of one treatment over the other. Therefore, the use of anticoagulants in this setting is not recommended. However, large randomised placebo-controlled trials are still urgently neede

Tamoxifen or letrozole versus standard methods for women with estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer undergoing oocyte or embryo cryopreservation in assisted reproduction

Cryopreservation of oocytes or embryos preceded by controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) can increase the chance of future pregnancy in women with breast cancer who risk therapy-induced ovarian failure. In women with estrogen-receptor (ER) positive breast cancer, alternative COS protocols with tamoxifen or letrozole are being used to theoretically inhibit breast cancer growth during COS. To assess the effects of tamoxifen or letrozole, in addition to standard COS protocols, on the breast cancer-free interval in premenopausal women with ER positive breast cancer who undergo COS for embryo or oocyte cryopreservation. We searched the Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid PsycINFO, and EBSCOhost CINAHL. We applied no limitations in year of publication or language. In addition, we searched trial registers for ongoing and registered trials, conference abstracts, and sources of grey literature. The search was conducted in January 2013. Randomised trials comparing different COS protocols in women with breast cancer were eligible for inclusion. Two review authors independently scanned the titles, abstracts, or both sections according to Cochrane guidelines. If data to include were provided, data extraction would have been independently performed by two review authors by using forms designed according to Cochrane guidelines. No randomised controlled trials were found that met the inclusion criteria. COS schedules with the additional use of tamoxifen or letrozole are commonly chosen as an alternative regimen in young women with ER positive breast cancer who undergo COS for oocyte or embryo cryopreservation. No randomised controlled trials support the idea that these alternative COS schedules are superior to standard CO