Treatment effect of oil-based contrast is related to experienced pain at HSG : a post-hoc analysis of the randomised H2Oil study

The H2Oil study was an investigator-initiated study that was funded by our own academic institutions (AMC and VUmc) of the Amsterdam UMC. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

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

Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography versus hysterosalpingography during fertility work-up: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION: What are the costs and effects of tubal patency testing by hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) compared to hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile women during the fertility work-up? SUMMARY ANSWER: During the fertility work-up, clinical management based on the test results of HyFoSy leads to slightly lower, though not statistically significant, live birth rates, at lower costs, compared to management based on HSG results. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Traditionally, tubal patency testing during the fertility work-up is performed by HSG. The FOAM trial, formally a non-inferiority study, showed that management decisions based on the results of HyFoSy resulted in a comparable live birth rate at 12 months compared to HSG (46% versus 47%; difference −1.2%, 95% CI: −3.4% to 1.5%; P¼ 0.27). Compared to HSG, HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain, it lacks ionizing radiation and exposure to iodinated contrast medium. Moreover, HyFoSy can be performed by a gynaecologist during a one-stop fertility work-up. To our knowledge, the costs of both strategies have never been compared. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an economic evaluation alongside the FOAM trial, a randomized multicenter study conducted in the Netherlands. Participating infertile women underwent, both HyFoSy and HSG, in a randomized order. The results of both tests were compared and women with discordant test results were randomly allocated to management based on the results of one of the tests. The follow-up period was twelve months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied 1160 infertile women (18–41 years) scheduled for tubal patency testing. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth. The economic evaluation compared costs and effects of management based on either test within 12 months. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the difference in total costs and chance of live birth. Data were analyzed using the intention to treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 of the 1160 women underwent both tubal tests and had data available: 747 women with concordant results (48% live births), 136 with inconclusive results (40% live births), and 143 with discordant results (41% had a live birth after management based on HyFoSy results versus 49% with live birth after management based on HSG results). When comparing the two strategies—management based on HyfoSy results versus HSG results—the estimated chance of live birth was 46% after HyFoSy versus 47% after HSG (difference −1.2%; 95% CI: −3.4% to 1.5%). For the procedures itself, HyFoSy cost e136 and HSG e280. When costs of additional fertility treatments were incorporated, the mean total costs per couple were e3307 for the HyFoSy strategy and e3427 for the HSG strategy (mean difference e−119; 95% CI: e−125 to e−114). So, while HyFoSy led to lower costs per couple, live birth rates were also slightly lower. The ICER was e10 042, meaning that by using HyFoSy instead of HSG we would save e10 042 per each additional live birth lost. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: When interpreting the results of this study, it needs to be considered that there was a considerable uncertainty around the ICER, and that the direct fertility enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests was not incorporated as women underwent both tubal patency tests in this study. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS: Compared to clinical management based on HSG results, management guided by HyFoSy leads to slightly lower live birth rates (though not statistically significant) at lower costs, less pain, without ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast exposure. Further research on the comparison of the direct fertility-enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): FOAM trial was an investigator-initiated study, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm®-FOAM kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel-and speakers fees from Guerbet and her department received research grants from Guerbet outside the submitted work. H.R.V. received consulting—and travel fee from Ferring. A.M.v.P. reports received consulting fee from DEKRA and fee for an expert meeting from Ferring, both outside the submitted work. C.H.d.K. received travel fee from Merck. F.J.M.B. received a grant from Merck and speakers fee from Besins Healthcare. F.J.M.B. is a member of the advisory board of Merck and Ferring. J.v.D. reported speakers fee from Ferring. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda and consultancy for Sanofi on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford Press in the role of deputy editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a DSMB as independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. B.W.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC GNT1176437. B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Guerbet, iGenomix, and Merck KGaA and travel support from Merck KGaA. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck, and Ferring and travel and speakers fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746

Long-term effects of previous oxandrolone treatment in adult women with Turner syndrome

Objective: Short stature is a prominent feature of Turner syndrome (TS), which is partially overcome by GH treatment. We have previously reported the results of a trial on the effect of oxandrolone (Ox) in girls with TS. Ox in a dose of 0.03 mg/kg per day (Ox 0.03) significantly increased adult height gain, whereas Ox mg/kg per day (0.06) did not, at the cost of deceleration of breast development and mild virilization. The aim of this follow-up study in adult participants of the pediatric trial was to investigate the long-term effects of previous Ox treatment. Design and methods: During the previous randomized controlled trial, 133 girls were treated with GH combined with placebo (Pl), Ox 0.03, or Ox 0.06 from 8 years of age and estrogen from 12 years. Sixty-eight women (Pl, n=23; Ox 0.03, n=27; and Ox 0.06, n=18) participated in the double-blind follow-up study (mean age, 24.0 years; mean time since stopping GH, 8.7 years; and mean time of Ox/Pl use, 4.9 years). We assessed height, body proportions, breast size, virilization, and body composition. Results: Height gain (final minus predicted adult height) was maintained at follow-up (Ox 0.03 10.2 ±4.9 cm, Ox 0.06 9.7±4.4 cm vs Pl 8.0±4.6 cm). Breast size, Tanner breast stage, and body composition were not different between groups. Ox-treated women reported more subjective virilization and had a lower voice frequency. Conclusion: Ox 0.03 mg/kg per day has a beneficial effect on adult height gain in TS patients. Despite previously reported deceleration of breast development during Ox 0.03 treatment, adult breast size is not affected. Mild virilization persists in only a small minority of patients. The long-term evaluation indicates that Ox 0.03 treatment is effective and safe

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

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)

Can Hysterosalpingo-Foam Sonography Replace Hysterosalpingography as First-Choice Tubal Patency Test? A Randomized Non-inferiority Trial

(Abstracted from Hum Reprod 2022;37:969-979) A main cause of female infertility is tubal pathology, with 11% to 30% of cases resulting from previous surgery, infections (such as sexually transmitted diseases), or endometriosis. Hysterosalpingography (HSG) is considered as the first choice for a tubal patency test during fertility workup, but the more patient-friendly hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography option has also been introduced