Reply : 'One-stop shop' ultrasound evaluation of an infertile patient: doing less is no longer an option

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

Tubal flushing with oil- or water-based contrast medium: can we identify markers that indicate treatment benefit?

Study Question: Can we identify patient characteristics that distinguish which ovulatory infertile women undergoing hysterosalpingography (HSG) benefit more or less from flushing with oil-based contrast medium compared to water-based contrast medium? Summary Answer: In ovulatory infertile women, HSG with oil-based contrast medium resulted in higher 6-month ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates as compared to HSG with water-based contrast medium and this treatment effect was independent of characteristics of the couple. What is Known Already: We recently showed that in infertile women undergoing HSG, flushing with oil-based contrast medium resulted in more ongoing pregnancies than flushing with water-based contrast medium. Study Design, Size, Duration: We used data from our randomized clinical trial (RCT) in which 1,119 ovulatory infertile women undergoing HSG during fertility work-up were randomized for use of oil-based (N = 557) or water-based (N = 562) contrast medium. Participants/Materials, Setting, Methods: We built logistic regression models to predict ongoing pregnancy and live birth (secondary outcome) as a function of the specific contrast, the specific marker, and marker-by-contrast-interaction. Markers considered were female age, maternal ethnicity, female smoking, body mass index (BMI), duration of infertility, infertility being primary or secondary, sperm quality, and previous appendectomy. Main Results and the Role of Chance: The 6-month ongoing pregnancy rates in the overall population were 39.7% after use of oil-based contrast versus 29.1% after use of water-based contrast medium [relative risk (RR), 1.37; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.16-1.61; P 3 ml [RR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.28-2.46; P = 0.02]. Also, in women who smoked, the treatment effect of flushing with oil was stronger, but this interaction did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.066). We found no positive effect of oil-based contrast in obese women. We found similar but weaker associations for live birth, which was probably due to lower number of events resulting in less power. Limitations, Reasons for Caution: The RCT was restricted to infertile ovulatory women younger than 39 years of age without endocrinological disorders and at low risk for tubal pathology. Our results should not be generalized to infertile women who do not share these features. Wider Implications of the Findings: All infertile, ovulatory women younger than 39 years with a low risk for tubal pathology will benefit from an HSG with oil-based contrast; therefore, this should be offered to them after fertility work-up.Joukje van Rijswijk, Nienke van Welie, Kim Dreyer, Parvin Tajik, Cornelis B. Lambalk, Peter Hompes, Velja Mijatovic, Ben W.J. Mol, and Mohammad H. Zafarman

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.

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

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

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

How long does the fertility-enhancing effect of hysterosalpingography with oil-based contrast last?

Research question: Does the fertility-enhancing effect of tubal flushing during hysterosalpingography (HSG) with oil-based contrast change over time? Design: This was a secondary analysis of the H2Oil (long-term follow-up) study, a multicentre randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of oil-based and water-based contrast during HSG. The main outcome was ongoing pregnancy. Cox proportional hazards models for time to ongoing pregnancy were fitted over 3 years of follow-up. Results: Data on 1107 couples were available; 550 couples had oil-based contrast and 557 water-based contrast at HSG. Ongoing pregnancy rates after 3 years were 77% and 71%, respectively. Median follow-up was 9–10 months (5th—95th percentile: <1 to 36). The hazard ratio for ongoing pregnancy for oil versus water over 3 years of follow-up was 1.26 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10–1.45). The scaled Schoenfeld residual plots showed a decrease in hazard ratio that was linear with log-transformed time. After including an interaction with log-transformed time, the hazard ratio immediately after HSG was 1.71 (95% CI 1.27–2.31) and reduced to no effect (hazard ratio of 1) at approximately 2 years. There was no evidence for a change in hazard ratio over time in a subgroup of women who experienced pain during HSG. Conclusions: The hazard ratio for ongoing pregnancy of oil-based versus water-based contrast was 1.71 immediately after HSG, gradually decreasing and plateauing towards a hazard ratio of 1 (indicating no effect) after approximately 2 years. This supports the hypothesis that oil-based contrast might dislodge debris or mucus plugs from the Fallopian tubes, but this has yet to be definitively proved

Tubal flushing with oil- or water-based contrast medium: can we identify markers that indicate treatment benefit?

STUDY QUESTION Can we identify patient characteristics that distinguish which ovulatory infertile women undergoing hysterosalpingography (HSG) benefit more or less from flushing with oil-based contrast medium compared to water-based contrast medium? SUMMARY ANSWER In ovulatory infertile women, HSG with oil-based contrast medium resulted in higher 6-month ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates as compared to HSG with water-based contrast medium and this treatment effect was independent of characteristics of the couple. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY We recently showed that in infertile women undergoing HSG, flushing with oil-based contrast medium resulted in more ongoing pregnancies than flushing with water-based contrast medium. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION We used data from our randomized clinical trial (RCT) in which 1,119 ovulatory infertile women undergoing HSG during fertility work-up were randomized for use of oil-based (N = 557) or water-based (N = 562) contrast medium. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS We built logistic regression models to predict ongoing pregnancy and live birth (secondary outcome) as a function of the specific contrast, the specific marker, and marker-by-contrast-interaction. Markers considered were female age, maternal ethnicity, female smoking, body mass index (BMI), duration of infertility, infertility being primary or secondary, sperm quality, and previous appendectomy. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The 6-month ongoing pregnancy rates in the overall population were 39.7% after use of oil-based contrast versus 29.1% after use of water-based contrast medium [relative risk (RR), 1.37; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.16-1.61; P 3 ml [RR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.28-2.46; P = 0.02]. Also, in women who smoked, the treatment effect of flushing with oil was stronger, but this interaction did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.066). We found no positive effect of oil-based contrast in obese women. We found similar but weaker associations for live birth, which was probably due to lower number of events resulting in less power. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION The RCT was restricted to infertile ovulatory women younger than 39 years of age without endocrinological disorders and at low risk for tubal pathology. Our results should not be generalized to infertile women who do not share these features. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS All infertile, ovulatory women younger than 39 years with a low risk for tubal pathology will benefit from an HSG with oil-based contrast; therefore, this should be offered to them after fertility work-up. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS 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 study displayed in this paper was funded by an unconditional research grant from Guerbet. B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). K.D. reports consultancy for Guerbet, during the conduct of the study, and also reports research grants from Guerbet. C.B.L. reports grants from Guerbet, during the conduct of the study, and grants from Ferring, grants from Merck, and personal fees from Ferring, outside the submitted work. P.H. reports grants from Guerbet, during the conduct of the study, and grants from Ferring and Merck, outside the submitted work. V.M. reports receiving travel and speakers fee as well as research grants from Guerbet. B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Merck KGaA, and Guerbet, and research grants from Guerbet and Merck. The other authors have no conflict of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NTR 3270 www.trialregister.nl. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 1 February 2012. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT 3 February 2012

Embryo selection using time-lapse analysis (Early Embryo Viability Assessment) in conjunction with standard morphology : a prospective two-center pilot study

Does prospective embryo selection using the results from the Eava Test (Early Embryo Viability Assessment) in combination with standard morphology increase the pregnancy rate of IVF and ICSI patients compared to embryo selection based on morphology only? Embryo selection using the Eeva Test plus standard morphology on Day 3 results in comparable pregnancy rates as conventional morphological embryo selection. Time-lapse monitoring of embryo development may represent a superior way to culture and select embryos in vitro. The Eeva Test records the development of each embryo with a cell-tracking system and predicts the likelihood (High, Medium or Low) that an embryo will form a blastocyst based on an automated analysis of early cell division timings. This trial was designed as a prospective, observational, two-center pilot study with a propensity matched control group. The analysis involved 280 of 302 enrolled patients who were included in the Eeva Test group in 2013 and 560 control patients who were treated in the years 2011-2013. The majority of transfers (98%) were single embryo transfers. Two academic hospitals (VUmc Amsterdam and UZ Gent) enrolled patients < 41 years old, with < 3 previous attempts and a parts per thousand yen5 normally fertilized eggs. Propensity matching was used to identify a propensity matched control group from a cohort of 1777 patients based on age, cycle number, oocyte number and number of fertilized oocytes. There was no difference in patient baseline characteristics between the two groups. The ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) of patients enrolled in the Eeva Test group (34.3%; 96/280) did not differ significantly from the OPR in the propensity matched control group (34.6%, 194/560; P = 0.92). However, significantly less top quality embryos (eight-cell embryos with a parts per thousand currency sign25% fragmentation) were transferred in the Eeva Test group compared to the propensity matched control group (70.4% vs. 82.3%; P < 0.001). The transfer of Eeva High and Medium embryos resulted in a significantly higher OPR of 36.8% (89/242) compared to 18.4% (7/38) for Eeva Low embryos (P = 0.02). This pilot study is limited by its nonrandomized design with a concurrent and historical control. Our pilot data did not reveal significant differences between time-lapse based and conventional embryo selection. Interestingly, the pregnancy rates were comparable in both groups even though the morphological quality of the transferred embryos was significantly lower in the Eeva Test group compared to the propensity matched control group. A sufficiently powered three-armed randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a solid design should be performed to generate decisive evidence in the future. Progyny Inc., formerly Auxogyn provided the Eeva scopes, software and technical support for this study. The funding sources did neither influence data collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data, nor the preparation of the manuscript. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01671644

Effects of long-term exogenous testosterone administration on ovarian morphology, determined by transvaginal (3D) ultrasound in female-to-male transsexuals

STUDY QUESTION Does long-term exogenous testosterone administration result in polycystic ovarian morphology (PCOM), determined by (3D) transvaginal ultrasound (TVU) in female-to-male transsexuals (FtMs). SUMMARY ANSWER Long-term exogenous testosterone administration in FtMs does not result in PCOM determined by (3D) TVU. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The role of androgens in the pathophysiology of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is still unclear. From animal studies, intra-ovarian androgens have been suggested to disturb folliculogenesis, through a pro-atretic effect on growing follicles. It remains debatable whether exogenous androgens induce PCOM in humans. In the past histomorphologic studies indicated that androgen administration in FtMs could cause PCO-like changes. However, ultrasound morphology is an established criterion for PCOS, TVU data of ovaries after prolonged androgen exposure are lacking. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Prospective, observational, case-control study, in an academic setting, performed in 2014-2015, including 56 FtMs and 80 controls. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The study population consisted of adult FtMs treated with long-term testosterone, as part of their cross-sex hormone treatment, and scheduled for sex-reassignment surgery (bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy). Prior to the operation, under anaesthetics TVU measurements (3D transvaginal probe 3-9 MHz; HD11, Philips Ultrasound, Inc.) of the ovaries were performed. The control group consisted of females from a general population who underwent the same TVU and analysis. Antral follicle count (AFC) (3D) and ovarian volume (3D) were calculated using specialized software. PCOM was defined as AFC of 12 or more follicles (2-10 mm) in at least one ovary. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Prevalence rates of PCOM were not significantly different in the FtMs compared to controls, determined by (3D) TVU: 32.1% (17/53) versus 30.7% (23/75), P = 0.87. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Testosterone levels in FtMs are supraphysiological, and may not be comparable to the testosterone levels in women with PCOS. However, we applied a unique and ethically acceptable opportunity of exploring the effects of androgens on human ovaries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This first explorative study shows that long-term exogenous testosterone administration in adult women does not seem to induce PCOM determined by TVU. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) None. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER The trial was registered at the Dutch Trial Register (www.trialregister.nl), registration number NTR4784