Search

STUDY QUESTION: Are six cycles of ovulation induction with gonadotrophins more cost-effective than six cycles of ovulation induction with clomiphene citrate (CC) with or without IUI in normogonadotropic anovulatory women not pregnant after six ovulatory cycles with CC?SUMMARY ANSWER: Both gonadotrophins and IUI are more expensive when compared with CC and intercourse, and gonadotrophins are more effective than CC.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In women with normogonadotropic anovulation who ovulate but do not conceive after six cycles with CC, medication is usually switched to gonadotrophins, with or without IUI. The cost-effectiveness of these changes in policy is unknown.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an economic evaluation of ovulation induction with gonadotrophins compared with CC with or without IUI in a two-by-two factorial multicentre randomized controlled trial in normogonadotropic anovulatory women not pregnant after six ovulatory cycles with CC. Between December 2008 and December 2015 women were allocated to six cycles with gonadotrophins plus IUI, six cycles with gonadotrophins plus intercourse, six cycles with CC plus IUI or six cycles with CC plus intercourse. The primary outcome was conception leading to a live birth achieved within 8 months of randomization.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis on direct medical costs. We calculated the direct medical costs of ovulation induction with gonadotrophins versus CC and of IUI versus intercourse in six subsequent cycles. We included costs of medication, cycle monitoring, interventions, and pregnancy leading to live birth. Resource use was collected from the case report forms and unit costs were derived from various sources. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) for gonadotrophins compared to CC and for IUI compared to intercourse. We used non-parametric bootstrap resampling to investigate the effect of uncertainty in our estimates. The analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We allocated 666 women in total to gonadotrophins and IUI (n = 166), gonadotrophins and intercourse (n = 165), CC and IUI (n = 163), or CC and intercourse (n = 172). Mean direct medical costs per woman receiving gonadotrophins or CC were (sic)4495 versus (sic)3006 (cost difference of (sic)1475 (95% CI: (sic)1457-(sic)1493)). Live birth rates were 52% in women allocated to gonadotrophins and 41% in those allocated to CC (relative risk (RR) 1.24: 95% CI: 1.05-1.46). The ICER was (sic)15 258 (95% CI: (sic)8721 to (sic)63 654) per additional live birth with gonadotrophins. Mean direct medical costs per woman allocated to IUI or intercourse were (sic)4497 versus (sic)3005 (cost difference of (sic)1510 (95% CI: (sic)1492-(sic)1529)). Live birth rates were 49% in women allocated to IUI and 43% in those allocated to intercourse (RR = 1.14: 95% CI: 0.97-1.35). The ICER was (sic)24 361 (95% CI: (sic)-11 290 to (sic)85 172) per additional live birth with IUI.LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We allowed participating hospitals to use their local protocols for ovulation induction and IUI, which may have led to variation in costs, but which increases generalizability. Indirect costs generated by transportation or productivity loss were not included. We did not evaluate letrozole, which is potentially more effective than CC.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Gonadotrophins are more effective, but more expensive than CC, therefore, the use of gonadotrophins in women with normogonadotropic anovulation who have not conceived after six ovulatory CC cycles depends on society's willingness to pay for an additional child. In view of the uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness estimate of IUI, these data are not sufficient to make recommendations on the use of IUI in these women. In countries where ovulation induction regimens are reimbursed, policy makers and health care professionals may use our results in their guidelines.STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This trial was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw number: 80-82310-97-12067). The Eudract number for this trial is 2008-006171-73. The Sponsor's Protocol Code Number is P08-40. CBLA reports unrestricted grant support from Merck and Ferring. BWM is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for Merck, ObsEva and Guerbet.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR1449.

Objective To evaluate whether double-layer uterine closure after a first caesarean section (CS) is superior compared with single-layer uterine closure in terms of postmenstrual spotting and niche development in the uterine caesarean scar.Design Multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial.Setting Thirty-two hospitals in the Netherlands.Population A total of 2292 women aged >= 18 years undergoing a first CS were randomly assigned to each procedure (1:1): 1144 women were assigned to single-layer uterine closure and 1148 women were assigned to double-layer uterine closure.Methods Single-layer unlocked closure and double-layer unlocked closure, with the second layer imbricating the first.Main outcome measures Number of days with postmenstrual spotting during one menstrual cycle 9 months after CS. Secondary outcomes: perioperative and menstrual characteristics; transvaginal ultrasound measurements.Results A total of 774 (67.7%) women from the single-layer group and 770 (67.1%) women from the double-layer group were evaluable for the primary outcome, as a result of drop-out and amenorrhoea. The mean number of postmenstrual spotting days was 1.33 (bootstrapped 95% CI 1.12-1.54) after single-layer closure and 1.26 (bootstrapped 95% CI 1.07-1.45) after double-layer closure (adjusted mean difference -0.07, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.22, P = 0.810). The operative time was 3.9 minutes longer (95% CI 3.0-4.9 minutes, P < 0.001) and niche prevalence was 4.7% higher (95% CI 0.7-8.7%, P = 0.022) after double-layer closure.Conclusions The superiority of double-layer closure compared with single-layer closure in terms of postmenstrual spotting after a first CS was not shown. Long-term obstetric follow-up of our trial is needed to assess whether uterine caesarean closure guidelines should be adapted.Tweetable abstract Double-layer uterine closure is not superior for postmenstrual spotting after a first caesarean; single-layer closure performs slightly better on other outcomes.

STUDY QUESTION: Is curettage more effective than expectant management in case of an incomplete evacuation after misoprostol treatment for first trimester miscarriage? SUMMARY ANSWER: Curettage leads to a higher chance of complete evacuation but expectant management is successful in at least 76% of women with an incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment for first trimester miscarriage. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In 5-50% of the women treated with misoprostol, there is a suspicion of incomplete evacuation of the uterus on sonography. Although these women generally have minor symptoms, such a finding often leads to additional curettage. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: From June 2012 until July 2014, we conducted a nationwide multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT). Women who had had primary misoprostol treatment for miscarriage with sonographic evidence of incomplete evacuation of the uterus were randomly allocated to either curettage or expectant management (1:1), using a web-based application. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We included 59 women in 27 hospitals; 30 were allocated to curettage and 29 were allocated to expectant management. A successful outcome was defined as sonographic finding of an empty uterus 6 weeks after randomization. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Baseline characteristics of both groups were comparable. Empty uterus on sonography or uneventful clinical follow-up was seen in 29/30 women (97%) allocated to curettage compared with 22/29 women (76%) allocated to expectant management (RR 1.3, 95% CI 1.03-1.6) with complication rates of 10% versus 10%, respectively (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.21-4.4). In the group allocated to curettage, no woman required re-curettage, while two women (6.7%) underwent hysteroscopy (for other or unknown reasons). In the women allocated to expectant management, curettage was performed in four women (13.8%) and three women (10.3%) underwent hysteroscopy. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Due to a strong patient preference, mainly for expectant management, the targeted sample size could not be included and the trial was stopped prematurely. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: In women suspected of incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol, curettage is more effective than expectant management. However, expectant management is equally safe and prevents curettage for most of the women. This finding could further restrain the use of curettage in the treatment of first trimester miscarriage. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development, project number 80-82310-97-12066. There were no conflicts of interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register NTR3310, http://www.trialregister.nl TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 27 February 2012. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 12 June 2012.

A new multidisciplinary practice guideline on heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) has recently been published. HMB may occur with or without structural abnormalities. The pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC) is the best method for estimating the amount of blood loss and for distinguishing between heavy and normal blood loss. Haemoglobin levels should be determined at least once. Transvaginal ultrasound is the preferred imaging technique. Saline or gel infusion sonography should be used in cases where ultrasound results are suspect for intracavitary abnormalities. A hysteroscopy should only be performed if sonography results are inconclusive. The very first treatment of choice should be placement of a hormone-impregnated intrauterine system. For HMB without structural abnormalities, endometrial ablation is an alternative to hysterectomy, whereby second-generation ablation techniques are preferred to first-generation techniques. For HMB with uterine fibroids, uterine artery embolisation is a good alternative to hysterectomy. For HMB with submucosal fibroids, hysteroscopic resection of the fibroids is recommended.