Search

STUDY QUESTIONS The primary objective is to investigate if continuous use of oral contraceptives is non-inferior compared to long-term pituitary desensitization with a GnRH agonist prior to IVF/ICSI in patients with moderate to severe endometriosis with regard to treatment efficacy. Secondary objectives concern treatment safety and cost-effectiveness. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Long-term pituitary desensitization with a GnRH agonist for 3–6 months prior to IVF/ICSI improves clinical pregnancy rates in women suffering from endometriosis. However, discussion about this treatment strategy exists because of its uncomfortable side effects. Alternatively, IVF/ICSI pre-treatment with continuously administered oral contraceptives may offer fewer side-effects and lower (in)direct costs, as well as encouraging IVF outcomes in women with endometriosis. To date, these two different IVF/ICSI pre-treatment strategies in women with endometriosis have not been directly compared. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION An open-label, parallel two-arm randomized controlled multicenter trial is planned, including patients with moderate to severe endometriosis. To demonstrate an absolute difference of 13% (delta of 10% with non-inferiority margin of 3%) with a power of 80% 137 patients per group are sufficient. Taking into account a withdrawal of patients of 10% and a cancelation rate of embryo transfer after ovarian pick up of 10% (for instance due to fertilization failure), the sample size calculation is rounded off to 165 patients per group; 330 patients in total will be included. After informed consent, eligible patients will be randomly allocated to the intervention or reference group by using web based block randomization stratified per centre. Study inclusion is expected to be complete in 3–5 years. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The research population consists of patients with moderate to severe endometriosis (ASRM III/IV) who are scheduled for their first, second or third IVF/ICSI treatment attempt. Women aged over 41 years, younger than 18 years, with a known contraindication for the use of oral contraceptives and/or GnRH agonists or with severe male factor infertility will be excluded from participation. After informed consent patients are allocated to the intervention group (one-phase oral contraceptive continuously during three subsequent months) or the reference group (three Leuprorelin 3.75 mg i.m./s.c. depot injections during three subsequent months). Tibolon 2.5 mg can be given daily as add-back therapy in the reference group. After 3 months of pre-treatment the IVF/ICSI stimulation phase will be started. The primary outcome is live birth rate after fresh embryo transfer. Secondary outcomes are cumulative live birth rate after one IVF/ICSI treatment cycle (including fresh and frozen embryo transfers up to 15 months after randomization), ongoing pregnancy rate and time to pregnancy. In addition, treatment outcome parameters, adverse events, side-effects during the first 3 months, complications, recurrence of endometriosis (complaints), quality of life, patient preferences, safety and costs effectiveness will be reported. Measurements will be performed at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 months after randomization. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(s) All authors have no conflict of interest related to this manuscript. The department of reproductive medicine of the Amsterdam UMC location VUmc has received several research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring not related to the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER The trial is registered as the COPIE trial (C ontinuous use of O ral contraceptives as an alternative for long-term P ituitary desensitization with a GnRH agonist prior to I VF/ICSI in E ndometriosis patients) in the Dutch Trial Register (Ref. No. NTR6357, http://www.trialregister.nl). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 16 March 2017. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT Enrollment is planned for November 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTIONS The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment of women suffering from pain due to an ovarian endometrioma when compared to treatment with medication (analgesia and/or hormones). The primary outcome is defined as successful pain reduction (−30% reduction of pain) measured by the numeric rating scale (NRS) after 6 months. Secondary outcomes include successful pain reduction after 12 and 18 months, quality of life, affective symptoms, cost-effectiveness, recurrence rate, need of adjuvant medication after surgery, ovarian reserve, adjuvant surgery and budget impact. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Evidence suggests that both medication and surgical treatment of an ovarian endometrioma are effective in reducing pain and improving quality of life. However, there are no randomised studies that compare surgery to treatment with medication. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This study will be performed in a research network of university and teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. A multicentre randomised controlled trial and parallel prospective cohort study in patients with an ovarian endometrioma, with the exclusion of patients with deep endometriosis, will be conducted. After obtaining informed consent, eligible patients will be randomly allocated to either treatment arm (medication or surgery) by using web-based block randomisation stratified per centre. A successful pain reduction is set at a 30% decrease on the NRS at 6 months after randomisation. Based on a power of 80% and an alpha of 5% and using a continuity correction, a sample size of 69 patients in each treatment arm is needed. Accounting for a drop-out rate of 25% (i.e. loss to follow up), we need to include 92 patients in each treatment arm, i.e. 184 in total. Simultaneously, a cohort study will be performed for eligible patients who are not willing to be randomised because of a distinct preference for one of the two treatment arms. We intend to include 100 women in each treatment arm to enable standardization by inverse probability weighting, which means 200 patients in total. The expected inclusion period is 24 months with a follow-up of 18 months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Premenopausal women (age ≥ 18 years) with pain (dysmenorrhoea, pelvic pain or dyspareunia) and an ovarian endometrioma (cyst diameter ≥ 3 cm) who visit the outpatient clinic will make up the study population. Patients with signs of deep endometriosis will be excluded. The primary outcome is successful pain reduction, which is defined as a 30% decrease of pain on the NRS at 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include successful pain reduction after 12 and 18 months, quality of life and affective symptoms, cost-effectiveness (from a healthcare and societal perspective), number of participants needing additional surgery, need of adjuvant medication after surgery, ovarian reserve and recurrence rate of endometriomas. Measurements will be performed at baseline, 6 weeks and 6, 12 and 18 months after randomisation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study is funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development, project number 80-85200-98-91041. The Department of Reproductive Medicine of the Amsterdam UMC location VUmc has received several research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck KGaA and Ferring not related to the submitted work. B.W.J. Mol is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet. V. Mijatovic reports grants from Guerbet, grants from Merck and grants from Ferring outside the submitted work. All authors declare that they have no competing interests concerning this publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Dutch Trial Register (NTR 7447, http://www.trialregister.nl). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 2 January 2019 DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT First inclusion in randomised controlled trial October 4, 2019. First inclusion in cohort May 22, 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: What is the incidence of complications after hysterosalpingography (HSG) using oil-based contrast versus water-based contrast?, Summary Answer: Among 5165 women undergoing HSG, the most frequently reported complication after HSG with oil- and water-based contrast was intravasation of contrast medium (4.8% versus 1.3%, respectively), which was without further consequences, and pulmonary embolization or death did not occur., What Is Known Already: An HSG with oil-based contrast increases pregnancy rates in women with unexplained infertility. However, there have been some concerns regarding complications, including the risks of intravasation of the contrast medium, oil embolism and infection. Here, we present the incidence of complications after HSG with different types of contrast media used in the Netherlands in the year 2017., Study Design Size Duration: In January 2018, an electronic survey was sent to all 73 clinics in the Netherlands that perform HSG. The survey consisted of 12 questions addressing the number of HSGs performed in 2017, the amount and type of contrast medium used, the occurrence of post-procedural complications and what their clinical consequences were. Non-responding clinics were sent multiple reminders., Participants/materials Setting Methods: We calculated the incidence of the complications and reported on their clinical consequences. Furthermore, we examined the average amount of contrast used as well as the administration of prophylactic antibiotics., Main Results and the Role of Chance: The response rate was 96% (67/70) (during the study, one site closed and was not included while two clinics no longer performed HSGs). In the 67 clinics, 3289 HSGs with oil-based contrast and 1876 HSGs with water-based contrast were performed in 2017. The median amount of contrast used was 8.0 ml (interquartile range (IQR) 7.0-10.0) for oil-based contrast and 10.0 ml for water-based contrast (IQR 10.0-10.0). Antibiotic prophylaxis was administered in 61% (41/67) of the clinics. Intravasation occurred in 4.8% of the HSGs performed with oil-based contrast and in 1.3% of the HSGs with water-based contrast (relative risk (RR), 3.6; CI, 2.4-5.4). Pulmonary embolism or death was not reported. Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) occurred in 0.3% of the HSGs performed with oil-based contrast versus 0.4% with water-based contrast. PID occurred in 0.3% of the HSGs in clinics using antibiotic prophylaxis and 0.2% in clinics not using antibiotic prophylaxis. Allergic reactions were reported in one HSG performed with oil-based contrast (0.03%) compared with two HSGs performed with water-based contrast (0.1%). Anaphylactic reactions did not occur. The overall complication rate was 5.1% in the clinics that used oil-based contrast versus 1.8% in the clinics that used water-based contrast (RR, 2.8; CI, 1.9-4.0; P -value, <0.0001)., Limitations Reasons for Caution: Half of the clinics did not routinely register complications, and the incidence of the complications in their clinic was based on the recall of the clinician. Estimated complication rates in the clinics with and without systematic registration did not significantly differ. The survey asked about the frequency of intravasation but no classification system is being used in daily practice, which may create differences in reporting. There was no standard screening of post-HSG thyroid function for the mother and the foetus., Wider Implications of the Findings: In this nationwide cohort study, the complication rates after HSG were low. Intravasation occurred more frequently with the use of oil-based contrast compared with water-based contrast but did not lead to any problems or symptoms in any of the women. We therefore conclude that safety concerns should not be a reason to deny the use of oil-based contrast in women with unexplained infertility. The data also support that fluoroscopy appears to be an essential safety measure during HSG., Study Funding/competing Interests: This work was partly funded by Guerbet, France. I.R. reports receiving travel fee for presenting at the Congress of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine 2019 from Guerbet. V.M. reports receiving travel and speaker's fee as well as research grants from Guerbet. K.D. reports receiving travel and speaker's fee from Guerbet. B.W.M. is supported by an National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet and travel and research grants from Merck KGaA and Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest., Trial Registration Number: N19.056., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published byOxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

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  < 0.001]. Among the studied baseline characteristics, BMI ( P  = 0.002) and semen volume ( P  = 0.02) were statistically significant prognosticators. The treatment effect of oil-based contrast was stronger in women with a BMI ≤30 kg/m 2 [RR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.23-1.92; P  = 0.002], and in women whose partner had a semen volume >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.