Search

STUDY QUESTION Does endometrial scratching in women with one failed IVF/ICSI treatment affect the chance of a live birth of the subsequent fresh IVF/ICSI cycle? SUMMARY ANSWER In this study, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch group, with a likely certainty range between −0.7% and +9.9%. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Since the first suggestion that endometrial scratching might improve embryo implantation during IVF/ICSI, many clinical trials have been conducted. However, due to limitations in sample size and study quality, it remains unclear whether endometrial scratching improves IVF/ICSI outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The SCRaTCH trial was a non-blinded randomised controlled trial in women with one unsuccessful IVF/ICSI cycle and assessed whether a single endometrial scratch using an endometrial biopsy catheter would lead to a higher live birth rate after the subsequent IVF/ICSI treatment compared to no scratch. The study took place in 8 academic and 24 general hospitals. Participants were randomised between January 2016 and July 2018 by a web-based randomisation programme. Secondary outcomes included cumulative 12-month ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth rate. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Women with one previous failed IVF/ICSI treatment and planning a second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment were eligible. In total, 933 participants out of 1065 eligibles were included (participation rate 88%). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE After the fresh transfer, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch compared to control group (110/465 versus 88/461, respectively, risk ratio (RR) 1.24 [95% CI 0.96–1.59]). These data are consistent with a true difference of between −0.7% and +9.9% (95% CI), indicating that while the largest proportion of the 95% CI is positive, scratching could have no or even a small negative effect. Biochemical pregnancy loss and miscarriage rate did not differ between the two groups: in the scratch group 27/153 biochemical pregnancy losses and 14/126 miscarriages occurred, while this was 19/130 and 17/111 for the control group (RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.71–2.07) and RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.38–1.40), respectively). After 12 months of follow-up, 5.1% more live births were observed in the scratch group (202/467 versus 178/466), of which the true difference most likely lies between −1.2% and +11.4% (95% CI). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION This study was not blinded. Knowledge of allocation may have been an incentive for participants allocated to the scratch group to continue treatment in situations where they may otherwise have cancelled or stopped. In addition, this study was powered to detect a difference in live birth rate of 9%. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The results of this study are an incentive for further assessment of the efficacy and clinical implications of endometrial scratching. If a true effect exists, it may be smaller than previously anticipated or may be limited to specific groups of women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Studying this will require larger sample sizes, which will be provided by the ongoing international individual participant data-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42017079120). At present, endometrial scratching should not be performed outside of clinical trials. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study was funded by ZonMW, the Dutch organisation for funding healthcare research. J.S.E. Laven reports grants and personal fees from AnshLabs (Webster, Tx, USA), Ferring (Hoofddorp, The Netherlands) and Ministry of Health (CIBG, The Hague, The Netherlands) outside the submitted work. A.E.P. Cantineau reports ‘other’ from Ferring BV, personal fees from Up to date Hyperthecosis, ‘other’ from Theramex BV, outside the submitted work. E.R. Groenewoud reports grants from Titus Health Care during the conduct of the study. A.M. van Heusden reports personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees from Ferring, personal fees from Goodlife, outside the submitted work. F.J.M. Broekmans reports personal fees as Member of the external advisory board for Ferring BV, The Netherlands, personal fees as Member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, The Netherlands, personal fees as Member of the external advisory for Gedeon Richter, Belgium, personal fees from Educational activities for Ferring BV, The Netherlands, grants from Research support grant Merck Serono, grants from Research support grant Ferring, personal fees from Advisory and consultancy work Roche, outside the submitted work. C.B. Lambalk reports grants from Ferring, grants from Merck, grants from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NL5193/NTR 5342). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 31 July 2015. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT 26 January 2016.

INTRODUCTION: Curettage is more effective than expectant management in women with suspected incomplete evacuation after misoprostol treatment for first-trimester miscarriage. The cost-effectiveness of curettage vs. expectant management in this group is unknown.MATERIAL AND METHODS: From June 2012 until July 2014 we conducted a randomized controlled trial and parallel cohort study in the Netherlands, comparing curettage with expectant management in women with an incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment for first-trimester miscarriage. Successful treatment was defined as a sonographic finding of an empty uterus 6 weeks after study entry, or an uneventful course. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were performed. We included costs of healthcare utilization, informal care and lost productivity. Cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were estimated using bootstrapping.RESULTS: We included 256 women from 27 hospitals; 95 curettage and 161 expectant management. Treatment was successful in 96% of the women treated with curettage vs. 83% of the women after expectant management (mean difference 13%, 95% confidence interval 5-20). Mean costs were significantly higher in the curettage group (mean difference €1157; 95% C confidence interval €955-1388). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for curettage vs. expectant management was €8586 per successfully treated woman. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed that at a willingness-to-pay of €18 200/extra successfully treated women, the probability that curettage is cost-effective is 95%.CONCLUSIONS: Curettage is not cost-effective compared with expectant management in women with an incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment. This indicates that curettage in this group should be restrained.

Research question What is the cost-effectiveness of gonadotrophins compared with clomiphene citrate in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian stimulation under strict cancellation criteria? Design A cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Between July 2013 and March 2016, 738 couples were randomized to gonadotrophins (369) or clomiphene citrate (369) in a multicentre RCT in the Netherlands. The direct medical costs of both strategies were compared. Direct medical costs included costs of medication, cycle monitoring, insemination and, if applicable, pregnancy monitoring. Non-parametric bootstrap resampling was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in estimates. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed according to intention-to-treat. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between gonadotrophins and clomiphene citrate for ongoing pregnancy and live birth was assessed. Results The mean costs per couple were €1534 for gonadotrophins and €1067 for clomiphene citrate (mean difference of €468; 95% confidence interval [CI] €464–472). As ongoing pregnancy rates were 31% in women allocated to gonadotrophins and 26% in women allocated to clomiphene citrate (relative risk 1.16, 95% CI 0.93–1.47), the ICER was €21,804 (95% CI €11,628–31,980) per additional ongoing pregnancy with gonadotrophins and €17,044 (95% CI €8998–25,090) per additional live birth with gonadotrophins. Conclusions Gonadotrophins are more expensive compared with clomiphene citrate in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with adherence to strict cancellation criteria, without being significantly more effective.

Since the first successful live birth after in vitro fertilization (IVF) was reported in 1978, more than 5 million children have been born with the help of this and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) procedures. However, only approximately 25% to 30% of cycles of IVF and ICSI lead to the birth of a child. The reasons for implantation failure are poorly understood. One major cause of implantation failure is abnormalities of the uterine cavity such as polyps, myoma, and adhesions. Hysteroscopy has been generally regarded as the standard procedure to detect these uterine abnormalities. It is thought to improve pregnancy rates in women scheduled for IVF by detection and surgical removal of uterine cavity abnormalities, dilatation of the cervical canal, or induction of inflammatory reactions in the endometriumby the procedure itself. Hysteroscopy is often performed routinely in infertile women scheduled for their first IVF cycle. However, there are no data from well-designed randomized controlled trials to support this practice. The inSIGHT trial is a pragmatic multicenter randomized clinical trial designed to determine whether routine hysteroscopy before the first IVF treatment cycle increases the live birth rate. The trial was conducted in 7 university hospitals and 15 large general hospitals in the Netherlands. Women eligible for the trial were infertile, scheduled to start their first IVF or ICSI treatment, had no previous hysteroscopy, and had a normal transvaginal ultrasound of the uterine cavity. Subjects were randomly assigned in a 1: 1 ratio to hysteroscopy with treatment of detected intracavitary abnormalities before starting IVF followed by IVF (hysteroscopy group) or to immediate start of IVF treatment (immediate IVF group). Web-based randomization was done with a variable block size to allocate patients to groups and was stratified by center. The doctors, outcome assessors, and participants were not masked to the assigned group. The primary study outcome was an ongoing pregnancy (detection of a fetal heartbeat at > 12weeks of gestation) within 18 months of randomization and a live birth. Analysis was done according to intention to treat. Between May 25, 2011, and August 27, 2013, 750 women were randomized: 373 to the hysteroscopy group and 377 to the immediate IVF group. A live birth occurred during the trial period in 209 (57%) of 369 women in the hysteroscopy group and 200 (54%) of 373 in the immediate IVF group; the relative riskwas 1.06, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.93 to 1.20; P = 0.41. These findings demonstrate that hysteroscopy does not improve live birth rates in infertile women scheduled for their first IVF cycle, who have a normal transvaginal ultrasound of the uterine cavity. Therefore, routine hysteroscopy should not be performed in women with a normal transvaginal ultrasound.

This study assessed the efficacy of hysteroscopic polyp removal in the management of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) of premenopausal patients. The monthly menstrual blood loss, measured semi-objectively by the pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC) and patients satisfaction were recorded prospectively preoperatively and postoperatively. Twenty-one patients were included. Median monthly PBAC-score before treatment was 288 (range 142-670) and 6 months after polyp removal 155 (range 39-560). It was concluded that hysteroscopic polyp removal in premenopausal women with AUB reduces the monthly blood loss significantly and has a high satisfaction rate on the short term.

Contains fulltext : 109856.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmatic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment a large drop is present between embryo transfer and occurrence of pregnancy. The implantation rate per embryo transferred is only 30%. Studies have shown that minor intrauterine abnormalities can be found in 11-45% of infertile women with a normal transvaginal sonography or hysterosalpingography. Two randomised controlled trials have indicated that detection and treatment of these abnormalities by office hysteroscopy after two failed IVF cycles leads to a 9-13% increase in pregnancy rate. Therefore, screening of all infertile women for intracavitary pathology prior to the start of IVF/ICSI is increasingly advocated. In absence of a scientific basis for such a policy, this study will assess the effects and costs of screening for and treatment of unsuspected intrauterine abnormalities by routine office hysteroscopy, with or without saline infusion sonography (SIS), prior to a first IVF/ICSI cycle. METHODS/DESIGN: Multicenter randomised controlled trial in asymptomatic subfertile women, indicated for a first IVF/ICSI treatment cycle, with normal findings at transvaginal sonography. Women with recurrent miscarriages, prior hysteroscopy treatment and intermenstrual blood loss will not be included. Participants will be randomised for a routine fertility work-up with additional (SIS and) hysteroscopy with on-the-spot-treatment of predefined intrauterine abnormalities versus the regular fertility work-up without additional diagnostic tests. The primary study outcome is the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate resulting in live birth achieved within 18 months of IVF/ICSI treatment after randomisation. Secondary study outcome parameters are the cumulative implantation rate; cumulative miscarriage rate; patient preference and patient tolerance of a SIS and hysteroscopy procedure. All data will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle, using univariate and multivariate logistic regression and cox regression. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed to evaluate the costs of the additional tests as routine procedure. In total 700 patients will be included in this study. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will help to clarify the significance of hysteroscopy prior to IVF treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01242852.

This study assessed the efficacy of hysteroscopic polyp removal in the management of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) of premenopausal patients. The monthly menstrual blood loss, measured semi-objectively by the pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC) and patients satisfaction were recorded prospectively preoperatively and postoperatively. Twenty-one patients were included. Median monthly PBAC-score before treatment was 288 (range 142-670) and 6 months after polyp removal 155 (range 39-560). It was concluded that hysteroscopic polyp removal in premenopausal women with AUB reduces the monthly blood loss significantly and has a high satisfaction rate on the short term.

Background We have offered, for the first time in The Netherlands, carrier diagnostics for hemoglobinopathies (HbP) to early pregnant women. The aim of this study was to establish whether carrier analysis would be welcome by the public and feasible at the outpatient level. Method One hundred and thirty-nine randomly selected women were informed and offered basic carrier diagnostics at the first pregnancy control. Results Carrier diagnostics was accepted by 136 women (97.8%). The population consisted of 31% of recent immigrants and 69% of native Dutch. One carrier of HbS and one of β-thalassemia were found, both among the group of the recent immigrants. In both cases, partners were tested excluding a couple at risk. In addition, five carriers of α+-thalassemia were diagnosed at the molecular level, one of them in the native Dutch population. Basic carrier analysis was done both at the Hospital Laboratory and at the Reference Laboratory. No discrepancies were found. Conclusions This pilot study shows that (1) as predicted the prevalence of risk-related HbP and of α+-thalassemia is high in the immigrant population. (2) The compliance with carrier analysis in both native Dutch and immigrants is virtually total and (3) carrier diagnosis in early pregnancy and partner analysis in Hospital Laboratories is possible and is an effective tool for primary prevention of HbP in The Netherlands. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Objective To validate a simple, highly predictive test to discriminate between menorrhagia and normal menstrual blood loss. Methods The sanitary wear of 489 menstrual bleeding episodes was collected by 288 women for objective measurement of menstrual blood loss (alkaline hematin method); the women made a subjective assessment of the volume and, based on a pictorial chart, recorded the amount of and the degree to which their sanitary wear was soiled. Based on that degree, a score was calculated for each episode and a suitable cutoff point was chosen, above which the presence of menorrhagia was likely and below which it was unlikely. Results Using a score of 185 as the cutoff point, the predictive values of positive and negative tests were almost equally high, 85.9 and 84.8%, respectively. Whether or not the presence of clots was recorded, these values did not change. The predictive value of a woman's complaint of heavy bleeding for the presence of menorrhagia was 55.9% and that of anemia (hemoglobin less than 12.0 g/dL) was 74.4%. Conclusion We validated and refined a new, simple, visual assessment technique and demonstrated that it is superior to a woman's subjective assessment of menstrual blood loss and the occurrence of anemia for predicting menorrhagia, even if it is performed only once. We also demonstrated that the volume that clots contribute to menstruation is not as large as many clinicians believe. With this technique, the quality of therapy can be enhanced by making it more adequate and rational.