IVF and IUI in couples with unexplained infertility (FIIX study): study protocol of a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTIONS: In couples with unexplained infertility and a poor prognosis of natural conception, are four cycles of IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) non-inferior to one completed cycle of IVF for the outcome of cumulative live birth? Are four cycles of IUI-OS associated with a lower cost per live birth compared to one completed cycle of IVF? Will four cycles of IUI-OS followed by one complete cycle of IVF result in as many live births at lower cost per live birth, than two complete cycles of IVF? Will four cycles of IUI-OS followed by two complete cycles of IVF result in more live births at lower cost per live birth, than two complete cycles of IVF alone? WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IUI is widely used in the USA, the UK and Europe as a low cost, less invasive alternative to IVF for couples with unexplained infertility. Although three to six cycles of IUI were comparable to IVF in the three major studies carried out to date, gonadotrophin ovarian stimulation was used in the majority of cases, and this also resulted in a high multiple pregnancy rate in some studies. Ovarian stimulation with clomiphene citrate is known to have lower multiple pregnancy rates. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: The FIIX study is a multicentre, open label, parallel, pragmatic non-inferiority randomized controlled trial of 580 couples with unexplained infertility comparing four cycles of IUI-OS with clomiphene citrate and one completed cycle of IVF. Variable block randomization stratified by age and clinic with electronic allocation will be used. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Couples with poor prognosis for natural conception and who are eligible for publicly funded fertility treatment in six fertility clinics in New Zealand. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: Auckland Medical Research Fund (3718892/1119003), A+ Trust, Auckland District Health Board (A + 8479), Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust (3718514). No competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12619001003167. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 15 July 2019. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 02/08/2019.

Reporting assisted reproductive technology success rates on Australian and New Zealand fertility clinic websites.

BACKGROUND: Fertility clinics commonly report their success rates online. These can be difficult to interpret as they are influenced by the way the data are presented. To improve transparency, the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee (RTAC) has published guidelines to support fertility clinics with their online reporting of success rates. However, it is unclear whether compliance with these guidelines will allow patients to make fair comparisons between clinics. AIMS: To illustrate the variability in patient and treatment populations that contribute to fertility clinic published rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fertility clinics offering in vitro fertilisation treatment in Australia or New Zealand were assessed for compliance with six guidelines adapted from RTAC's code of practice, for reporting success rates in the public domain. All graphs and/or tables reporting clinic success rates were assessed to illustrate the combination of outcome or treatment variables contributing to each dataset. RESULTS: Twenty of the 30 fertility clinic websites reported success rates. Of these only 17 reported live births. The median compliance score with RTAC guidelines was 8/8 (interquartile range: 6-8). Of 41 figures published across all websites, five reported clinical pregnancy rates as their only outcome measure. Thirty-seven figures reported success rates 'per embryo transfer', two figures used 'per egg collection', and no figures described success rates 'per cycle started'. Thirty-two different combinations of reporting variables were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Websites were broadly compliant with RTAC's guidelines. However, considering the variability in patient and treatment groups contributing to success rate data, patients cannot be expected to make an informed decision based on clinics' self-reported outcomes. RTAC guidelines could be improved by providing a clear definition of success, including the appropriate use of denominators.

The Biomarkers for Preterm Birth Study-A prospective observational study comparing the impact of vaginal biomarkers on clinical practice when used in women with symptoms of preterm labor.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to compare the use of qualitative fetal fibronectin, quantitative fetal fibronectin, and placental α-microglobulin-1 in women with symptoms of preterm labor, to evaluate which vaginal biomarker performs the best in clinical practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This prospective observational study included women who presented with symptoms of preterm labor at 24+0 to 34+0  weeks of gestation at a large tertiary maternity hospital in Auckland, New Zealand. Women were managed according to hospital guidelines using qualitative fetal fibronectin. Quantitative fetal fibronectin and placental α-microglobulin-1 tests were also taken, with clinicians blinded to the results. Management and delivery outcomes were collected from clinical records. The primary outcome was the rate of antenatal hospital admission. Analysis was performed according to predefined management protocols for each of the tests. RESULTS: A total of 128 women had all three biomarkers tests taken. Spontaneous preterm birth rates were 7/128 (5.5%) ≤34+0  weeks and 20/128 (15.6%) <37+0  weeks of gestation; 5/128 (3.9%) delivered within 7 days of testing. Positive results were recorded in 28 qualitative fetal fibronectin tests, 25 quantitative fetal fibronectin tests with 11 ≥200 ng/mL, and 16 placental α-microglobulin-1 tests. The use of quantitative fetal fibronectin or placental α-microglobulin-1 would have lowered antenatal admission rates: 27/128 (21.1%) for qualitative fetal fibronectin, 11/128 (8.6%) for quantitative fetal fibronectin (admission threshold ≥200 ng/mL), and 15/128 (11.7%) for placental α-microglobulin-1. No additional women with quantitative fetal fibronectin <200 ng/mL delivered within 7 days or missed corticosteroids compared with standard care (qualitative fetal fibronectin); however, an additional 3 cases had a false-negative placental α-microglobulin-1 and clinical care may have been compromised (no antenatal corticosteroids or admission). CONCLUSIONS: The use of quantitative fetal fibronectin (admission threshold ≥200 ng/mL) has the potential to reduce the rate of antenatal admissions for women with symptoms of preterm labor without compromising use of antenatal interventions that improve outcomes for babies born preterm.

The IVF-LUBE trial - a randomized trial to assess Lipiodol® uterine bathing effect in women with endometriosis or repeat implantation failure undergoing IVF.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does pre-IVF Lipiodol® increase the success of IVF treatment in women with endometriosis or repeat implantation failure (RIF) compared with IVF alone? DESIGN: Lipiodol is known to enhance natural fertility, especially amongst women with endometriosis. The effect of Lipiodol may accrue through an impact on the endometrium that enhances receptivity to implantation. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was carried out on 70 women due to undergo IVF. Women with endometriosis or RIF in previous IVF treatments, recruited from IVF clinics in New Zealand and in Pune, India, received either Lipiodol by hysterosalpingogram or no intervention prior to IVF treatment. RESULTS: Between May 2009 and January 2014, 33 women were randomized to Lipiodol plus IVF and 37 to IVF alone. When pregnancies resulting from fresh embryo transfer from the IVF cycle under study were considered, live birth rates were 8/33 (24%) in the pre-IVF Lipiodol group and 11/37 (30%) in the IVF only group (relative risk [RR] 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 1.8). Live birth rates from pregnancies within 6 months were 11/33 (33%) and 12/37 (32%) in these respective groups (RR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.53 to 2.0). The trial was underpowered to detect smaller differences between treatment and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found of benefit of Lipiodol prior to fresh embryo transfer in women with endometriosis or RIF. It is suggested that this treatment should not be undertaken purely as an adjuvant in IVF other than in the context of a further well-designed RCT.

Combination of the non-invasive tests for the diagnosis of endometriosis.

BACKGROUND: About 10% of women of reproductive age suffer from endometriosis, a costly chronic disease causing pelvic pain and subfertility. Laparoscopy is the gold standard diagnostic test for endometriosis, but is expensive and carries surgical risks. Currently, there are no non-invasive tests available in clinical practice to accurately diagnose endometriosis. This review assessed the diagnostic accuracy of combinations of different non-invasive testing modalities for endometriosis and provided a summary of all the reviews in the non-invasive tests for endometriosis series. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of any combination of non-invasive tests for the diagnosis of pelvic endometriosis (peritoneal and/or ovarian or deep infiltrating) compared to surgical diagnosis as a reference standard. The combined tests were evaluated as replacement tests for diagnostic surgery and triage tests to assist decision-making to undertake diagnostic surgery for endometriosis. SEARCH METHODS: We did not restrict the searches to particular study designs, language or publication dates. We searched CENTRAL to July 2015, MEDLINE and EMBASE to May 2015, as well as the following databases to April 2015: CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, LILACS, OAIster, TRIP, ClinicalTrials.gov, DARE and PubMed. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered published, peer-reviewed, randomised controlled or cross-sectional studies of any size, including prospectively collected samples from any population of women of reproductive age suspected of having one or more of the following target conditions: ovarian, peritoneal or deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE). We included studies comparing the diagnostic test accuracy of a combination of several testing modalities with the findings of surgical visualisation of endometriotic lesions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently collected and performed a quality assessment of the data from each study by using the QUADAS-2 tool. For each test, the data were classified as positive or negative for the surgical detection of endometriosis and sensitivity and specificity estimates were calculated. The bivariate model was planned to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity whenever sufficient data were available. The predetermined criteria for a clinically useful test to replace diagnostic surgery were a sensitivity of 0.94 and a specificity of 0.79 to detect endometriosis. We set the criteria for triage tests at a sensitivity of 0.95 and above and a specificity of 0.50 and above, which 'rules out' the diagnosis with high accuracy if there is a negative test result (SnOUT test), or a sensitivity of 0.50 and above and a specificity of 0.95 and above, which 'rules in' the diagnosis with high accuracy if there is a positive result (SpIN test). MAIN RESULTS: Eleven eligible studies included 1339 participants. All the studies were of poor methodological quality. Seven studies evaluated pelvic endometriosis, one study considered DIE and/or ovarian endometrioma, two studies differentiated endometrioma from other ovarian cysts and one study addressed mapping DIE at specific anatomical sites. Fifteen different diagnostic combinations were assessed, including blood, urinary or endometrial biomarkers, transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) and clinical history or examination. We did not pool estimates of sensitivity and specificity, as each study analysed independent combinations of the non-invasive tests.Tests that met the criteria for a replacement test were: a combination of serum IL-6 (cut-off >15.4 pg/ml) and endometrial PGP 9.5 for pelvic endometriosis (sensitivity 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.00), specificity 0.93 (95% CI, 0.80, 0.98) and the combination of vaginal examination and transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) for rectal endometriosis (sensitivity 0.96 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.99), specificity 0.98 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.00)). Tests that met the criteria for SpIN triage tests for pelvic endometriosis were: 1. a multiplication of urine vitamin-D-binding protein (VDBP) and serum CA-125 (cut-off >2755) (sensitivity 0.74 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.84), specificity 0.97 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.00)) and 2. a combination of history (length of menses), serum CA-125 (cut-off >35 U/ml) and endometrial leukocytes (sensitivity 0.61 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.69), specificity 0.95 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.98)). For endometrioma, the following combinations qualified as SpIN test: 1. TVUS and either serum CA-125 (cut-off ≥25 U/ml) or CA 19.9 (cut-off ≥12 U/ml) (sensitivity 0.79 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.91), specificity 0.97 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00)); 2. TVUS and serum CA 19.9 (cut-off ≥12 U/ml) (sensitivity 0.54 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.70), specificity 0.97 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.0)); 3-4. TVUS and serum CA-125 (cut-off ≥20 U/ml or cut-off ≥25 U/ml) (sensitivity 0.69 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.85), specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99)); 5. TVUS and serum CA-125 (cut-off ≥35 U/ml) (sensitivity 0.52 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.71), specificity 0.97 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.00)). A combination of vaginal examination and TVUS reached the threshold for a SpIN test for obliterated pouch of Douglas (sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.96), specificity 0.98 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.00)), vaginal wall endometriosis (sensitivity 0.82 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.95), specificity 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.0)) and rectovaginal septum endometriosis (sensitivity 0.88 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.00), specificity 0.99 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.00)).All the tests were evaluated in individual studies and displayed wide CIs. Due to the heterogeneity and high risk of bias of the included studies, the clinical utility of the studied combination diagnostic tests for endometriosis remains unclear. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: None of the biomarkers evaluated in this review could be evaluated in a meaningful way and there was insufficient or poor-quality evidence. Laparoscopy remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of endometriosis and using any non-invasive tests should only be undertaken in a research setting.

What is endosalpingiosis?

OBJECTIVE: To describe the demographics and clinical presentation of endosalpingiosis. To compare endosalpingiosis with endometriosis, particularly in regards to infertility and chronic pelvic pain. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: Hospital. PATIENT(S): We included women with a histologic diagnosis of endosalpingiosis, a second group with a histologic diagnosis of endometriosis, and a final group who had neither endosalpingiosis nor endometriosis, with histology reports after undergoing gynecologic surgery. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Infertility and chronic pelvic pain. RESULT(S): We found that 34.5% of endosalpingiosis cases had concurrent endometriosis; 40% of the endosalpingiosis group were postmenopausal. Endometriosis was significantly associated with infertility (odds ratio [OR] 3.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-8.5) and chronic pelvic pain (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.7-5.5). In contrast, there was no significant link between endosalpingiosis and infertility (OR 1.6, 95% CI 0.7-3.7) nor chronic pelvic pain (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.5-1.5). Gynecologic malignancy occurred significantly more in premenopausal women with endosalpingiosis than in those without (OR 10.3, 95% CI 3.6-29.8). CONCLUSION(S): Endosalpingiosis appears to affect postmenopausal women at a rate much higher than previously reported. Endosalpingiosis and endometriosis occur concurrently in 34% of endosalpingiosis cases; however, the two diseases have different clinical presentations. This demonstrates that endosalpingiosis is not a variant of endometriosis.