The effectiveness of immediate versus delayed tubal flushing with oil-based contrast in women with unexplained infertility (H2Oil-timing study): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In women with unexplained infertility, tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography leads to significantly more live births as compared to tubal flushing with water-based contrast during hysterosalpingography. However, it is unknown whether incorporating tubal flushing with oil-based contrast in the initial fertility work-up results to a reduced time to conception leading to live birth when compared to delayed tubal flushing that is performed six months after the initial fertility work-up. We also aim to evaluate the effectiveness of tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography versus no tubal flushing in the first six months of the study. METHODS: This study will be an investigator-initiated, open-label, international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial with a planned economic analysis alongside the study. Infertile women between 18 and 39 years of age, who have an ovulatory cycle, who are at low risk for tubal pathology and have been advised expectant management for at least six months (based on the Hunault prediction score) will be included in this study. Eligible women will be randomly allocated (1:1) to immediate tubal flushing (intervention) versus delayed tubal flushing (control group) by using web-based block randomization stratified per study center. The primary outcome is time to conception leading to live birth with conception within twelve months after randomization. We assess the cumulative conception rate at six and twelve months as two co-primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes include ongoing pregnancy rate, live birth rate, miscarriage rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, number of complications, procedural pain score and cost-effectiveness. To demonstrate or refute a shorter time to pregnancy of three months with a power of 90%, a sample size of 554 women is calculated. DISCUSSION: The H2Oil-timing study will provide insight into whether tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography should be incorporated in the initial fertility work-up in women with unexplained infertility as a therapeutic procedure. If this multicenter RCT shows that tubal flushing with oil-based contrast incorporated in the initial fertility work-up reduces time to conception and is a cost-effective strategy, the results may lead to adjustments of (inter)national guidelines and change clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study was retrospectively registered in International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (Main ID: EUCTR2018-004153-24-NL).

Oil-based versus water-based contrast media for hysterosalpingography in infertile women of advanced age, with ovulation disorders or a high risk for tubal pathology: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial (H2Oil2 study).

BACKGROUND: In women with unexplained infertility, tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography (HSG) increases ongoing pregnancy and subsequent live birth rates when compared to tubal flushing with water-based contrast. It is currently unclear whether an HSG with oil-based contrast also results in more ongoing pregnancies and live births in women of advanced age, women with ovulation disorders, and women with potential tubal pathology when compared to an HSG with water-based contrast. METHODS: We plan an international, multicentre, open-label, randomized controlled trial (RCT) studying three groups of infertile women who have an indication for tubal patency testing according to their treating physician and additionally; (1) are 39 years of age or older, (2) have an ovulation disorder or (3) have a high risk for tubal pathology based on their medical history. Women with an allergy for iodinated contrast medium are excluded, as are women with diabetes, hyperprolactinemia or untreated hyper- or hypothyroidism, and women with a partner with severe male infertility. After informed consent, women will be randomly allocated to the intervention, tubal flushing with the use of oil-based contrast during HSG or the control group, tubal flushing with the use of water-based contrast during HSG in a 1:1 ratio by the web-based system Castor. The primary endpoint will be ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth with conception within six months after randomization. Secondary outcomes are other pregnancy outcomes, used fertility treatments, adverse events and cost-effectiveness. Based on the expected ongoing pregnancy rate of 17% in the control group and 27% in the intervention group, the sample size will be 930 women (465 per group). Study inclusion is expected to be complete in four years. DISCUSSION: This multicentre RCT will establish whether, for women of advanced age, women with ovulatory disease, and women who have a high risk for tubal pathology, there is a fertility enhancing effect of tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during HSG and whether the use of this contrast medium is cost-effective. Trial Registration The study was prospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Register on August 1st 2019 as 'H2Oil2' (reference number NL7925, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7925 ).

Thyroid function in neonates conceived after hysterosalpingography with iodinated contrast.

STUDY QUESTION: Does exposure to preconceptional hysterosalpingography (HSG) with iodinated oil-based contrast affect neonatal thyroid function as compared to iodinated water-based contrast? SUMMARY ANSWER: Preconceptional HSG with iodinated contrast did not influence the neonatal thyroid function. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: HSG is a commonly applied tubal patency test during fertility work-up in which either oil- or water-based contrast is used. Oil-based contrast contains more iodine compared to water-based contrast. A previous study in an East Asian population found an increased risk of congenital hypothyroidism (CH) in neonates whose mothers were exposed to high amounts of oil-based contrast during HSG. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a retrospective data analysis of the H2Oil study, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing HSG with the use of oil- versus water-based contrast during fertility work-up. After an HSG with oil-based contrast, 214 women had an ongoing pregnancy within 6 months leading to a live birth compared to 155 women after HSG with water-based contrast. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Of the 369 women who had a live born infant, 208 consented to be approached for future research and 138 provided informed consent to collect data on the thyroid function tests of their offspring (n = 140). Thyroid function tests of these children were retrieved from the Dutch neonatal screening program, which includes the assessment of total thyroxine (T4) in all newborns, followed by thyroid-stimulating hormone only in those with a T4 level of ≤ -0.8 SD score. Furthermore, amount of contrast medium used and time between HSG and conception were compared between the two study groups. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Data were collected from 140 neonates conceived after HSG with oil-based (n = 76) or water-based (n = 64) contrast. The median T4 concentration was 87.0 nmol/l [76.0-96.0] in the oil group and 90.0 nmol/l [78.0-106.0] in the water group (P = 0.13). None of the neonates had a positive screening result for CH.The median amount of contrast medium used was 9.0 ml [interquartile range (IQR), 6.0-11.8] in the oil-group and 10.0 ml [IQR, 7.5-14.0] in the water group (P = 0.43). No influence of the amount of contrast on the effect of contrast group on T4 concentrations was found (P-value for interaction, 0.37). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: A relatively small sample size and possible attrition at follow-up are limitations of this study. Although our results suggest that the use of iodinated contrast media for HSG is safe for the offspring, the impact of a decrease in maternal thyroid function on offspring neurodevelopment could not be excluded, as data on maternal thyroid function after HSG and during conception were lacking. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: As HSG with oil-based contrast does not affect thyroid function of the offspring, there is no reason to withhold this contrast to infertile women undergoing HSG. Future studies should investigate whether HSG with iodinated contrast influences the periconceptional maternal thyroid function and, consequently, offspring neurodevelopment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study received no funding. The original H2Oil RCT was an investigator-initiated study that was funded by the two academic institutions (Academic Medical Center and VU University Medical Center) of the Amsterdam UMC. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis and intrepretation of the data. I.R. reports receiving travel fee from Guerbet. C.B.L. reports speakers fee from Ferring in the past and research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. K.D. reports receiving travel fee and speakers fee from Guerbet. B.W.M. is supported by a 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. V.M. reports receiving travel fee and speakers fee as well as research grants from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register NTR 7526 (Neonates born after the H2Oil study), NTR 3270 (original H2Oil study), www.trialregister.nl.

Does the effectiveness of IUI in couples with unexplained subfertility depend on their prognosis of natural conception? A replication of the H2Oil study.

STUDY QUESTION: Can we replicate the finding that the benefit of IUI-ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) compared to expectant management for couples with unexplained subfertility depends on the prognosis of natural conception? SUMMARY ANSWER: The estimated benefit of IUI-OS did not depend on the prognosis of natural conception but did depend on when treatment was started after diagnosis, with starting IUI-OS later yielding a larger absolute and relative benefit of treatment. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IUI-OS is often the first-line treatment for couples with unexplained subfertility. Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared IUI-OS to expectant management using different thresholds for the prognosis of natural conception as inclusion criteria and found different results. In a previous study (a Dutch national cohort), it was found that the benefit of IUI-OS compared to expectant management seemed dependent on the prognosis of natural conception, but this finding warrants replication. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: We conducted a secondary analysis of the H2Oil study (n = 1119), a multicentre RCT that evaluated the effect of oil-based contrast versus water-based contrast during hysterosalpingography (HSG). Couples were randomized before HSG and followed up for 3-5 years. We selected couples with unexplained subfertility who received HSG and had follow-up or pregnancy data available. Follow-up was censored at the start of IVF, after the last IUI cycle or at last contact and was truncated at a maximum of 18 months after the fertility workup. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: The endpoint was time to conception leading to an ongoing pregnancy. We used the sequential Cox approach comparing in each month the ongoing pregnancy rates over the next 6 months of couples who started IUI-OS to couples who did not. We calculated the prognosis of natural conception for individual couples, updated this over consecutive failed cycles and evaluated whether prognosis modified the effect of starting IUI-OS. We corrected for known predictors of conception using inverse probability weighting. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Data from 975 couples were available. There were 587 couples who received at least one IUI-OS cycle within 18 months after HSG of whom 221 conceived leading to an ongoing pregnancy (rate: 0.74 per couple per year over a median follow-up for IUI of 5 months). The median period between HSG and starting IUI-OS was 4 months. Out of 388 untreated couples, 299 conceived naturally (rate: 0.56 per couple per year over a median follow-up of 4 months). After creating our mimicked trial datasets, starting IUI-OS was associated with a higher chance of ongoing pregnancy by a pooled, overall hazard ratio of 1.50 (95% CI: 1.19-1.89) compared to expectant management. We did not find strong evidence that the effect of treatment was modified by a couple's prognosis of achieving natural conception (Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC) decreased by 1 point). The effect of treatment was dependent on when couples started IUI-OS (AIC decreased by more than 2 points). The patterns of estimated absolute chances over time for couples with increasingly better prognoses were different from the previous study but the finding that starting later yields a larger benefit of treatment was similar. We found IUI-OS increased the absolute chance of pregnancy by at least 5% compared to expectant management. The absolute chance of pregnancy after IUI-OS seems less variable between couples and starting times of treatment than the absolute chance after expectant management. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: This is a secondary analysis, as the H2Oil trial was not designed with this research question in mind. Owing to sample size restrictions, it remained difficult to distinguish between the ranges of prognoses in which true benefit was found. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We replicated the finding that starting IUI-OS later after diagnosis yields a larger absolute and relative benefit of treatment. We did not replicate the dependency of the effect of IUI-OS on the prognosis of natural conception and could not identify clear thresholds for the prognosis of natural conception when IUI-OS was and/or was not effective. Because many of these couples still have good chances of natural conception at the time of diagnosis, we suggest clinicians should advise couples to delay the start of IUI-OS for several months to avoid unnecessary treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The H2Oil study (NTR 3270) was an investigator-initiated study that was funded by the two academic institutions (AMC and VUmc) of the Amsterdam UMC. The follow-up study (NTR 6577) was also an investigator-initiated study with funding by Guerbet, France. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data. B.W.M. is supported by an Investigator grant (GNT1176437) from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). K.D. reports receiving travel and speaker fees from Guerbet. B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Merck KGaA, iGenomix and Guerbet. V.M. reports receiving travel- and speaker fees as well as research grants from Guerbet.

Treatment effect of oil-based contrast is related to experienced pain at HSG: a post-hoc analysis of the randomised H2Oil study.

STUDY QUESTION: Does pain or volume of used contrast medium impact the effectiveness of oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography (HSG)? SUMMARY ANSWER: In women who report moderate to severe pain during HSG, the use of oil-based contrast resulted in more ongoing pregnancies compared to the use of water-based contrast, whereas in women who reported mild or no pain, no difference in ongoing pregnancies was found. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: We recently showed that in infertile women undergoing HSG, the use of oil-based contrast results in more ongoing pregnancies within 6 months as compared to the use of water-based contrast. However, the underlying mechanism of this fertility-enhancing effect remains unclear. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a post-hoc analysis of the H2Oil study, a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the therapeutic effect of oil- and water-based contrast at HSG. Here, we evaluated the impact of pain experienced at HSG and volume of used contrast media during HSG on ongoing pregnancy. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In a subset of 400 participating women, pain during HSG by means of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (range: 0.0-10.0 cm) was reported, while in 512 women, we registered the volume of used contrast (in millilitres). We used logistic regression analyses to assess whether pain and volume of used contrast media modified the effect of oil-based contrast on ongoing pregnancy rates. Data were analysed according to intention-to-treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In 400 women in whom pain scores were reported, the overall median pain score was 5.0 (Interquartile range (IQR) 3.0-6.8) (oil group (n = 199) 4.8 (IQR 3.0-6.4); water group (n = 201) 5.0 (IQR 3.0-6.7); P-value 0.28). There was a significant interaction between pain (VAS ≤5 versus VAS ≥6) and the primary outcome ongoing pregnancy (P-value 0.047). In women experiencing pain (VAS ≥6), HSG with oil-based contrast resulted in better 6-month ongoing pregnancy rates compared to HSG with water-based contrast (49.4% versus 29.6%; RR 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5), while in women with a pain score ≤5, 6-month ongoing pregnancy rates were not significantly different between the use of oil- (28.8%) versus water-based contrast (29.2%) (RR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.66-1.5). In the 512 women in whom we recorded contrast, median volume was 9.0 ml (IQR 5.7-15.0) in the oil group versus 8.0 ml (IQR 5.9-13.0) in the water group, respectively (P-value 0.72). Volume of used contrast was not found to modify the effect of oil-based contrast on ongoing pregnancy (P-value for interaction 0.23). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This was a post-hoc analysis that should be considered as hypothesis generating. The RCT was restricted to infertile ovulatory women, younger than 39 years of age and with a low risk for tubal pathology. Therefore, our results should not be generalised to infertile women who do not share these features. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The underlying mechanism of the fertility-enhancing effect induced by HSG with the use of oil-based contrast remains unclear. However, these findings suggest a possible mechanistic pathway, that is increasing intrauterine pressure occurring prior to dislodging pregnancy hindering debris or mucus plugs from the proximal part of otherwise normal fallopian tubes. This information might help in the search of the underlying fertility-enhancing mechanism found by using oil-based contrast during HSG. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): 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 funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports consultancy for Guerbet. H.V. reports consultancy fees from Ferring. C.B.L. reports speakers' fees from Ferring and research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. V.M. reports receiving travel and speakers fees as well as research grants from Guerbet. B.W.M. is supported by an 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 conflict of interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The H2Oil study was registered at the Netherlands Trial Registry (NTR 3270). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 1 February 2012. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 3 February 2012.

Effectiveness on fertility outcome of tubal flushing with different contrast media: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare, in women with infertility, the effectiveness and safety of tubal flushing using oil-based contrast medium, water-based contrast medium or their combination, and no tubal flushing, and to evaluate the effectiveness of tubal flushing on fertility outcome over time. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis, searching the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and trial registries, up to 25 September 2018. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the following interventions with each other or with no intervention in women with infertility: tubal flushing using water-based contrast medium, tubal flushing using oil-based contrast medium or additional tubal flushing with oil-based medium following diagnostic tubal flushing with water-based medium. The outcomes included clinical pregnancy, live birth, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy and adverse events. RESULTS: Of the 283 studies identified through the search, 14 RCTs reporting on 3852 women with infertility were included. Network meta-analysis showed that tubal flushing using oil-based contrast medium was associated with higher odds of clinical pregnancy within 6 months after randomization and more subsequent live births compared with tubal flushing using water-based medium (odds ratio (OR), 1.67 (95% CI, 1.38-2.03), moderate certainty of evidence; and OR, 2.18 (95% CI, 1.30-3.65), low certainty of evidence, respectively) and compared with no intervention (OR, 2.28 (95% CI, 1.50-3.47), moderate certainty of evidence; and OR, 2.85 (95% CI, 1.41-5.74), low certainty of evidence, respectively). These results agreed with those of the pairwise meta-analysis. For clinical pregnancy within 6 months, there was insufficient evidence of a difference between tubal flushing with water-based contrast medium and no intervention (OR, 1.36 (95% CI, 0.91-2.04), low certainty of evidence). For fertility outcomes after 6 months, there was insufficient evidence of a difference in any comparison (low to very low certainty of evidence). Compared with tubal flushing using water-based contrast medium, the use of oil-based contrast medium was associated with higher odds of asymptomatic intravasation (OR, 5.06 (95% CI, 2.29-11.18), moderate certainty of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: In women with infertility undergoing fertility workup, tubal flushing using oil-based contrast medium probably increases clinical pregnancy rates within 6 months after randomization and may increase subsequent live-birth rates, compared with tubal flushing using water-based contrast medium and compared with no intervention. Evidence on fertility outcomes beyond 6 months is inadequate to draw firm conclusions. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Eficacia sobre el resultado de fertilidad del lavado de trompas con diferentes medios de contraste: revisión sistemática y metaanálisis en red OBJETIVOS: Comparar, en mujeres con infertilidad, la efectividad y seguridad del lavado de trompas con un medio de contraste a base de aceite, un medio de contraste a base de agua o una combinación, y el no lavado de trompas, y evaluar la efectividad del lavado de trompas en el resultado de la fertilidad con el tiempo. MÉTODOS: Se realizó una revisión sistemática y un metaanálisis en red, mediante búsquedas en las bases de datos electrónicas MEDLINE, EMBASE y el Registro Central Cochrane de Ensayos Controlados, y en otros registros de ensayos, hasta el 25 de septiembre de 2018. Se incluyeron ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) que compararon las siguientes intervenciones entre sí o con la no intervención en mujeres con infertilidad: lavado de trompas con medio de contraste a base de agua, lavado de trompas con medio de contraste a base de aceite o lavado de trompas adicional con un medio a base de aceite después de un lavado de trompas con un medio a base de agua. Los resultados incluyeron el embarazo confirmado ecográficamente, el nacimiento vivo, el embarazo en curso, el aborto espontáneo, el embarazo ectópico y los eventos adversos. RESULTADOS: De los 283 estudios identificados mediante la búsqueda, se incluyeron 14 ECA que informaron sobre 3852 mujeres con infertilidad. El metaanálisis en red mostró que el lavado de trompas con medio de contraste a base de aceite se asoció con mayores probabilidades de embarazo confirmado ecográficamente dentro de los seis meses posteriores a la aleatorización y más nacimientos vivos posteriores en comparación con el lavado de trompas con medio a base de agua (razón de momios [RM], 1,67; IC 95%: 1,38-2,03), certeza moderada de evidencia; y RM, 2,18 (IC 95%: 1,30-3,65), certeza baja de evidencia, respectivamente) y en comparación con la no intervención (RM, 2,28 (IC 95%: 1,50-3,47), certeza moderada de evidencia; y RM, 2,85 (IC 95%: 1,41-5,74), certeza baja de evidencia, respectivamente). Estos resultados coincidieron con los del metaanálisis por pares. No hubo evidencia suficiente de una diferencia entre el lavado de trompas con medio de contraste a base de agua y la no intervención para el embarazo clínico dentro de los seis meses (RM, 1,36 (IC 95%: 0,91-2,04); certeza baja de evidencia). Para los resultados de fertilidad después de los seis meses, no hubo evidencia suficiente de diferencias en cualquier comparación (certeza de evidencia baja a muy baja). En comparación con el lavado de trompas con un medio de contraste a base de agua, el uso de un medio de contraste a base de aceite se asoció con mayores probabilidades de intravasación asintomática (RM, 5,06 (IC 95%: 2,29-11,18), certeza moderada de evidencia). CONCLUSIONES: En las mujeres con infertilidad que se someten a un examen de fertilidad, el lavado de trompas con medio de contraste a base de aceite aumenta la probabilidad de las tasas de embarazo clínico dentro de los 6 meses posteriores a la aleatorización y puede aumentar las tasas posteriores de nacimientos vivos, en comparación con el lavado de trompas con medio de contraste a base de agua y en comparación con la no intervención. La evidencia sobre los resultados de fertilidad después de los seis meses es inadecuada para establecer conclusiones firmes. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Decline of IgG pertussis toxin measured in umbilical cord blood, and neonatal and early infant serum.

Maternal pertussis-specific antibodies are passively acquired by infants during pregnancy. An IgG pertussis toxin (IgG-PT) concentration of >20 U/ml is considered to protect neonates against pertussis. To evaluate the IgG concentration at birth and during the first two months of life, we examined the IgG-PT concentration in the umbilical cord blood and three times during the neonatal and early infant period. IgG-PT was measured by validated IgG-specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) in umbilical cord blood and in Guthrie card blood samples of umbilical cord blood in 2,790 children, born between 1 August 2006 and 1 December 2008. These measurements were comparable. All children with concentrations of IgG-PT >30 U/ml were included. IgG-PT was also measured in Guthrie card blood samples, when the neonates or early infants were 5 days, 1 month and 2 months old. The mean concentrations of IgG-PT were calculated. The mean concentration of IgG-PT in umbilical cord blood was 60.1 U/ml (LN 4.1; 0.6 SD; n = 103). At the age of 5 days, 1 month and 2 months, the mean concentration of IgG-PT was 40.6 U/ml (LN 3.7; 0.5 SD; n = 103), 20.7 U/ml (LN 3.0; 0.7 SD; n = 62) and 16.7 U/ml (LN 2.8; 0.9 SD; n = 61), respectively. Four percent of the neonates had a concentration of IgG-PT >30 U/ml in umbilical cord blood, which declined to levels around the concentration needed for protection against pertussis (>20 U/ml) in the first two months of life. Hence, it is of great importance to further investigate the safety of maternal immunisation during pregnancy to prevent life-threatening pertussis in newborns.