Pilot observational prospective cohort study on the use of a novel home-based urinary pregnanediol 3-glucuronide (PDG) test to confirm ovulation when used as adjunct to fertility awareness methods (FAMs) stage 1

Rene Leiva, Marie McNamara-Kilian, Helen Niezgoda, René Ecochard, Thomas Bouchard, Rene Leiva, Marie McNamara-Kilian, Helen Niezgoda, René Ecochard, Thomas Bouchard

Abstract

Rationale: Ovulation confirmation is a fundamental component of the evaluation of infertility.

Purpose: To inform the design of a larger clinical trial to determine the effectiveness of a new home-based pregnanediol glucuronide (PDG) urine test to confirm ovulation when compared with the standard of serum progesterone.

Methods: In this observational prospective cohort study (single group assignment) in an urban setting (stage 1), a convenience sample of 25 women (aged 18-42 years) collected daily first morning urine for luteinisinghormone (LH), PDG and kept a daily record of their cervical mucus for one menstrual cycle. Serum progesterone levels were measured to confirm ovulation. Sensitivity and specificity were used as the main outcome measures. Estimation of number of ultrasound (US)-monitored cycles needed for a future study was done using an exact binomial CI approach.

Results: Recruitment over 3 months was achieved (n=28) primarily via natural fertility regulation social groups. With an attrition rate of 22%, specificity of the test was 100% for confirming ovulation. Sensitivity varied depending on whether a peak-fertility mucus day or a positive LH test was observed during the cycle (85%-88%). Fifty per cent of participants found the test results easy to determine. A total of 73 US-monitored cycles would be needed to offer a narrow CI between 95% and 100%.

Conclusion: This is first study to clinically evaluate this test when used as adjunct to the fertility awareness methods. While this pilot study was not powered to validate or test efficacy, it helped to provide information on power, recruitment and retention, acceptability of the procedures and ease of its use by the participants. Given this test had a preliminary result of 100% specificity, further research with a larger clinical trial (stage 2) is recommended to both improve this technology and incorporate additional approaches to confirm ovulation.

Trial registration number: NCT03230084.

Keywords: gynaecology; reproductive medicine; subfertility.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PDG test visual results. Negative result (two lines) and positive result (one line).

References

    1. Datta J, Palmer MJ, Tanton C, et al. . Prevalence of infertility and help seeking among 15 000 women and men. Hum Reprod 2016;31:2108–18. 10.1093/humrep/dew123
    1. Thoma ME, McLain AC, Louis JF, et al. . Prevalence of infertility in the United States as estimated by the current duration approach and a traditional constructed approach. Fertil Steril 2013;99:1324–31. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.11.037
    1. Brezina PR, Haberl E, Wallach E. At home testing: optimizing management for the infertility physician. Fertil Steril 2011;95:1867–78. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.01.001
    1. Bouchard TP, Fehring RJ, Schneider MM. Achieving Pregnancy Using Primary Care Interventions to Identify the Fertile Window. Front Med 2017;4:250 10.3389/fmed.2017.00250
    1. Heid M. You asked: do ovulation kits really help you get pregnant?. TIME Health. 2017. .
    1. Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Diagnostic evaluation of the infertile female: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2012;98:302–7. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.05.032
    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Fertility problems: assessment and treatment. London (UK, 2015. .
    1. Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine in collaboration with Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility. Optimizing natural fertility: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2013;100:631–7. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.07.011
    1. Leiva RA, Bouchard TP, Abdullah SH, et al. . Urinary Luteinizing Hormone Tests: Which Concentration Threshold Best Predicts Ovulation? Front Public Health 2017;5:320 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00320
    1. Stanford JB. Revisiting the fertile window. Fertil Steril 2015;103:1152–3. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.02.015
    1. Ecochard R, Duterque O, Leiva R, et al. . Self-identification of the clinical fertile window and the ovulation period. Fertil Steril 2015;103:1319–25. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.01.031
    1. Leiva R, Bouchard T, Boehringer H, et al. . Random serum progesterone threshold to confirm ovulation. Steroids 2015;101:125–9. 10.1016/j.steroids.2015.06.013
    1. Ecochard R, Leiva R, Bouchard T, et al. . Use of urinary pregnanediol 3-glucuronide to confirm ovulation. Steroids 2013;78:1035–40. 10.1016/j.steroids.2013.06.006
    1. Roos J, Johnson S, Weddell S, et al. . Monitoring the menstrual cycle: Comparison of urinary and serum reproductive hormones referenced to true ovulation. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2015;20:438–50. 10.3109/13625187.2015.1048331
    1. Ecochard R, Boehringer H, Rabilloud M, et al. . Chronological aspects of ultrasonic, hormonal, and other indirect indices of ovulation. BJOG 2001;108:822–9.
    1. Miro F, Coley J, Gani MM, et al. . Comparison between creatinine and pregnanediol adjustments in the retrospective analysis of urinary hormone profiles during the human menstrual cycle. Clin Chem Lab Med 2004;42:1043–50. 10.1515/CCLM.2004.210
    1. Hoffmann MJ. FDA Regulatory Process. (Accessed 20 Jan 2018).
    1. Colombo B, Mion A, Passarin K, et al. . Cervical mucus symptom and daily fecundability: first results from a new database. Stat Methods Med Res 2006;15:161–80. 10.1191/0962280206sm437oa
    1. Djerassi C. Fertility awareness: jet-age rhythm method? Science 1990;248:1061–2. 10.1126/science.2343313
    1. Brown JB, Holmes J, Barker G. Use of the Home Ovarian Monitor in pregnancy avoidance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;165(6 Pt 2):2008–11. 10.1016/S0002-9378(11)90568-7
    1. Sauer MV, Paulson RJ, Chenette P, et al. . Effect of hydration on random levels of urinary pregnanediol glucuronide. Gynecol Endocrinol 1990;4:145–9. 10.3109/09513599009009801
    1. Blackwell LF, Vigil P, Gross B, et al. . Monitoring of ovarian activity by measurement of urinary excretion rates of estrone glucuronide and pregnanediol glucuronide using the Ovarian Monitor, Part II: reliability of home testing. Hum Reprod 2012;27:550–7. 10.1093/humrep/der409
    1. Munro CJ, Stabenfeldt GH, Cragun JR, et al. . Relationship of serum estradiol and progesterone concentrations to the excretion profiles of their major urinary metabolites as measured by enzyme immunoassay and radioimmunoassay. Clin Chem 1991;37:838–44.
    1. Frank-Herrmann P, Jacobs C, Jenetzky E, et al. . Natural conception rates in subfertile couples following fertility awareness training. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017;295:1015–24. 10.1007/s00404-017-4294-z
    1. Wilcox AJ, Weinberg CR, Baird DD. Timing of sexual intercourse in relation to ovulation. Effects on the probability of conception, survival of the pregnancy, and sex of the baby. N Engl J Med 1995;333:1517–21. 10.1056/NEJM199512073332301

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner