Live birth rates using conventional in vitro fertilization compared to intracytoplasmic sperm injection in Bologna poor responders with a single oocyte retrieved

Reproductive Outcomes of Conventional In Vitro Fertilization and Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection in Patients with Non-Severe Male Infertility Across Poor and Different Sub-Optimal Ovarian Response Categories: A Cohort Study Based on 30,352 Fresh Cycles from 2009-2019

Due to the influence of economic, social and many other factors, there are more and more reproductive problems. Originally introduced for managing male factor infertility, intracytoplasmic sperm injection had become the most commonly used fertilization treatment in the world, with broadened indications including low oocyte yield, prior fertilization failure with conventional in vitro fertilization etc. However, academic evidence for better live-birth outcomes of intracytoplasmic sperm injection over conventional in vitro fertilization is limited. Thus, we aimed to compare the reproductive outcomes of conventional in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in patients with non-severe male factor infertility across poor and different sub-optimal ovarian response categories. The fertility rate, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, live birth rate and other obstetric outcomes were mainly compared. Our results showed that independent of the number of oocytes retrieved, intracytoplasmic sperm injection significantly increased the fertilization rate, while conventional in vitro fertilization cycles showed a higher implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and live birth rate. No differences were observed in most obstetric outcomes. Our study indicates that poor ovarian response is not an indication for intracytoplasmic sperm injection in couples with non-severe male infertility.

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection vs. in-vitro fertilization in couples in whom the male partners had a semen analysis within normal reference ranges: An open debate

During recent decades, the application of intracytoplasmic sperm injection has increased considerably worldwide, especially in couples with non-male factor infertility. However, several studies analyzing the broad use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection, even in cases with a normal semen analysis, have collectively demonstrated no benefits compared to conventional in-vitro fertilization. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to support the intracytoplasmic sperm injection technique vs. in-vitro fertilization in cases of poor ovarian response or a low number of oocytes collected, or in patients with advanced maternal age. Since the intracytoplasmic sperm injection technique is more operator-dependent and invasive, its use should only be recommended in cases of male-factor infertility. There is some evidence showing that intracytoplasmic sperm injection is linked with an increased risk of birth defects. Albeit this evidence is limited, and currently it is not possible to draw a firm conclusion on these concerns, we do believe that these risks should be rigorously investigated. Thus, this review aims to clarify the debate on the application of the intracytoplasmic sperm injection procedure, as compared to standard in-vitro fertilization, in those assisted reproductive technology cycles without a clear male factor infertility. Furthermore, we try to clarify whether intracytoplasmic sperm injection would result in a higher live birth rate than in-vitro fertilization, in couples with non-male factor infertility.

Investigation of the risk of paternal cell contamination in PGT and the necessity of intracytoplasmic sperm injection

ICSI is widely recommended for patients undergoing preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), but are sperm a potential source of paternal cell contamination in PGT? Semen samples were obtained from five normozoospermic men consenting to research. From each sample 1, 2, 4, 8 and 10 sperm were collected in PCR tubes and whole genome amplification according to PGT-A and PGT-SR processing protocols was undertaken. None of the 25 samples submitted (a total of 125 sperm) showed evidence of DNA amplification. Thus, paternal cell contamination resulting from using conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) as the insemination method, carries a low risk of an adverse event or misdiagnosis in PGT-A. Due to the higher risk incurred with PGT-SR, clinics may wish to exercise increased caution and continue using ICSI, while PGT-M involves different processing protocols, presenting a different risk profile.

Good practice recommendations on add-ons in reproductive medicine†

STUDY QUESTION

Which add-ons are safe and effective to be used in ART treatment?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Forty-two recommendations were formulated on the use of add-ons in the diagnosis of fertility problems, the IVF laboratory and clinical management of IVF treatment.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The innovative nature of ART combined with the extremely high motivation of the patients has opened the door to the wide application of what has become known as 'add-ons' in reproductive medicine. These supplementary options are available to patients in addition to standard fertility procedures, typically incurring an additional cost. A diverse array of supplementary options is made available, encompassing tests, drugs, equipment, complementary or alternative therapies, laboratory procedures, and surgical interventions. These options share the common aim of stating to enhance pregnancy or live birth rates, mitigate the risk of miscarriage, or expedite the time to achieving pregnancy.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

ESHRE aimed to develop clinically relevant and evidence-based recommendations focusing on the safety and efficacy of add-ons currently used in fertility procedures in order to improve the quality of care for patients with infertility.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

ESHRE appointed a European multidisciplinary working group consisting of practising clinicians, embryologists, and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of infertility. Patient representatives were included in the working group. To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, recommendations were based on the professional experience and consensus of the working group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 46 independent international reviewers. A total of 272 comments were received and incorporated where relevant.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The multidisciplinary working group formulated 42 recommendations in three sections; diagnosis and diagnostic tests, laboratory tests and interventions, and clinical management.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Of the 42 recommendations, none could be based on high-quality evidence and only four could be based on moderate-quality evidence, implicating that 95% of the recommendations are supported only by low-quality randomized controlled trials, observational data, professional experience, or consensus of the development group.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

These guidelines offer valuable direction for healthcare professionals who are responsible for the care of patients undergoing ART treatment for infertility. Their purpose is to promote safe and effective ART treatment, enabling patients to make informed decisions based on realistic expectations. The guidelines aim to ensure that patients are fully informed about the various treatment options available to them and the likelihood of any additional treatment or test to improve the chance of achieving a live birth.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

All costs relating to the development process were covered from ESHRE funds. There was no external funding of the development process or manuscript production. K.L. reports speakers fees from Merck and was part of a research study by Vitrolife (unpaid). T.E. reports consulting fees from Gynemed, speakers fees from Gynemed and is part of the scientific advisory board of Hamilton Thorne. N.P.P. reports grants from Merck Serono, Ferring Pharmaceutical, Theramex, Gedeon Richter, Organon, Roche, IBSA and Besins Healthcare, speakers fees from Merck Serono, Ferring Pharmaceutical, Theramex, Gedeon Richter, Organon, Roche, IBSA and Besins Healthcare. S.R.H. declares being managing director of Fertility Europe, a not-for-profit organization receiving financial support from ESHRE. I.S. is a scientific advisor for and has stock options from Alife Health, is co-founder of IVFvision LTD (unpaid) and received speakers' fee from the 2023 ART Young Leader Prestige workshop in China. A.P. reports grants from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck A/S, consulting fees from Preglem, Novo Nordisk, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Gedeon Richter, Cryos and Merck A/S, speakers fees from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S, Theramex and Organon, travel fees from Gedeon Richter. The other authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

DISCLAIMER

This Good Practice Recommendations (GPRs) document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and are based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation.ESHRE GPRs should be used for information and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care or bedeemedinclusive of all proper methods of care, or be exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results.Theydo not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, or variations based on locality and facility type.Furthermore, ESHRE GPRs do not constitute or imply the endorsement, or favouring, of any of the included technologies by ESHRE.

The use of ICSI in ART: evidence for practice

This article reviews the evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). It provides evidence-based clinical and laboratory guidelines and recommendations for use of ICSI within an assisted reproductive technology (ART) service. The guidelines address the evidence for the use of ICSI rather than conventional IVF (cIVF); the use of ART techniques supplementary to ICSI; and risks associated with ICSI. This article is not intended to be the only approved standard of practice or to dictate an exclusive course of treatment. Other plans of management may be appropriate, taking into account the needs and medical history of the patient, available resources, and institutional or clinical practice limitations.

Comparison of clinical outcomes between conventional in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in poor responders with only single oocyte retrieved

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical outcomes between conventional insemination (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in poor responders with only a single oocyte retrieved.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective case-control study. Couples who were treated with assisted reproductive technology (ART) with a single oocyte retrieved in Mackay Memorial Hospital from 1996 to 2016 were recruited. All data were categorized into three groups, according to their fertilization method and semen quality: group A, conventional insemination with non-male factor (IVF-NMF, n = 115), group B, ICSI with male factor (ICSI-MF, n = 30), and group C, ICSI with non-male factor (ICSI-NMF, n = 49).

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference was observed between IVF and ICSI groups in pregnancy outcomes, including the chemical or clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, and live birth rate. Similar fertilization rates per oocyte obtained were observed in IVF and ICSI patients, but significantly lower per mature oocyte in the ICSI group (IVF: 91.5%, ICSI-MF: 75.0%, ICSI-NMF: 77.8%). Although there is no statistical significance, the lower live birth rate is observed in group C than others (A:11.5%, B:25%, C:5%, p = 0.187).

CONCLUSION

In this study, pregnancy outcomes of conventional in vitro fertilization and ICSI in poor responders with only a single oocyte retrieved were similar. However, the fertilization rate of matured oocytes in ICSI groups is significantly lower than that in the IVF group, indicating that ICSI procedures might cause oocyte damage. Therefore, the choice of fertilization method should be based on semen quality. A randomized controlled trial should be performed to confirm our findings.

Impact of intracytoplasmic sperm injection in women with non-male factor infertility: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to determine whether intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is beneficial in patients with non-male factor infertility.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis included articles from inception to May 2022. Published studies of non-male factor infertile women undergoing ICSI or in vitro fertilization (IVF) included in PubMed, Embase, web of science, Wanfang Database, and CNKI were searched by computer, without language restrictions. A random-effect model was applied to calculate the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Letters, case reports, and review articles including meta-analyses and expert opinions were excluded. The primary endpoints were laboratory outcomes and pregnancy outcomes. The Secondary endpoints were neonatal outcomes.

RESULTS

Six randomized controlled studies and 20 retrospective cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. In meta-analytic forest plots, compared with IVF, those who received ICSI treatment were not different in fertilization rate (RR = 0.99, 95% CI [0.90-1.09], P = 0.88), total fertilization failure rate (RR = 1.30, 95% CI [1.17-1.45], P < 0.00001), and good quality embryo rate (RR = 0.94, 95% CI [ 0.86-1.02], P = 0.15), clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 0.84, 95% CI [0.70-1.01], P = 0.06), live birth rate (RR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.77-1.03], P = 0.13), miscarriage rate (RR = 1.06, 95% CI [0.78-1.43], P = 0.71), preterm neonatal delivery rate (RR = 0.92, 95% CI [0.67-1.26], P = 0.61), and low neonatal weight rate (RR = 1.13, 95% CI [0.80-1.61], P = 0.48). However, the implantation rate of IVF was better than ICSI (RR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.64-0.93], P = 0.005). In the subgroup analysis of the live birth rate of fresh embryo transfer, IVF performed in those ≥35 years had a higher live birth rate (RR = 0.82, 95% CI [0.78-0.83], P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study indicate that ICSI is not superior to IVF in the treatment of infertility related to non-male factors. In order to confirm this result, more high-quality clinical studies are needed.

Opportunities and Limits of Conventional IVF versus ICSI: It Is Time to Come off the Fence

Conventional IVF (c-IVF) is one of the most practiced assisted reproductive technology (ART) approaches used worldwide. However, in the last years, the number of c-IVF procedures has dropped dramatically in favor of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in cases of non-male-related infertility. In this review, we have outlined advantages and disadvantages associated with c-IVF, highlighting the essential steps governing its success, its limitations, the methodology differences among laboratories and the technical progress. In addition, we have debated recent insights into fundamental questions, including indications regarding maternal age, decreased ovarian reserve, endometriosis, autoimmunity, single oocyte retrieval-cases as well as preimplantation genetic testing cycles. The “overuse” of ICSI procedures in several clinical situations of ART has been critically discussed. These insights will provide a framework for a better understanding of opportunities associated with human c-IVF and for best practice guidelines applicability in the reproductive medicine field.

IVF or ICSI for fertility preservation?

In IVF, eggs and sperm are added together for fertilisation to occur whereas ICSI involves injecting a single sperm into each egg. ICSI is very effective where sperm count or swimming is poor (male infertility) but is slightly riskier than IVF in terms of health problems in children, although these risks are small. However, the risk of no eggs fertilising is higher for IVF compared to ICSI and couples undertaking fertility preservation, for example, before cancer treatment, usually only have time for one attempt. Using fertility preservation treatment cycle data reported to Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), this study shows that ICSI results in higher number of fertilised eggs and embryos for storage or treatment compared to IVF. However, 19% of eggs are not used in ICSI treatment, so IVF appears to be better overall. Clinics should choose IVF or ICSI for fertility preservation depending on sperm characteristics rather than using ICSI for all.

More blastocysts are produced from fewer oocytes in ICSI compared to IVF - results from a sibling oocytes study and definition of a new key performance indicator

BACKGROUND

Which fertilization method, between ICSI and IVF in split insemination treatments, has the highest clinical efficiency in producing clinically usable blastocyst?

METHODS

211 infertile couples underwent split insemination treatments for a non-severe male factor. 1300 metaphase II (MII) oocytes were inseminated by conventional IVF and 1302 MII oocytes were micro-injected with the same partner's semen. Embryo development until blastocyst stage on day V and clinical outcomes were valuated trough conventional key performance indicators (KPI), and new KPIs such as blastocyst rate per used MII oocytes and the number of MII oocytes to produce one clinically usable blastocyst from ICSI and IVF procedures.

RESULTS

The results were  globally analyzed and according to ovarian stimulation protocol, infertility indication, and female age. The conventional KPI were online with the expected values from consensus references. From global results, 2.3 MII oocyte was needed to produce one clinically usable blastocyst after ICSI compared to 2.9 MII oocytes in IVF. On the same way, more blastocysts for clinical use were produced from fewer MII oocytes in ICSI compared to IVF in all sub-groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In split insemination treatments, the yield of clinically usable blastocysts was always superior in ICSI compared to IVF. The new KPI "number of needed oocytes to produce one clinically usable embryo" tests the clinical efficiency of the IVF laboratory.

Double or dual stimulation in poor ovarian responders: where do we stand?

Recent advances in our recognition of two to three follicular waves of development in a single menstrual cycle has challenged the dogmatic approach of ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization starting in the early follicular phase. First shown in veterinary medicine and thereafter in women, luteal phase stimulation–derived oocytes are at least as competent as those retrieved following follicular phase stimulation. Poor ovarian responders still remain a challenge for many decades simply because they do not respond to ovarian stimulation. Performing follicular phase stimulation and luteal phase stimulation in the same menstrual cycle, named as double stimulation/dual stimulation, clearly increases the number of oocytes, which is a robust surrogate marker of live birth rate in in vitro fertilization across all female ages. Of interest, apart from one study, the bulk of evidence reports significantly higher number of oocytes following luteal phase stimulation when compared with follicular phase stimulation; hence, performing double stimulation/dual stimulation doubles the number of oocytes leading to a marked decrease in patient drop-out rate which is one of the major factors limiting cumulative live birth rates in such poor prognosis patients. The limited data with double stimulation/dual stimulation-derived embryos is reassuring for obstetric and neonatal outcome. The mandatory requirement of freeze-all and lack of cost-effectiveness data are limitations of this novel approach. Double stimulation/dual stimulation is an effective strategy when the need to obtain oocytes is urgent, including patients with malignant diseases undergoing oocyte cryopreservation and patients of advanced maternal age or with reduced ovarian reserve.

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in patients without severe male factor infertility: study protocol for the randomised, controlled, multicentre trial INVICSI

INTRODUCTION

Over the last decades, the use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has increased, even among patients without male factor infertility. The increase has happened even though there is no evidence to support that ICSI results in higher live birth rates compared with conventional in vitro fertilisation (IVF) in cases with nonmale factor infertility. The lack of robust evidence on an advantage of using ICSI over conventional IVF in these patients is problematic since ICSI is more invasive, complex and requires additional resources, time and effort. Therefore, the primary objective of the IVF versus ICSI (INVICSI) study is to determine whether ICSI is superior to standard IVF in patients without severe male factor infertility. The primary outcome measure is first live birth from fresh and frozen-thawed transfers after one stimulated cycle. Secondary outcomes include fertilisation rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, birth weight and congenital anomalies.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a two-armed, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. In total, 824 couples/women with infertility without severe male factor will be recruited and allocated randomly into two groups (IVF or ICSI) in a 1:1 ratio. Participants will be randomised in variable block sizes and stratified by trial site and age. The main inclusion criteria are (1) no prior IVF/ICSI treatment, (2) male partner sperm with an expected count of minimum 2 million progressive motile spermatozoa following density gradient purification on the day of oocyte pick up and (3) age of the woman between 18 and 42 years.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study will be performed in accordance with the ethical principles in the Helsinki Declaration. The study is approved by the Scientific Ethical Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark. Study findings will be presented, irrespectively of results at international conferences and submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04128904. Pre-results.

Monopronucleated (1PN) and tripronuclear (3PN) zygotes formation during assisted reproduction in POSEIDON group 4 patients: Emphasizing on polar bodies

AIM

Abnormal fertilization (1PN/3PN) and its accompanying polar body (PB) conditions have been less discussed in poor ovarian responders. By observing the PBs, we analyzed the mechanisms of abnormal fertilization and aimed to explore the role of intracytoplasmic sperm injection/in vitro fertilization (ICSI/IVF) in POSEIDON group 4 patients.

METHODS

An observational study. All fresh IVF/ICSI cycles from January 2018 to December 2019 were evaluated. The inclusion criteria were POSEIDON group 4. Fertilization and PB conditions were assessed 16-18 h post-insemination. Primary observation endpoints including normal fertilization, abnormal fertilization, and total fertilization failure rate.

RESULTS

A total of 351 cycles involving 180 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 15 cycles reported no retrieved oocytes. Finally, 336 cycles (IVF, n = 267; ICSI, n = 69) were included. A total of 1005 oocytes and 939 embryos were assessed. The mean female age was 40.8 years, and the mean AMH level was 0.6 ng/mL. The normal fertilization rate was 69.7%. The zygote distribution was 18.7% 0PN, 3.9% 1PN, 66.9% 2PN, 9.5% 3PN, and 1.0% ≥4PN. For 1PN zygotes, 59% were denoted as 1PN2PB. The mean 3PN rate was 8.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

In POSEIDON group 4, most of the monopronucleated zygotes were 1PN2PB. Digyny (3PN1PB), due to failure to extrude the second PB, was the major cause of triploidy in which ICSI could not circumvent. The distribution of abnormally fertilized zygotes was similar in IVF and ICSI. To investigate the mechanisms of abnormal fertilization and assess whether ICSI is necessary, analysis of PB will provide important clues.

The Impact of Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection in Non-Male Factor Infertility-A Critical Review

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) was originally designed to overcome barriers due to male factor infertility. However, a surveillance study found that ICSI use in non-male factor infertility increased from 15.4% to 66.9% between 1996 and 2012. Numerous studies have investigated fertilization rate, total fertilization failure, and live birth rate per cycle (LBR), comparing the use of ICSI versus conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) for non-male factor infertility. The overwhelming conclusion shows no increase in fertilization rate or LBR per cycle with the use of ICSI for non-male factor infertility. The overuse of ICSI is likely related to the desire to avoid a higher rate of total fertilization failure in IVF. However, data supporting the benefit of using ICSI for non-male factor infertility is lacking, and 33 couples would need to be treated with ICSI unnecessarily to avoid one case of total fertilization failure. Such practice increases the cost to the patient, increases the burden on embryologist’s time, and is a misapplication of resources. Additionally, there remains conflicting data regarding the safety of offspring conceived by ICSI and potential damage to the oocyte. Thus, the use of ICSI should be limited to those with male factor infertility or a history of total fertilization factor infertility due to uncertainties of potential adverse impact and lack of proven benefit in non-male factor infertility.

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection is not superior to conventional IVF in couples with non-male factor infertility and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A)

STUDY QUESTION

Does the insemination method impact the euploidy outcome in couples with non-male factor infertility?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Conventional IVF can be applied in cycles with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A), as both IVF and ICSI generate equal numbers of euploid blastocysts.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Ever since its introduction, the popularity of ICSI has increased tremendously, even in couples with non-male factor infertility. The use of conventional IVF is a contraindication for couples undergoing PGT to ensure monospermic fertilisation and to eliminate potential paternal contamination from extraneous sperm attached to the zona pellucida. Despite this, it has recently been shown that sperm DNA fails to amplify under the conditions used for trophectoderm biopsy samples.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This single-centre prospective pilot study included 30 couples between November 2018 and April 2019.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHOD

Arab couples, with a female age between 18-40 years, body mass index ≤30 kg/m2, at least 10 cumulus oocyte complexes (COCs) following oocyte retrieval (OR) and normal semen concentration and motility (WHO) in the fresh ejaculate on the day of OR, were eligible for the study. Half of the sibling oocytes were assigned to conventional IVF, and the other half were assigned to ICSI. All embryos were cultured in a time-lapse imaging system in Global Total LP media. Blastocysts were subjected to trophectoderm biopsy on Day 5, 6 or 7 and next-generation sequencing (NGS) to determine blastocyst ploidy status. The primary objective was to determine the euploid rate in blastocysts from sibling oocytes.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of 568 COCs were randomly allocated between IVF (n = 283; 9.4 ± 4.0) and ICSI (n = 285; 9.5 ± 4.1). While the incidence of normal fertilisation per cycle (6.1 ± 3.8 (64.0%) vs 6.3 ± 3.5 (65.4%); P = 0.609) was distributed equally between IVF and ICSI, the degeneration rate (0.1 ± 0.3 vs 0.7 ± 0.8; P = 0.0003) was significantly higher after ICSI and the incidence of abnormal fertilisation (≥3 pronuclei) was significantly higher after IVF (0.9 ± 1.2 vs 0.2 ± 0.4; P = 0.005). For all fertilised oocytes, there were no differences in the number of good-quality embryos on Day 3 (74% vs 78%; P = 0.467), nor in the blastulation rate on Day 5 (80.4% vs 70.8%; P = 0.076). The total number of blastocysts biopsied per cycle on Days 5, 6 and 7 was not significantly different between IVF or ICSI (4.0 ± 2.8 vs 3.9 ± 2.5; P = 0.774). With euploid rates of 49.8 and 44.1% (P = 0.755; OR: 1.05664 [0.75188-1.48494), respectively, there was no significant difference identified between IVF and ICSI (2.0 ± 1.8 vs 1.9 ± 1.7; P = 0.808) and all couples had at least one euploid blastocyst available for transfer. When considering only euploid blastocysts, the male/female ratio was 61/39 in IVF and 43/57 in ICSI (P = 0.063).

LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION

This is a pilot study with a limited patient population of 30 couples (and 568 COCs) with a normal ovarian response. The results of our study should not be extrapolated to other patient populations.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

It is safe to apply conventional IVF in couples with non-male factor infertility undergoing PGT-A.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No funding was obtained. There are no competing interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03708991.

ICSI Does Not Improve Live Birth Rates but Yields Higher Cancellation Rates Than Conventional IVF in Unexplained Infertility

Objectives: Unexplained infertility has been one of the indications for utilization of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). However, whether ICSI should be preferred to IVF for patients with unexplained infertility remains an open question. This study aims to determine if ICSI improves the clinical outcomes over conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) in couples with unexplained infertility.

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of 549 IVF and 241 ICSI cycles for patients with unexplained infertility at a fertility center of a university hospital from January 2016 and December 2018. The live birth rate and clinical pregnancy rate were compared between the two groups. Other outcome measures included the implantation rate, miscarriage rate, and fertilization rate.

Results: The live birth rate was 35.2% (172/488) in the IVF group and 33.3% (65/195) in ICSI group, P = 0.635. The two groups also had similar clinical pregnancy rates, implantation rates, and miscarriage rates. The fertilization rate of IVF group was significantly higher than that of ICSI group (53.8 vs. 45.7%, P = 0.000, respectively). Sixty-one and 46 patients did not transfer fresh embryos in IVF and ICSI cycles, respectively. Patients with IVF cycles had lower cancellation rates than those with ICSI (11.1 vs. 19.1%, P = 0.003, respectively).

Conclusion: ICSI does not improve live birth rates but yields higher cancellation rates than conventional IVF in the treatment of unexplained infertility.

The effect of ICSI in infertility couples with non-male factor: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of available literature to investigate the efficacy of the intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in couples with non-male factor with respect to the clinical outcomes.

METHODS

The literature search was based on EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library. All studies published after 1992 until February 2020 and written in English addressing patients in the presence of normal semen parameters subjected to ICSI and in vitro fertilization (IVF) were eligible. Reference lists of retrieved articles were hand-searched for additional studies. The primary outcomes were fertilization rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and implantation rate; the secondary outcomes were good-quality embryo rate, miscarriage rate, and live birth rate.

RESULTS

Four RCTs and twenty-two cohort studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included. Collectively, a meta-analysis of the outcomes in RCTs showed that compared to IVF, ICSI has no obvious advantage in fertilization rate (RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.83-1.62), clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.66-1.64), implantation rate (RR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.67-1.86), and live birth rate (RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 0.43-3.15). Pooled results of cohort studies demonstrated a statistically significant higher fertilization rate (RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.03-1.31) and miscarriage rate (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01-1.06) in the ICSI group; furthermore, higher clinical pregnancy rate (RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.77-0.94), implantation rate (RR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.65-0.95), and live birth rate (RR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.79-0.94) was founded in the IVF group; no statistically significant difference was observed in good-quality embryo rate (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.93-1.04).

CONCLUSION

ICSI has no obvious advantage in patients with normal semen parameters. Enough information is still not available to prove the efficacy of ICSI in couples with non-male factor infertility comparing to IVF.

Conventional IVF revisited: Is ICSI better for non-male factor infertility? Randomized controlled double blind study

STUDY QUESTION

Is ICSI better than conventional IVF for non-male factor infertility?

SUMMARY ANSWER

IVF should be the choice of assisted reproductive technique in non-male factor infertility cases.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN

Although total fertilization failure is a major concern for patients and professionals, the overall risk/benefit analysis favors conventional IVF in non-male factor infertility cases. However, according to the ESHRE EIM database pertaining to 1997-2012, the use of IVF has been continuously decreasing in favor of ICSI.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Randomized controlled double-blind study involving 138 women undergoing ART in a private Center.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

All couples with a female partner ≤42 years of age and without severe male factor (total progressive motile sperm with normal morphology >10.000) were included in the study. Exclusion criteria were: history of total fertilization failure, less than 6 cumulus oocyte complexes (COC) available for fertilization, prenatal genetic testing (PGT) cycles, unwillingness to participate and couples undergoing total cryopreservation for any indication. On the day of oocyte pick up, sibling COCs were randomly allocated to fertilization with IVF or denudation followed by ICSI to MII oocytes. The decision to transfer IVF or ICSI embryo(s) depended on embryo quality. Women receiving two embryos were given only IVF or ICSI embryos. Neither the clinician performing the transfer nor the patients were aware of the fertilization method used to generate the embryos transferred. Main outcome parameters were fertilization, clinical pregnancy, implantation and miscarriage rates.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Demographic variables, ovarian reserve and infertility etiology, duration of stimulation, total gonadotropin consumption, peak estradiol levels were similar for IVF-ET and ICSI-ET groups. Mean number of COCs (18.95 vs 19.24), number of embryos transferred (1,81 vs 1,81), the ratio of good quality embryos/total embryos (56.89 % and 55.97 %), clinical pregnancy rates (63 % vs 49 %), implantation rates (31 % vs 28 %), and abortion rates (12,5 % vs 8,1 %) were also similar. A total of 1306 COCs were allocated for IVF while 1331 COCs were denuded for ICSI. Fertilization rate per inseminated oocyte was significantly higher in ICSI group (56,20 % vs 63,78 %). There were ten cases of total fertilization failure, all in the IVF group. Although overall fertilization rate was higher for ICSI, it was similar in both groups when cases with total fertilization failure were excluded.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The non-availability of live birth rates is a limitation. Randomization of sibling oocytes, not patients requires careful interpretation of pregnancy and implantation rates.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Lower cost, ease of application and similar clinical outcome makes IVF the choice of fertilization method in non-male factor infertility cases.

ALWAYS ICSI? A SWOT analysis

PURPOSE

Intracytroplasmatic sperm injection (ICSI) is a common procedure used to improve reproductive results, even among couples without male factor infertility. However, the evidence available is still uncertain on the possible advantages and deficiencies that this procedure may have in patients with no formal indication for ICSI.

METHODS

A SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis examines the possible advantages and deficiencies of performing ICSI in these patients with no formal indication.

RESULTS

The evidence suggests that ICSI is not justified for non-male factor infertile couples requiring in vitro conception. One of the major strengths associated to the procedure is the virtual elimination of cases further complicated by total fertilization failure and a combination between IVF and ICSI on sibling oocytes has been advised in the literature. Greater technical difficulties, higher costs and performing an unnecessary invasive technique in some cases represent some of the weaknesses of the procedure, and questions regarding safety issues should not be ruled out.

CONCLUSION

Despite the widespread use of ICSI in patients without a formal diagnosis of male factor infertility, evidence demonstrating its effectiveness in this population is still lacking. Additional large and well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to clarify definitive indications for ICSI in non-male factor infertility.

Higher clinical pregnancy rate with in-vitro fertilization versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection in treatment of non-male factor infertility: Systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the evidence about in-vitro fertilization (IVF) versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for the treatment of non-male factor infertility.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases searched using the following MeSH terms (Sperm Injection, Intracytoplasmic) AND (in Vitro Fertilisation) AND (Infertility).

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

All RCTs included infertile patients due to non-male factors underwent IVF or ICSI were considered for this meta-analysis. One-thousand twenty-two studies were identified of which 20 studies deemed eligible for this review.

DATA EXTRACTION

Three independent authors extracted the relevant data from included studies. The study outcomes were pooled in the form of relative risk (RR) and 95 % confidence interval (CI) using Mantel-Hansel method. The main outcome measures are the fertilization rate, the implantation rate, the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), the total fertilization failure and the live birth rate.

RESULTS

Regarding the fertilization rate, the pooled estimate did not favour either IVF or ICSI group (RR = 0.94; 95 %CI [0.82, 1.07]; p = 0.34). However, IVF significantly increased the CPR than ICSI (RR = 1.28, 95 %CI [1.11, 1.49]; p = 0.001). The overall effect estimate did not favor either of two groups regarding the implantation rate (RR = 1.25, 95 % CI [0.92, 1.68], p = 0.15). Similarly, no difference between both groups regarding the live birth rate (RR = 1.08, 95 % CI [0.79, 1.49]; p = 0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

No difference between ICSI and IVF regarding fertilization rate per oocytes, implantation rate and live birth rate in the treatment of non-male factor infertility, while IVF has significantly higher clinical pregnancy rate and higher risk of total fertilization failure.

Comparing fertilization rates from intracytoplasmic sperm injection to conventional in vitro fertilization among women of advanced age with non-male factor infertility: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in improving fertilization rates compared to conventional in vitro fertilization rates (IVF) among women aged ≥38 years with a non-male factor diagnosis.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Women aged ≥38 years with a non-male factor diagnosis receiving IVF or ICSI.

INTERVENTION(S)

A systematic review of databases including PubMed and Embase was performed. Study protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Studies were selected if they compared fertilization rates from ICSI with those from conventional IVF among women aged ≥38 years with a non-male factor infertility diagnosis. A random effects model was used. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines were applied.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Fertilization rate.

RESULTS

Seven studies including 8796 retrieved oocytes (ICSI: 4,369; IVF: 4,427) with mean female age ≥38 years met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in fertilization rates between ICSI and conventional IVF (relative risk [RR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-1.06; P = .8). Heterogeneity was observed between studies (I2 = 58.2; P < .05). Heterogeneity was significant (I2 = 57.1; P < .05) when cycles with prior fertilization failure were excluded; however, when analysis was restricted to poor responders (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97-1.05; P = .6), heterogeneity was no longer significant (I2 = 0.0; P = .5).

CONCLUSIONS

No difference was found in fertilization rates between conventional IVF and ICSI. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of ICSI in this population, controlling for other indications such as preimplantation genetic testing.

Luteal phase after conventional stimulation in the same ovarian cycle might improve the management of poor responder patients fulfilling the Bologna criteria: a case series

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical contribution of luteal-phase stimulation (LPS) to follicular-phase stimulation (FPS) in a single ovarian cycle (DuoStim) for poor responder patients fulfilling the Bologna criteria.

DESIGN

Observational study (years 2015-2017) including women satisfying ≥2 of the following characteristics: maternal age ≥40 years and/or ≤3 oocytes retrieved after previous conventional stimulation and/or reduced ovarian reserve (i.e., antral follicle count <7 follicles or antimüllerian hormone <1.1 ng/mL). The LPS was started regardless of the outcome of the FPS.

SETTING

Private in vitro fertilization center.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 100 of 297 patients fulfilling the Bologna criteria chose to undergo DuoStim.

INTERVENTION(S)

The FPS and LPS with the same antagonist protocol and agonist trigger, intracytoplasmic sperm injection with ejaculated sperm, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies, and vitrified-warmed euploid single blastocyst transfer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The contribution of LPS to the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) per intention-to-treat (ITT).

RESULT(S)

Patients (100) underwent FPS (maternal age, 42.1 ± 1.4 y; previous in vitro fertilization cycles with ≤3 collected oocytes, 0.7 ± 0.9; antral follicle count, 3.8 ± 1.2 follicles; and antimüllerian hormone, 0.56 ± 0.3 ng/mL). Ninety-one patients completed DuoStim. All patients were included in the analysis. More oocytes were obtained after LPS with similar developmental and chromosomal competence as paired FPS-derived ones. The CLBR per ITT increased from 7% after FPS to 15% after DuoStim. Conversely, the CLBR per ITT among the 197 patients that chose a conventional controlled ovarian stimulation strategy was 8%, as only 17 patients who were not pregnant returned for a second stimulation after the first attempt (drop-out rate, 81%).

CONCLUSION(S)

The LPS-derived oocytes increased the CLBR per ITT in a single ovarian cycle in patients fulfilling the Bologna criteria. The DuoStim strategy is promising to manage this thorny population of patients, especially to avoid discontinuation after a first failed attempt.

Comparison of the assisted reproductive technology outcomes between conventional IVF and ICSI with donor oocytes in normozoospermic patients

There is no evidence for the superiority of conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) using donor oocytes. This retrospective descriptive study aimed to compare the outcomes of conventional IVF (n = 506) and ICSI (n = 613) with donor oocytes in (n = 968) normozoospermic patients. Although the fertilization rate was statistically higher in the ICSI group (p < 0.001), conventional IVF provided better results than ICSI with respect to embryo quality (number of grade A embryos, p < 0.001). In addition, we observed more blastocysts in the conventional IVF group (p < 0.001) and more good quality embryos were obtained for cryopreservation compared to ICSI (p < 0.001). Regarding clinical results, there were no statistical significant differences in the positive pregnancy test, clinical pregnancy and clinical miscarriage rates between IVF and ICSI. However, the implantation rate was statistically higher when IVF was performed (50.4% vs. 43.0%, p = 0.031, OR (95% CI): 1.185 (1.050-2.530)). In conclusion, with the use of normozoospermic samples in our oocyte donation programme, IVF offers more embryo efficiency and increased implantation rates than ICSI.

ICSI Versus Conventional IVF in Women Aged 40 Years or More and Unexplained Infertility: A Retrospective Evaluation of 685 Cycles with Propensity Score Model

This study compared the cumulative live birth rates following Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) versus conventional in vitro fertilization (cIVF) in women aged 40 years or more and unexplained infertility. A cohort of 685 women undergoing either autologous conventional IVF or ICSI was retrospectively analyzed. The effects of conventional IVF or ICSI procedure on cumulative pregnancy and live birth rates were evaluated in univariate and in multivariable analysis. In order to reduce potential differences between women undergoing either IVF or ICSI and to obtain unbiased estimation of the treatment effect, propensity score was estimated. ICSI was performed in 307 couples (ICSI group), whereas cIVF was performed in 297 couples (cIVF group), resulting in 45 and 43 live deliveries, respectively. No differences were observed in morphological embryo quality, in the number of cleavage stage embryos, in the number of transferred embryos, and in the number of vitrified embryos. As for the clinical outcome, no differences were observed in pregnancy rate, cumulative pregnancy rate, live birth rate, cumulative live birth rate, and abortion rate. The present results suggest that ICSI is not associated with increased likelihood of a live birth for unexplained, non-male factor infertility, in women aged 40 years or more.

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection for male infertility and consequences for offspring

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has become the most commonly used method of fertilization in assisted reproductive technology. The primary reasons for its popularity stem from its effectiveness, the standardization of the procedure, which means that it can easily be incorporated into the routine practice of fertility centres worldwide, and the fact that it can be used to treat virtually all forms of infertility. ICSI is the clear method of choice for overcoming untreatable severe male factor infertility, but its (over)use in other male and non-male factor infertility scenarios is not evidence-based. Despite all efforts to increase ICSI efficacy and safety through the application of advanced sperm retrieval and cryopreservation techniques, as well as methods for selecting sperm with better chromatin integrity, the overall pregnancy rates from infertile men remain suboptimal. Treating the underlying male infertility factor before ICSI seems to be a promising way to improve ICSI outcomes, but data remain limited. Information regarding the health of ICSI offspring has accumulated over the past 25 years, and there are reasons for concern as risks of congenital malformations, epigenetic disorders, chromosomal abnormalities, subfertility, cancer, delayed psychological and neurological development, and impaired cardiometabolic profile have been observed to be greater in infants born as a result of ICSI than in naturally conceived children. However, as subfertility probably influences the risk estimates, it remains to be determined to what extent the observed adverse outcomes are related to parental factors or associated with ICSI.

The effectiveness of ICSI versus conventional IVF in couples with non-male factor infertility: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Study questions

Does ICSI result in a higher live birth rate as compared with conventional IVF in couples with non-male factor infertility?

What is known already

ICSI is primarily indicated for severe male factor infertility. While the use of ICSI for couples with non-male factor infertility has been increasing worldwide, this is not supported by data from randomised controlled trials. Evidence from non-randomised studies suggest no benefit from ICSI compared with conventional IVF in non-male factor infertility, if not a harm.

Study design, size, duration

This randomised, open-label, multi-centre trial aims to compare the effectiveness of one ICSI cycle and one conventional IVF cycle in infertile couples with non-male factor infertility. A total of 1064 couples will be randomly allocated to an ICSI group and a conventional IVF group. The estimated duration of the study is 30 months.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

Eligible couples are those whose husbands’ total sperm count and motility are normal, have undergone ≤2 previous IVF/ICSI attempts, use antagonist protocol for ovarian stimulation, agree to have ≤2 embryos transferred and are not participating in another IVF study at the same time. Women undergoing IVM cycles, using frozen semen or having a poor fertilisation (≤25%) in previous cycle will not be eligible. Couples will be randomised to undergo ICSI or conventional IVF (1:1) with ongoing pregnancy resulting in live birth after the first embryo transfer of the started treatment cycle as the primary endpoint. All analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Effect sizes will be summarised as relative risk (RR), with precision evaluated by 95% CIs.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

All authors declare having no conflict of interests with regards to this trial. This work was supported by a grant from MSD [MISP #57508].

Trial registration number

NCT03428919.

Trial registration date

8 February 2018.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

16 March 2018.

Metabolomics for improving pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies

BACKGROUND

In order to overcome the low effectiveness of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and the high incidence of multiple births, metabolomics is proposed as a non-invasive method to assess oocyte quality, embryo viability, and endometrial receptivity, and facilitate a targeted subfertility treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of metabolomic assessment of oocyte quality, embryo viability, and endometrial receptivity for improving live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates in women undergoing ART, compared to conventional methods of assessment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trial registers (Feburary 2018). We also examined the reference lists of primary studies and review articles, citation lists of relevant publications, and abstracts of major scientific meetings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on metabolomic assessment of oocyte quality, embryo viability, and endometrial receptivity in women undergoing ART.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted the data. The primary outcomes were rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (composite outcome) and miscarriage. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, multiple and ectopic pregnancy, cycle cancellation, and foetal abnormalities. We combined data to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four trials with a total of 924 women, with a mean age of 33 years. All assessed the role of metabolomic investigation of embryo viability. We found no RCTs that addressed the metabolomic assessment of oocyte quality or endometrial receptivity.We found low-quality evidence of little or no difference between metabolomic and non-metabolomic assessment of embryos for rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.35, I² = 0%; four RCTs; N = 924), live birth alone (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.44, I² = 0%; three RCTs; N = 597), or miscarriage (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.82; I² = 0%; three RCTs; N = 869). A sensitivity analysis excluding studies at high risk of bias did not change the interpretation of the results for live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.25, I² = 0%; two RCTs; N = 744). Our findings suggested that if the rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy was 36% in the non-metabolomic group, it would be between 32% and 45% with the use of metabolomics.We found low-quality evidence of little or no difference between groups in rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.45; I²= 44%; four trials; N = 924) or multiple pregnancy (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.19; I² = 0%; two RCTs, N = 180). Rates of cycle cancellation were higher in the metabolomics group (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.69; I² = 51%; two RCTs; N = 744, low quality evidence). There was very low-quality evidence of little or no difference between groups in rates of ectopic pregnancy rates (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 74.07; one RCT; N = 417), and foetal abnormality (no events; one RCT; N = 125). Data were lacking on other adverse effects. A sensitivity analysis excluding studies at high risk of bias did not change the interpretation of the results for clinical pregnancy (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.38; I² = 40%; two RCTs; N = 744).The overall quality of the evidence ranged from very low to low. Limitations included serious risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods, attrition bias, selective reporting, and other biases), imprecision, and inconsistency across trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

According to current trials in women undergoing ART, there is no evidence to show that metabolomic assessment of embryos before implantation has any meaningful effect on rates of live birth, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy or foetal abnormalities. The existing evidence varied from very low to low-quality. Data on other adverse events were sparse, so we could not reach conclusions on these. At the moment, there is no evidence to support or refute the use of this technique for subfertile women undergoing ART. Robust evidence is needed from further RCTs, which study the effects on live birth and miscarriage rates for the metabolomic assessment of embryo viability. Well designed and executed trials are also needed to study the effects on oocyte quality and endometrial receptivity, since none are currently available.

Metabolomics for improving pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies

BACKGROUND

In order to overcome the low effectiveness of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and the high incidence of multiple births, metabolomics is proposed as a non-invasive method to assess oocyte quality, embryo viability, and endometrial receptivity, and facilitate a targeted subfertility treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of metabolomic assessment of oocyte quality, embryo viability, and endometrial receptivity for improving live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates in women undergoing ART, compared to conventional methods of assessment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trial registers (November 2016). We also examined the reference lists of primary studies and review articles, citation lists of relevant publications, and abstracts of major scientific meetings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on metabolomic assessment of oocyte quality, embryo viability, and endometrial receptivity in women undergoing ART.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted the data. The primary outcomes were rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (composite outcome) and miscarriage. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, multiple and ectopic pregnancy, cycle cancellation, and foetal abnormalities. We combined data to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four trials with a total of 802 women, with a mean age of 33 years. All assessed the role of metabolomic investigation of embryo viability. We found no RCTs that addressed the metabolomic assessment of oocyte quality or endometrial receptivity.We found low-quality evidence of little or no difference between metabolomic and non-metabolomic assessment of embryos for rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.48; I² = 0%; four RCTs; N = 802), or miscarriage (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.78; I² = 0%; two RCTs; N = 434). A sensitivity analysis excluding studies at high risk of bias did not change the interpretation of the results for live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.38; I² = 0%; two RCTs; N = 621). Our findings suggested that if the rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy was 36% in the non-metabolomic group, it would be between 32% and 45% with the use of metabolomics.We found low-quality evidence of little or no difference between groups in rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.62; I²= 26%; four trials; N = 802), or multiple pregnancy (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.23; I² = 0%; two RCTs, N = 181). There was very low-quality evidence of little or no difference between groups in ectopic pregnancy rates (OR 3.37, 95% CI 0.14 to 83.40; one RCT; N = 309), and foetal abnormalities (no events; one RCT; N = 125), and very low-quality evidence of higher rates of cycle cancellation in the metabolomics group (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.69; I² = 51%; two RCTs; N = 744). Data were lacking on other adverse effects. A sensitivity analysis excluding studies at high risk of bias did not change the interpretation of the results for clinical pregnancy (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.57; I² = 0%; two RCTs; N = 621).The overall quality of the evidence ranged from very low to low. Limitations included serious risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods, attrition bias, selective reporting, and other biases), imprecision, and inconsistency across trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

According to current trials in women undergoing ART, there is insufficient evidence to show that metabolomic assessment of embryos before implantation has any meaningful effect on rates of live birth, ongoing pregnancy, or miscarriage rates. The existing evidence varied from very low to low-quality. Data on adverse events were sparse, so we could not reach conclusions on these. At the moment, there is no evidence to support or refute the use of this technique for subfertile women undergoing ART. Robust evidence is needed from further RCTs, which study the effects on live birth and miscarriage rates for the metabolomic assessment of embryo viability. Well designed and executed trials are also needed to study the effects on oocyte quality and endometrial receptivity, since none are currently available.

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist protocol of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation as an efficient treatment in Bologna-defined poor ovarian responders

In this retrospective study the outcomes of two protocols of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and natural cycle in poor ovarian responders defined according to the Bologna criteria were compared to elucidate which approach is more suitable for the treatment of these patients. We comparatively analyzed 142 cycles of GnRH antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol, 53 cycles of GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) protocol, and 36 natural cycles. The mean number of oocytes (2.8±1.8) and embryos (1.6±1.2) per aspiration was significantly higher in GnRH-a protocol in comparison to GnRH-ant protocol and natural cycle, but the proportion of immature, fertilized oocytes, and embryos, including the quality of transferred embryos, was very similar in all treatments. The proportion of pregnancies per oocyte aspiration did not differ significantly between treatments (18.9% after GnRH-a, 10.6% after GnRH-ant, 5.6% after natural cycle), but the live birth rate per aspiration was significantly higher after GnRH-a protocol than after GnRH-ant protocol (15.1% vs. 4.2%; p=0.024).