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.

No evidence that embryo selection by near-infrared spectroscopy in addition to morphology is able to improve live birth rates: results from an individual patient data meta-analysis

STUDY QUESTION

What is the value of embryo selection by metabolomic profiling of culture medium with near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy as an adjunct to morphology, compared with embryo selection by morphology alone, based on an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPD MA)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The IPD MA indicates that the live birth rate after embryo selection by NIR spectroscopy and morphology is not significantly different compared with the live birth rate after embryo selection by morphology alone.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Retrospective proof of principle studies has consistently shown that high NIR viability scores are correlated with a high implantation potential of embryos. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have generally shown no benefit of the NIR technology over embryo morphology, although there have been some conflicting results between pregnancy outcomes on different days of embryo transfer.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This IPD MA included all existing RCTs (n = 4) in which embryo selection by morphology was compared with embryo selection by morphology and the use of NIR spectroscopy of spent embryo culture medium by the Viametrics-E(™).

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Searches of PubMed, the Cochrane Library and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry were conducted and the sole manufacturer of the Viametrics-E(™) was consulted to identify clinics where an RCT comparing embryo selection by morphology to embryo selection by morphology and the use of the Viametrics-E(™) (NIR viability score) was performed. A total of 20 citations were potentially eligible for inclusion, two of which met the inclusion criteria. The manufacturer of the Viametrics-E(™) provided two additional clinical sites of use. In total, four RCTs were identified as eligible for inclusion. The IPD MA was based on a fixed effect model due to the lack of heterogeneity between included studies. Differences between study groups were tested and reported using logistic regression models adjusted for significant confounders. The pooled analysis of the primary outcome led to a total sample size of 924 patients: 484 patients in the control group (embryo selection by morphology alone) and 440 patients in the treatment group (embryo selection by morphology plus NIR spectroscopy).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The live birth rates in the control group and the NIR group were 34.7% (168 of 484) and 33.2% (146 of 440), respectively. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was 0.98 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-1.29], indicating no difference in live birth rates between the two study groups. The data of the four studies showed no significant heterogeneity (I(2) = 26.2% P = 0.26). The multivariate regression analysis including all confounders show that maternal age (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.87-0.94) and the number of previous IVF cycles (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71-0.96) were significantly related to live birth. The study group (i.e. embryo selection by morphology or embryo selection by morphology plus NIR) was not related to live birth (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.73-1.29).

LIMITATIONS AND REASONS FOR CAUTION

The availability of at least two similar best quality embryos as an inclusion criterion prior to transfer in the two largest RCTs might have caused a selection bias towards a better prognosis patient group.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

There is at present no evidence that NIR spectroscopy of spent embryo culture media in its current form can be used in daily practice to improve live birth rates.