Patients' attitudes and preferences towards a freeze-all strategy in ART treatment

Driving factors in treatment decision-making of patients seeking medical assistance for infertility: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

ART differs in effectiveness, side-effects, administration, and costs. To improve the decision-making process, we need to understand what factors patients consider to be most important.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

We conducted this systematic review to assess which aspects of ART treatment (effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, and genetic parenthood) are most important in the decision-making of patients with an unfulfilled wish to have a child.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched studies indexed in Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL prior to November 2023. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs), surveys, interviews, and conjoint analyses (CAs) about ART were included. Studies were included if they described two or more of the following attributes: effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, and genetic parenthood.Participants were men and women with an unfulfilled wish to have a child. From each DCE/CA study, we extracted the beta-coefficients and calculated the relative importance of treatment attributes or, in case of survey studies, extracted results. We assessed the risk of bias using the rating developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. Attributes were classified into effectiveness, safety, burden, costs, patient-centeredness, genetic parenthood, and others.

OUTCOMES

The search identified 938 studies of which 20 were included: 13 DCEs, three survey studies, three interview studies, and one conjoint analysis, with a total of 12 452 patients. Per study, 47-100% of the participants were women. Studies were assessed as having moderate to high risk of bias (critical: six studies, serious: four studies, moderate: nine studies, low: one study). The main limitation was the heterogeneity in the questionnaires and methodology utilized. Studies varied in the number and types of assessed attributes. Patients' treatment decision-making was mostly driven by effectiveness, followed by safety, burden, costs, and patient-centeredness. Effectiveness was rated as the first or second most important factor in 10 of the 12 DCE studies (83%) and the relative importance of effectiveness varied between 17% and 63%, with a median of 34% (moderate certainty of evidence). Of eight studies evaluating safety, five studies valued safety as the first or second most important factor (63%), and the relative importance ranged from 8% to 35% (median 23%) (moderate certainty of evidence). Cost was rated as first or second most important in five of 10 studies, and the importance relative to the other attributes varied between 5% and 47% (median 23%) (moderate certainty of evidence). Burden was rated as first or second by three of 10 studies (30%) and the relative importance varied between 1% and 43% (median 13%) (low certainty of evidence). Patient-centeredness was second most important in one of five studies (20%) and had a relative importance between 7% and 24% (median 14%) (low certainty of evidence). Results suggest that patients are prepared to trade-off some effectiveness for more safety, or less burden and patient-centeredness. When safety was evaluated, the safety of the child was considered more important than the mother's safety. Greater burden (cycle cancellations, number of injections, number of hospital visits, time) was more likely to be accepted by patients if they gained effectiveness, safety, or lower costs. Concerning patient-centeredness, information provision and physician attitude were considered most important, followed by involvement in decision-making, and treatment continuity by the same medical professional. Non-genetic parenthood did not have a clear impact on decision-making.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

The findings of this review can be used in future preference studies and can help healthcare professionals in guiding patients' decision-making and enable a more patient-centered approach.

Economic evaluations of assisted reproductive technologies in high-income countries: a systematic review

STUDY QUESTION

Which assited reproductive technology (ART) interventions in high-income countries are cost-effective and which are not?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Among all ART interventions assessed in economic evaluations, most high-cost interventions, including preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) for a general population and ICSI for unexplained infertility, are unlikely to be cost-effective owing to minimal or no increase in effectiveness.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Approaches to reduce costs in order to increase access have been identified as a research priority for future infertility research. There has been an increasing number of ART interventions implemented in routine clinical practice globally, before robust assessments of evidence on economic evaluations. The extent of clinical effectiveness of some studied comparisons has been evaluated in high-quality research, allowing more informative decision making around cost-effectiveness.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We performed a systematic review and searched seven databases (MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE, ECONLIT, SCOPUS, and CINAHL) for studies examining ART interventions for infertility together with an economic evaluation component (cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, cost-utility, or cost-minimization assessment), in high-income countries, published since January 2011. The last search was 22 June 2022.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Two independent reviewers assessed publications and included those fulfilling the eligibility criteria. Studies were examined to assess the cost-effectiveness of the studied intervention, as well as the reporting quality of the study. The chosen outcome measure and payer perspective were also noted. Completeness of reporting was assessed against the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard. Results are presented and summarized based on the intervention studied.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The review included 40 studies which were conducted in 11 high-income countries. Most studies (n = 34) included a cost-effectiveness analysis. ART interventions included medication or strategies for controlled ovarian stimulation (n = 15), IVF (n = 9), PGT-A (n = 7), single embryo transfer (n = 5), ICSI (n = 3), and freeze-all embryo transfer (n = 1). Live birth was the mostly commonly reported primary outcome (n = 27), and quality-adjusted life years was reported in three studies. The health funder perspective was used in 85% (n = 34) of studies. None of the included studies measured patient preference for treatment. It remains uncertain whether PGT-A improves pregnancy rates compared to IVF cycles managed without PGT-A, and therefore cost-effectiveness could not be demonstrated for this intervention. Similarly, ICSI in non-male factor infertility appears not to be clinically effective compared to standard fertilization in an IVF cycle and is therefore not cost-effective. Interventions such as use of biosimilars or HMG for ovarian stimulation are cheaper but compromise clinical effectiveness.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Lack of both preference-based and standardized outcomes limits the comparability of results across studies. The selection of efficacy evidence offered for some interventions for economic evaluations is not always based on high-quality randomized trials and systematic reviews. In addition, there is insufficient knowledge of the willingness to pay thresholds of individuals and state funders for treatment of infertility. There is variable quality of reporting scores, which might increase uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness results.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Investment in strategies to help infertile people who utilize ART is justifiable at both personal and population levels. This systematic review may assist ART funders decide how to best invest to maximize the likelihood of delivery of a healthy child.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

There was no funding for this study. E.C. and R.W. receive salary support from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) through their fellowship scheme (EC GNT1159536, RW 2021/GNT2009767). M.D.-T. reports consulting fees from King Fahad Medical School. All other authors have no competing interests to declare.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

Prospero CRD42021261537.

Does being conceived by assisted reproductive technology influence adult quality of life?

Numerous studies have investigated the physical health and development of children and adolescents conceived with assisted reproductive technology (ART). Less is known about the quality of life of ART-conceived adults. This study explores the contributions of being conceived with ART and psychosocial cofactors present in young adulthood to the quality of life of adults aged 22-35 years. Young adults conceived through ART or natural conception (NC) completed questionnaires which included a standardized measure of quality of life (World Health Organization Quality of Life - Brief assessment (WHOQoL-BREF)) when aged 18-28 years (T1) and again when aged 22-35 years (T2). The WHOQoL-BREF has four domains: (i) Physical, (ii) Psychological, (iii) Social relationships and (iv) Environment. A total of 193 ART-conceived and 86 NC individuals completed both questionnaires. When accounting for other cofactors in multivariable analyses, being ART-conceived was strongly associated with higher scores (better quality of life) on the Social relationships, and Environment WHOQoL-BREF domains at T2. In addition, less psychological distress, a better relationship with parents, a better financial situation, and perceptions of being about the right weight at T1 were associated with higher scores on one or more of the WHOQoL-BREF domains at T2. In conclusion, being ART-conceived can confer advantages in quality of life in adulthood, independent of psychosocial cofactors.

The predictive value of uterine artery Doppler in the success rate of pregnancy from the first frozen embryo transfer during the implantation window

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, frozen embryo transfer (FET) has become a new strategy for the treatment of infertility. The success of FET is closely related to endometrial receptivity. Does uterine artery Doppler during the implantation window predict pregnancy outcome from the first FET?

METHODS

A total of 115 retrospectively collected cycles were included in the study, with 64 cycles of clinical pregnancy and 51 cycles of nonclinical pregnancy; There were 99 nonabsent end-diastolic flow (NAEDF) cycles and 16 absent end-diastolic flow (AEDF) cycles. The differences in uterine artery Doppler findings between different pregnancy outcomes were investigated. The clinical pregnancy rate and spontaneous abortion rate in the NAEDF and AEDF groups were compared. The predictive value of uterine artery Doppler during the implantation window in the success rate of pregnancy from the first FET was also investigated.

RESULTS

Between the clinical pregnancy group and the nonclinical pregnancy group, there were no significant differences in the mean resistance index (mRI) (Z = -1.065, p = 0.287), mean pulsatility index (mPI) (Z = -0.340, p = 0.734), and mean peak systolic/end-diastolic velocity(mS/D) (Z = -0.953, p = 0.341); there were significant differences in the mean peak systolic velocity (mPSV) (Z = -1.982, p = 0.048) and mean end-diastolic velocity (mEDV) (Z = -2.767, p = 0.006). Between the NAEDF and AEDF groups, there was no significant difference in the clinical pregnancy rate (χ2 = 0.003, p = 0.959), and there was a significant difference in the spontaneous abortion rate (χ2 = 3.465, p = 0.019). Compared with uterine artery Doppler alone, its combination with artificial abortion history, waist-to-hip ratio, LH (Luteinizing hormone) of P (Progesterone) administration day, mPSV and mEDV had a higher predictive value regarding clinical pregnancy from the first FET [ROC-AUC 0.782, 95% CI (0.680-0.883) vs. 0.692, 95% CI (0.587-0.797)].

CONCLUSIONS

Uterine artery Doppler, particularly mPSV and mEDV during the implantation window, was useful for predicting clinical pregnancy, and AEDF was related to spontaneous abortion in the first trimester. Uterine artery Doppler combined with artificial abortion history, waist-to-hip ratio, LH of P administration day, mPSV and mEDV have a higher predictive value than uterine artery Doppler alone regarding the pregnancy from the first FET.

Psychosocial wellbeing shortly after allocation to a freeze-all strategy compared with a fresh transfer strategy in women and men: a sub-study of a randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION

Is the psychosocial wellbeing affected in women and men shortly after allocation to a freeze-all strategy with postponement of embryo transfer compared to a fresh transfer strategy?

SUMMARY ANSWER

In general, psychosocial wellbeing (i.e. emotional reactions to the treatment, quality-of-life, infertility-related stress, and marital benefit) was similar in women and men allocated to a freeze-all versus those allocated to a fresh-transfer strategy 6 days after disclosure of treatment strategy (i.e. 4 days after oocyte retrieval), although women in the freeze-all group reported a slightly higher degree of depressive symptoms and mood swings compared to women in the fresh transfer group.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The use of a freeze-all strategy, i.e. freezing of the entire embryo cohort followed by elective frozen embryo transfer in subsequent cycles has increased steadily over the past decade in assisted reproductive technology (ART). This strategy essentially eliminates the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and has proven beneficial regarding some reproductive outcomes in subgroups of women. However, patients experience a longer time interval between oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer, hence a longer time to pregnancy, possibly adding additional stress to the ART treatment. So far, little focus has been on the possible psychosocial strains caused by postponement of embryo transfer.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This is a self-reported questionnaire based sub-study of a multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT) including 460 women and 396 male partners initiating their first, second, or third treatment cycle of invitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) from May 2016 to September 2018. This sub-study was included in the primary project protocol and project plan for the RCT, as psychosocial wellbeing was considered a secondary outcome.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Women from eight public fertility clinics in Denmark and Sweden and one private clinic in Spain were randomized in a 1:1 ratio on the day of inclusion (menstrual cycle day 2 or 3) to either a freeze-all strategy with postponement of embryo transfer to a subsequent modified natural menstrual cycle or a fresh transfer strategy with embryo transfer in the hormone stimulated cycle. Treatment allocation was blinded until the day of the ovulation trigger. Women and their male partners were asked to complete a validated self-reported questionnaire 6 days after unblinding of treatment group allocation, corresponding to 4 days after oocyte retrieval, investigating their psychosocial wellbeing related to the treatment defined as emotional reactions to the treatment, quality-of-life, infertility-related stress, and marital benefit. The questionnaire included items from the Copenhagen Multi-Centre Psychosocial Infertility (COMPI) Fertility Problem Stress Scales and the COMPI Marital Benefit Measure.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups for both women and men. In total, response rates were 90.7% for women and 90.2% for men. In the freeze-all group, 207 women and 179 men completed the questionnaire compared with 204 women and 178 men in the fresh transfer group. Men in the two treatment groups did not differ in any of the explored aspects of psychosocial wellbeing (i.e. emotional reactions to the treatment, quality-of-life, infertility-related stress, and marital benefit) 6 days after disclosure of treatment strategy. Women in the freeze-all group reported a slightly higher degree of depressive symptoms (P = 0.045) and mood swings (P = 0.001) (i.e. variables included in 'emotional reactions to treatment') compared to women in the fresh transfer group. When adjusted for multiple testing, depressive symptoms were no longer significantly different between the two groups. No additional differences in psychosocial wellbeing were found. Self-reported quality-of-life during treatment was also rated as similar between the two groups in both women and men, but was slightly lower than they would rate their quality-of-life when not in fertility treatment.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Although response rates were high, selection bias cannot be excluded. As this study was an RCT, we assume that psychosocial characteristics of the participants were equally distributed in the two groups, thus it is unlikely that the identified psychosocial differences between the freeze-all and fresh transfer group were present already at baseline. Furthermore, the questionnaire was completed as a one-time assessment 4 days after oocyte retrieval, thus not reflecting the whole treatment process, whereas an assessment after the full completed treatment cycle is needed to draw firm conclusions about the psychosocial consequences of the whole waiting period. However, a question posted that late would be highly biased on whether or not a pregnancy had been achieved.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The results indicate that individuals in the freeze-all group exhibited slightly higher levels of depressive symptoms and mood swings compared to those in the fresh transfer group. Nevertheless, it is important to note that any worries related to potential emotional strains stemming from delaying embryo transfer should not overshadow the adoption of a freeze-all approach in cases where it is clinically recommended. As long as patients are provided with comprehensive information about the treatment strategy before initiating the process, it is worth emphasising that other aspects of psychosocial wellbeing were comparable between the two groups.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The study is part of the Reprounion collaborative study, co-financed by the European Union, Interreg V Öresund-Kattegat-Skagerrak. L.P. reports financial support from Merck A/S. H.S.N. reports grants from Freya Biosciences ApS, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, BioInnovation Institute, Ministry of Education, Novo Nordic Foundation, Augustinus Fonden, Oda og Hans Svenningsens Fond, Demant Fonden, Ole Kirks Fond and Independent Research Fund Denmark and personal fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S, Astra Zeneca, Cook Medical, IBSA Nordic and Gedeon Richter. H.S.N is founder and chairman of the Maternity Foundation and co-developed the Safe Delivery App (non-profit). N.C.F. reports grants from Gedeon Richter, Merck A/S, Cryos International and financial support from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S and Gedeon Richter. N.C.F. is chairman in the steering committee for the guideline groups for The Danish Fertility Society (non-profit). P.H. reports honoraria from Merch A/S, IBSA Nordic and Gedeon Richter. A.L.M.E. reports grants and financial support from Merck A/S and Gedeon Richter. A.P. reports grants from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S and personal fees from Preglem S.A., Novo Nordic Foundation, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Gedeon Richter, Cryos International, Merch A/S, Theramex and Organon and the lend of embryoscope to the institution from Gedeon Richter. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02746562.

An appraisal of current embryo transfer strategies

Embryo transfer, one of the most essential procedures in assisted reproductive technology, plays a vital role in the success of in-vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. During the last decades, the strategies for embryo transfer have changed dramatically. In this review, we evaluate the efficacy and safety of several current embryo transfer strategies including fresh versus frozen embryo transfer, cleavage- versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer, and single- versus double-embryo transfer. Available evidence indicates that the freeze-only strategy improves the live birth rate after the first embryo transfer in high responders while making no difference in normal responders. The risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is significantly reduced in the freeze-only strategy. Fresh blastocyst-stage embryo transfer increased live birth rate compared to cleavage-stage embryo transfer. The best embryo transfer strategy is one which tailors to individual circumstances and preferences.

The time interval between oocyte retrieval and frozen embryo transfer does not impact reproductive outcomes

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does the time interval between oocyte retrieval and frozen embryo transfer (FET) affect pregnancy outcomes after a freeze-all strategy?

DESIGN

Retrospective study including a total of 5995 patients who underwent their first FET following a freeze-all cycle between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2020. Patients were divided into immediate (the interval between oocyte retrieval and the day of first FET ≤40 days), delayed (>40 days but ≤180 days) and overdue groups (>180 days). Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes were analysed, and multivariable regression analysis was used to study the effect of FET timing on the live birth rate (LBR) in the entire cohort and the different subgroups.

RESULTS

The LBR was significantly lower in the overdue group than in the delayed group (34.9% versus 42.8%, P = 0.002); however, after adjusting for confounding factors, the difference was not statistically significant. The immediate group had a comparable LBR (36.9%) to the other two groups in both the crude and adjusted analyses. Multivariable regression analysis showed no impact of FET timing on LBR in the whole cohort or in the subgroups according to ovarian stimulation protocol, trigger type, insemination method, reason for freezing all, FET protocol or transferred embryo stage.

CONCLUSIONS

The time interval between oocyte retrieval and FET does not impact reproductive outcomes. Unnecessary delays in FET should be avoided to shorten the time to live birth.

Clinical pregnancy rate for frozen embryo transfer with HRT: a randomized controlled pilot study comparing 1 week versus 2 weeks of oestradiol priming

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does a frozen-embryo transfer in an artificially-prepared endometrium (FET-HRT) cycle yield similar clinical pregnancy rate with 7 days of oestrogen priming compared to 14 days?

DESIGN

This is a single-centre, randomized, controlled, open-label pilot study. All FET-HRT cycles were performed in a tertiary centre between October 2018 and January 2021. Overall, 160 patients were randomized, with a 1:1 allocation, into two groups of 80 patients each: group A (7 days of E2 prior to P4 supplementation) and group B (14 days of E2 prior to P4 supplementation). Both groups received single blastocyst stage embryos on the 6th day of vaginal P4 administration. The primary outcome was the feasibility of such strategy assessed as clinical pregnancy rate, secondary outcomes were biochemical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, live birth rate and serum hormone levels on the day of FET. Chemical pregnancy was assessed by an hCG blood test 12 days after FET and clinical pregnancy was confirmed by transvaginal ultrasound at 7 weeks.

RESULTS

The analysis included 160 patients who were randomly assigned to either group A or group B on the seventh day of their FET-HRT cycle if the measured endometrial thickness was above 6.5 mm. Following screening failures and of drop-outs, 144 patients were finally included both in group A (75 patients) or group B (69 patients). Demographic characteristics for both groups were comparable. The biochemical pregnancy rate was 42.5% and 48.8% for group A and group B, respectively (p 0.526). Regarding the clinical pregnancy rate at 7 weeks, no statistical difference was observed (36.3% vs 46.3% for group A and group B, respectively, p = 0.261). The secondary outcomes of the study (biochemical pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth rate) were comparable between the two groups for IIT analysis, as well as the P4 values on the day of FET.

CONCLUSIONS

In a frozen embryo transfer cycle, performed with artificial preparation of the endometrium, 7 versus 14 days of oestrogen priming are comparable, in terms of clinical pregnancy rate; the advantages of a seven-day protocol include the shorter time to pregnancy, reduced exposure to oestrogens, and more flexibility of scheduling and programming, and less probability to recruit a follicle and have a spontaneous LH surge. It is important to keep in mind that this study was designed as a pilot trial with a limited study population as such it was underpowered to determine the superiority of an intervention over another; larger-scale RCTs are warranted to confirm our preliminary results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trial number: NCT03930706.

Comparison of pregnancy outcomes of letrozole-induced frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles in PCOS women with two different abnormal ovulation patterns: A retrospective cohort study

No studies have been conducted on the impact of different types of ovulatory dysfunction on the outcomes of frozen-thawed embryo transfers (FETs) in a letrozole-stimulated cycle in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). This study aimed to compare whether pregnancy outcomes of the letrozole-induced protocol in FET cycles differed between oligo-ovulatory and anovulatory women with PCOS. In a retrospective cohort study, women with PCOS who had undergone letrozole-induced FET at a university-affiliated fertility clinic from February 2014 to October 2020 were identified. The primary end point was live birth rate (LBR) per embryo transfer. Propensity score matching and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to control for the relevant confounders. A total of 652 women with PCOS undergoing letrozole-induced FET were included in the final analysis. Three hundred sixty-three of these women had oligo-ovulatory periods, while 289 had anovulatory periods. Propensity score matching analysis showed that LBR did not differ between groups (36.8% in oligo-ovulatory group vs 32.8% in anovulatory group, P = .431). Nevertheless, after controlling for potential confounding factors, LBR was significantly lower in anovulatory than oligo-ovulatory women (adjusted odds ratio 1.57, 95% confidence interval 1.08-2.29, P = .018). Furthermore, the pregnancy loss rate among the oligo-ovulatory group remained lower than those among the anovulatory group (adjusted odds ratio 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.12-0.44, P < .001). Despite adjustment for confounding factors, those with oligo-ovulatory PCOS had a higher LBR and lower pregnancy loss rate compared with those with anovulatory PCOS. This may indicate that when oligo-ovulation is detected, PCOS patients should be intervened in time to conceive as soon as possible. Prospective studies must be conducted in the future to verify our findings.

Predictive performance of peritoneal fluid in the pouch of Douglas measured five days after oocyte pick-up in predicting severe late-onset OHSS: A secondary analysis of a randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

To investigate if the amount of peritoneal fluid (PF) in the Pouch of Douglas at oocyte pick-up (OPU) or OPU + 5 days predict severe late-onset ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology (ART).

STUDY DESIGN

A secondary analysis of a dual-centre RCT on 1050 women referred for their first ART treatment in two public fertility clinics in Denmark and randomized 1:1 to GnRH-antagonist or GnRH-agonist protocol. All women from the two arms who were examined on day of OPU and OPU + 5 days were included in this study (n = 940). The ability of PF in the pouch of Douglas to predict severe late-onset OHSS was assessed by multivariate logistic regression analyses and receiver operator characteristics (ROC) curve analyses and compared with other known predictors of OHSS. The final models were cross-validated by the leave-one-out method to assess the models' generalizability.

RESULTS

A total of 28 (3%) women developed severe late-onset OHSS. PF in the pouch of Douglas measured on OPU + 5 days predicted severe late-onset OHSS. The optimal cut-off value was 17.5 mm at OPU + 5 days with a 61% sensitivity and 71% specificity (Area under the curve = 0.70 95% CI 0.61-0.80). PF on the day of OPU was not predictive of late on-set OHSS as the adjusted multivariate logistic regression analyses showed insignificant results.

CONCLUSION

Although PF in the pouch of Douglas could predict late-onset severe OHSS, the low sensitivity underlines that it is not useful as a sole marker to decide whether to perform blastocyst transfer or to use a freeze-all strategy.

Pro: Fresh versus frozen embryo transfer. Is frozen embryo transfer the future?

Embryo cryopreservation has been an integral part of ART for close to 40 years and vitrification has boosted overall ART efficacy and safety. Recently, there has been a vivid scientific discussion on whether elective cryopreservation of all embryos (freeze-all) should be pursued for most patients, with a fresh embryo transfer taking place only in selected cases. In terms of efficacy, the available evidence suggests that the freeze-all strategy leads to higher live birth rates after the first embryo transfer compared to the conventional strategy in high responders, while there is no difference in normal responders. There is no evidence to suggest that the freeze-all strategy is inferior to the conventional strategy of fresh transfer when comparing cumulative live birth rates using data from all available randomized controlled trials. The incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is significantly reduced in the freeze-all policy. However, regarding obstetric complications and neonatal outcomes, the evidence suggests that each strategy is associated with certain risks and, therefore, there is no approach that could be unequivocally accepted as safer. Similarly, limited evidence does not support the notion that patients would be universally against freeze-all owing to the inevitable delay in pregnancy achievement. Finally, the cost-effectiveness of freeze-all is likely to vary in different settings and there have been studies supporting that this policy can be, under certain conditions, cost-effective. Adoption of the freeze-all policy can also allow for more flexible treatment strategies that have the potential to increase efficacy, reduce cost and make treatment easier for patients and clinics. Importantly, freeze-all does not require the use of any experimental technologies, further training of personnel or the costly acquisition of new equipment. For these reasons, transitioning to the freeze-all policy for most patients appears to be the next logical step in ART.

Transfer of thawed frozen embryo versus fresh embryo to improve the healthy baby rate in women undergoing IVF: the E-Freeze RCT

BACKGROUND

Freezing all embryos, followed by thawing and transferring them into the uterine cavity at a later stage (freeze-all), instead of fresh-embryo transfer may lead to improved pregnancy rates and fewer complications during in vitro fertilisation and pregnancies resulting from it.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate if a policy of freeze-all results in a higher healthy baby rate than the current policy of transferring fresh embryos.

DESIGN

This was a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, non-blinded, randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Eighteen in vitro fertilisation clinics across the UK participated from February 2016 to April 2019.

PARTICIPANTS

Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of in vitro fertilisation treatment in which the female partner was aged < 42 years.

INTERVENTIONS

If at least three good-quality embryos were present on day 3 of embryo development, couples were randomly allocated to either freeze-all (intervention) or fresh-embryo transfer (control).

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome was a healthy baby, defined as a live, singleton baby born at term, with an appropriate weight for their gestation. Secondary outcomes included ovarian hyperstimulation, live birth and clinical pregnancy rates, complications of pregnancy and childbirth, health economic outcome, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory scores.

RESULTS

A total of 1578 couples were consented and 619 couples were randomised. Most non-randomisations were because of the non-availability of at least three good-quality embryos (n = 476). Of the couples randomised, 117 (19%) did not adhere to the allocated intervention. The rate of non-adherence was higher in the freeze-all arm, with the leading reason being patient choice. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a healthy baby rate of 20.3% in the freeze-all arm and 24.4% in the fresh-embryo transfer arm (risk ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 1.15). Similar results were obtained using complier-average causal effect analysis (risk ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.10), per-protocol analysis (risk ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.26) and as-treated analysis (risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 1.29). The risk of ovarian hyperstimulation was 3.6% in the freeze-all arm and 8.1% in the fresh-embryo transfer arm (risk ratio 0.44, 99% confidence interval 0.15 to 1.30). There were no statistically significant differences between the freeze-all and the fresh-embryo transfer arms in the live birth rates (28.3% vs. 34.3%; risk ratio 0.83, 99% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.06) and clinical pregnancy rates (33.9% vs. 40.1%; risk ratio 0.85, 99% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.11). There was no statistically significant difference in anxiety scores for male participants (mean difference 0.1, 99% confidence interval -2.4 to 2.6) and female participants (mean difference 0.0, 99% confidence interval -2.2 to 2.2) between the arms. The economic analysis showed that freeze-all had a low probability of being cost-effective in terms of the incremental cost per healthy baby and incremental cost per live birth.

LIMITATIONS

We were unable to reach the original planned sample size of 1086 and the rate of non-adherence to the allocated intervention was much higher than expected.

CONCLUSION

When efficacy, safety and costs are considered, freeze-all is not better than fresh-embryo transfer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN61225414.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Elective freezing of embryos versus fresh embryo transfer in IVF: a multicentre randomized controlled trial in the UK (E-Freeze)

STUDY QUESTION

Does a policy of elective freezing of embryos, followed by frozen embryo transfer result in a higher healthy baby rate, after first embryo transfer, when compared with the current policy of transferring fresh embryos?

SUMMARY ANSWER

This study, although limited by sample size, provides no evidence to support the adoption of a routine policy of elective freeze in preference to fresh embryo transfer in order to improve IVF effectiveness in obtaining a healthy baby.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The policy of freezing all embryos followed by frozen embryo transfer is associated with a higher live birth rate for high responders but a similar/lower live birth after first embryo transfer and cumulative live birth rate for normal responders. Frozen embryo transfer is associated with a lower risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), preterm delivery and low birthweight babies but a higher risk of large babies and pre-eclampsia. There is also uncertainty about long-term outcomes, hence shifting to a policy of elective freezing for all remains controversial given the delay in treatment and extra costs involved in freezing all embryos.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A pragmatic two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial (E-Freeze) was conducted across 18 clinics in the UK from 2016 to 2019. A total of 619 couples were randomized (309 to elective freeze/310 to fresh). The primary outcome was a healthy baby after first embryo transfer (term, singleton live birth with appropriate weight for gestation); secondary outcomes included OHSS, live birth, clinical pregnancy, pregnancy complications and cost-effectiveness.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of IVF/ICSI treatment, with at least three good quality embryos on Day 3 where the female partner was ≥18 and <42 years of age were eligible. Those using donor gametes, undergoing preimplantation genetic testing or planning to freeze all their embryos were excluded. IVF/ICSI treatment was carried out according to local protocols. Women were followed up for pregnancy outcome after first embryo transfer following randomization.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Of the 619 couples randomized, 307 and 309 couples in the elective freeze and fresh transfer arms, respectively, were included in the primary analysis. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in outcomes in the elective freeze group compared to the fresh embryo transfer group: healthy baby rate {20.3% (62/307) versus 24.4% (75/309); risk ratio (RR), 95% CI: 0.84, 0.62 to 1.15}; OHSS (3.6% versus 8.1%; RR, 99% CI: 0.44, 0.15 to 1.30); live birth rate (28.3% versus 34.3%; RR, 99% CI 0.83, 0.65 to 1.06); and miscarriage (14.3% versus 12.9%; RR, 99% CI: 1.09, 0.72 to 1.66). Adherence to allocation was poor in the elective freeze group. The elective freeze approach was more costly and was unlikely to be cost-effective in a UK National Health Service context.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We have only reported on first embryo transfer after randomization; data on the cumulative live birth rate requires further follow-up. Planned target sample size was not obtained and the non-adherence to allocation rate was high among couples in the elective freeze arm owing to patient preference for fresh embryo transfer, but an analysis which took non-adherence into account showed similar results.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Results from the E-Freeze trial do not lend support to the policy of electively freezing all for everyone, taking both efficacy, safety and costs considerations into account. This method should only be adopted if there is a definite clinical indication.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (13/115/82). This research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (NIHR unique award identifier) using UK aid from the UK Government to support global health research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. J.L.B., C.C., E.J., P.H., J.J.K., L.L. and G.S. report receipt of funding from NIHR, during the conduct of the study. J.L.B., E.J., P.H., K.S. and L.L. report receipt of funding from NIHR, during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. A.M. reports grants from NIHR personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees for lectures from Merck Serono, Ferring and Cooks outside the submitted work; travel/meeting support from Ferring and Pharmasure and participation in a Ferring advisory board. S.B. reports receipt of royalties and licenses from Cambridge University Press, a board membership role for NHS Grampian and other financial or non-financial interests related to his roles as Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and Editor and Contributing Author of Reproductive Medicine for the MRCOG, Cambridge University Press. D.B. reports grants from NIHR, during the conduct of the study; grants from European Commission, grants from Diabetes UK, grants from NIHR, grants from ESHRE, grants from MRC, outside the submitted work. Y.C. reports speaker fees from Merck Serono, and advisory board role for Merck Serono and shares in Complete Fertility. P.H. reports membership of the HTA Commissioning Committee. E.J. reports membership of the NHS England and NIHR Partnership Programme, membership of five Data Monitoring Committees (Chair of two), membership of six Trial Steering Committees (Chair of four), membership of the Northern Ireland Clinical Trials Unit Advisory Group and Chair of the board of Oxford Brain Health Clinical Trials Unit. R.M. reports consulting fees from Gedeon Richter, honorarium from Merck, support fees for attendance at educational events and conferences for Merck, Ferring, Bessins and Gedeon Richter, payments for participation on a Merck Safety or Advisory Board, Chair of the British Fertility Society and payments for an advisory role to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. G.S. reports travel and accommodation fees for attendance at a health economic advisory board from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. N.R.-F. reports shares in Nurture Fertility. Other authors' competing interests: none declared.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN: 61225414.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

29 December 2015.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

16 February 2016.

Added value of anti-Müllerian hormone serum concentration in assisted reproduction clinical practice using highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (HP-hMG)

INTRODUCTION

The individual response to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) depends on several factors, including the initial dose of gonadotropin. In repeated in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles, the initial dose of gonadotropin is mainly established on the basis of the previous attempts' outcomes. Conversely, in naive patients, the ovarian response should be estimated using other criteria, such as the serum concentration of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). However, in clinical practice, the initial gonadotropin dose is not systematically adapted to the AMH level, despite the known relationship between AMH and ovarian reserve.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

French non-interventional, longitudinal, prospective, multicentre, cohort study that included infertile women who underwent COS with highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (HP-hMG 600 IU/mL) during their first IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycle. Data were collected prospectively during routine follow-up visits from COS initiation to 10-11 weeks after embryo transfer.

RESULTS

Data from 235 of the 297 enrolled women were used for the study. Serum AMH level was negatively correlated with the initial and total HP-hMG doses (p<0.001), and positively correlated with the number of retrieved oocytes (p<0.007). Embryos were obtained for 94.0% of women, and fresh embryo transfer was performed in 72.8% of them. The clinical pregnancy rate was 28.5% after the first embryo transfer.

CONCLUSION

Selecting the appropriate starting dose of gonadotropin is crucial to optimize the IVF/ICSI procedure. For the first attempt, the serum AMH level is a good biomarker to individualize treatment.

Assessing couples' preferences for fresh or frozen embryo transfer: a discrete choice experiment

STUDY QUESTION

What are couples' preferences for fresh embryo transfer versus freezing of all embryos followed by frozen embryo transfer and the associated clinical outcomes that may differentiate them?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Couples' preferences are driven by anticipated chances of live birth, miscarriage, neonatal complications, and costs but not by the differences in the treatment process (including delay of embryo transfer linked to frozen embryo transfer and risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) associated with fresh embryo transfer).

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

A policy of freezing all embryos followed by transfer of frozen embryos results in livebirth rates which are similar to or higher than those following the transfer of fresh embryos while reducing the risk of OHSS and small for gestational age babies: it can, however, increase the risk of pre-eclampsia and large for gestational age offspring. Hence, the controversy continues over whether to do fresh embryo transfer or freeze all embryos followed by frozen embryo transfer.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) technique to survey infertile couples between August 2018 and January 2019.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

We asked IVF naïve couples attending a tertiary referral centre to independently complete a questionnaire with nine hypothetical choice tasks between fresh and frozen embryo transfer. The alternatives varied across the choice occurrences on several attributes including efficacy (live birth rate), safety (miscarriage rate, neonatal complication rate), and cost of treatment. We assumed that a freeze-all strategy prolonged treatment but reduced the risk of OHSS. An error components mixed logit model was used to estimate the relative value (utility) that couples placed on the alternative treatment approaches and the attributes used to describe them. Willingness to pay and marginal rates of substitution between the non-cost attributes were calculated. A total of 360 individual questionnaires were given to 180 couples who fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which 212 were completed and returned Our study population included 3 same sex couples (2 females and 1 male) and 101 heterosexual couples. Four questionnaires were filled by one partner only. The response rate was 58.8%.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Couples preferred both fresh and frozen embryo transfer (odds ratio 27.93 and 28.06, respectively) compared with no IVF treatment, with no strong preference for fresh over frozen. Couples strongly preferred any IVF technique that offered an increase in live birth rates by 5% (P = 0.006) and 15% (P < 0.0001), reduced miscarriage by 18% (P < 0.0001) and diminished neonatal complications by 10% (P < 0.0001). Respondents were willing to pay an additional £2451 (95% CI 604 - 4299) and £761 (95% CI 5056-9265) for a 5 and 15% increase in the chance of live birth, respectively, regardless of whether this involved fresh or frozen embryos. They required compensation of £5230 (95% CI 3320 - 7141) and £13 245 (95% CI 10 110-16 380) to accept a 10 and 25% increase in the risk of neonatal complications, respectively (P < 0.001). Results indicated that couples would be willing to accept a 1.26% (95% CI 1.001 - 1.706) reduction in the live birth rate for a 1% reduction in the risk of neonatal complications per live birth. Older couples appeared to place less emphasis on the risk of neonatal complications than younger couples.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

DCEs can elicit intentions which may not reflect actual behaviour. The external validity of this study is limited by the fact that it was conducted in a single centre with generous public funding for IVF. We cannot rule out the potential for selection or responder bias.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

If a strategy of freeze all was to be implemented it would appear to be acceptable to patients, if either success rates can be improved or neonatal complications reduced. Live birth rates, neonatal complication rates, miscarriage rates, and cost are more likely to drive their preferences than a slight delay in the treatment process. The results of this study have important implications for future economic evaluations of IVF, as they suggest that the appropriate balance needs to be struck between success and safety. A holistic approach incorporating patient preferences for expected clinical outcomes and risks should be taken into consideration for individualized care.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No external funding was sought for this study. A.M. is the chief investigator of the randomized controlled trial 'Freeze all'. S.B. is an Editor in Chief of Human Reproduction Open. The other co-authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Graham Scotland reports non-financial support from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, outside the submitted work.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Immediate versus delayed frozen embryo transfer in women following a failed IVF-ET attempt: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal time at which to perform a frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) following a failed in-vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) attempt remains elusive to most reproductive experts. Physicians often delay the introduction of FET due to concerns related to potential residual effects of ovarian hyperstimulation which may interfere with the regular menstrual cycle. Moreover, given that most of the published studies on the topic are retrospective and have inconsistent findings, it is crucial to develop evidence-based randomized control guides for clinical practice. Therefore, this well-designed randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to determine whether it is necessary to delay FET for at least one menstrual cycle after the failure of fresh embryo transfer.

METHODS

Infertile women eligible for IVF-ET were invited to participate in this multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority, parallel-group, unblinded, controlled trial at the academic fertility centers of four public hospitals in Chinese Mainland. Infertile women scheduled to receive their first FET cycle after a failed IVF-ET attempt were randomly assigned to either (a) the immediate FET group in which FET was performed in the first menstrual cycle following the failed IVF-ET cycle (n = 366) or (b) the delayed FET group in which FET was performed in the second or subsequent menstrual cycle following the failed IVF-ET cycle (n = 366). All FET cycles were performed during hormone replacement cycles for endometrial preparation. The primary outcome was the ongoing pregnancy, defined as a detectable fetal heart beat beyond twelve weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes were other pregnancy-related outcomes, maternal and neonatal complications. Analysis was performed by both intention-to-treat and per-protocol principles.

RESULTS

A total of 646 FETs were completed. The frequency of moderate to severe depression and high stress level prior to FET in delayed FET group were significantly higher than that in immediate FET group (10.6% vs 6.1%, p = 0.039; 30.3% vs 22.4%, p = 0.022, respectively). Immediate FET resulted in a higher frequency of clinical pregnancy than did delayed FET (41.7% vs 34.1%), for a relative risk (RR) of 1.23 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.50; p = 0.045). Women who underwent immediate FET also had a lower frequency of biochemical pregnancy loss (11.7% vs. 30.6%), with a RR of 0.28 (95% CI 0.23-0.63, p < 0.001), and a higher frequency of embryo implantation (25.2% vs. 20.2%), with a RR of 1.25 (95% CI 1.01-1.53; p = 0.038). Although the ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates did not differ significantly between the immediate FET and delayed FET groups (37.1% vs 30.3%, RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.99-1.52, p = 0.067; 36.5% vs 30.0%, RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.98-1.52, p = 0.079, respectively), a multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders such as depression and stress levels revealed that the immediate FET group had a significantly higher ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates than the delayed FET group (odds ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.47-0.99, p = 0.041; odds ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.96, p = 0.031). The risks of maternal and neonatal complications were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In women with a previous failed IVF-ET attempt, immediate FET resulted in higher ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates than delayed FET. These findings warrant caution in the indiscriminate application of a delayed FET strategy when apparent risk of high stress level is perceived.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR2000033313 .

Immediate versus delayed frozen embryo transfer in patients following a stimulated IVF cycle: a randomised controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION

Is there any difference in the ongoing pregnancy rate after immediate versus delayed frozen embryo transfer (FET) following a stimulated IVF cycle?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Immediate FET following a stimulated IVF cycle produced significantly higher ongoing pregnancy and live birth rate than did delayed FET.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Embryo cryopreservation is an increasingly important part of IVF, but there is still no good evidence to advise when to perform FET following a stimulated IVF cycle. All published studies are retrospective, and the findings are contradictory.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This was a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial of 724 infertile women carried out in two fertility centres in China between 9 August 2017 and 5 December 2018.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Infertile women having their first FET cycle after a stimulated IVF cycle were randomly assigned to either (1) the immediate group in which FET was performed in the first menstrual cycle following the stimulated IVF cycle (n = 362) or (2) the delayed group in which FET was performed in the second or later menstrual cycle following the stimulated IVF cycle (n = 362). All FET cycles were performed in hormone replacement cycles. The randomisation sequence was generated using an online randomisation program with block sizes of four. The primary outcome was the ongoing pregnancy rate, defined as a viable pregnancy beyond 12 weeks of gestation. The non-inferiority margin was -10%. Analysis was performed by both per-protocol and intention-to-treat approaches.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Women in the immediate group were slightly younger than those in the delayed group (30.0 (27.7-33.5) versus 31.0 (28.5-34.2), respectively, P = 0.006), but the proportion of women ≤35 years was comparable between the two groups (308/362, 85.1% in the immediate group versus 303/362, 83.7% in the delayed group). The ongoing pregnancy rate was 49.6% (171/345) in the immediate group and 41.5% (142/342) in the delayed group (odds ratios 0.72, 95% CI 0.53-0.98, P = 0.034). The live birth rate was 47.2% (163/345) in the immediate group and 37.7% (129/342) in the delayed group (odds ratios 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.92, P = 0.012). The miscarriage rate was 13.2% (26 of 197 women) in the immediate group and 24.2% (43 of 178 women) in the delayed group (odds ratios 2.10; 95% CI 1.23-3.58, P = 0.006). The multivariable logistic regression, which adjusted for potential confounding factors including maternal age, number of oocytes retrieved, embryo stage at transfer, number of transferred embryos/blastocysts, reasons for FET, ovarian stimulation protocol and trigger type, demonstrated that the ongoing pregnancy rate was still higher in the immediate group.

LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION

Despite randomisation, the two groups still differed slightly in the age of the women at IVF. The study was powered to consider the ongoing pregnancy rate, but the live birth rate may be of greater clinical interest. Conclusions relating to the observed differences between the treatment groups in terms of live birth rate should, therefore, be made with caution.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Immediate FET following a stimulated IVF cycle had a significantly higher ongoing pregnancy and live birth rate than delayed FET. The findings of this study support immediate FET after a stimulated IVF cycle.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No external funding was used and no competing interests were declared.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTials.gov identifier: NCT03201783.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

28 June 2017.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

9 August 2017.

The freeze-all strategy versus agonist triggering with low-dose hCG for luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI for high responders: a randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION

Does the freeze-all strategy in high-responders increase pregnancy rates and improve safety outcomes when compared with GnRH agonist triggering followed by low-dose hCG intensified luteal support with a fresh embryo transfer?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Pregnancy rates after either fresh embryo transfer with intensified luteal phase support using low-dose hCG or the freeze-all strategy did not vary significantly; however, moderate-to-severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) occurred more frequently in the women who attempted a fresh embryo transfer.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Two strategies following GnRH agonist triggering (the freeze-all approach and a fresh embryo transfer attempt using a low-dose of hCG for intensified luteal phase support) are safer alternatives when compared with conventional hCG triggering with similar pregnancy outcomes. However, these two strategies have never been compared head-to-head in an unrestricted predicted hyper-responder population.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This study included women with an excessive response to ovarian stimulation (≥18 follicles measuring ≥11 mm) undergoing IVF/ICSI in a GnRH antagonist suppressed cycle between 2014 and 2017. Our primary outcome was clinical pregnancy at 7 weeks after the first embryo transfer. Secondary outcomes included live birth and the development of moderate-to-severe OHSS.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Following GnRH agonist triggering, women were randomized either to cryopreserve all good-quality embryos followed by a frozen embryo transfer in an subsequent artificial cycle or to perform a fresh embryo transfer with intensified luteal phase support (1500 IU hCG on the day of oocyte retrieval, plus oral estradiol 2 mg two times a day, plus 200 mg of micronized vaginal progesterone three times a day).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of 212 patients (106 in each arm) were recruited in the study, with three patients (one in the fresh embryo transfer group and two in the freeze-all group) later withdrawing their consent to participate in the study. One patient in the freeze-all group became pregnant naturally (clinical pregnancy diagnosed 38 days after randomization) prior to the first frozen embryo transfer. The study arms did not vary significantly in terms of the number of oocytes retrieved and embryos produced/transferred. The intention to treat clinical pregnancy and live birth rates (with the latter excluding four cases lost to follow-up: one in the fresh transfer and three in the freeze-all arms, respectively) after the first embryo transfer did not vary significantly among the fresh embryo transfer and freeze-all study arms: 51/105 (48.6%) versus 57/104 (54.8%) and 41/104 (39.4%) versus 42/101 (41.6%), respectively (relative risk for clinical pregnancy 1.13, 95% CI 0.87-1.47; P = 0.41). However, moderate-to-severe OHSS occurred solely in the group that received low-dose hCG (9/105, 8.6%, 95% CI 3.2% to 13.9% vs 0/104, 95% CI 0 to 3.7, P < 0.01).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The sample size calculation was based on a 19% absolute difference in terms of clinical pregnancy rates, therefore smaller differences, as observed in the trial, cannot be reliably excluded as non-significant.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This study offers the first comparative analysis of two common strategies applied to women performing IVF/ICSI with a high risk to develop OHSS. While pregnancy rates did not vary significantly, a fresh embryo transfer with intensified luteal phase support may still not avoid the risk of moderate-to-severe OHSS and serious consideration should be made before recommending it as a routine first-line treatment. Future trials may allow us to confirm these findings.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. No external funding was obtained for this study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02148393.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

28 May 2014.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

30 May 2014.

A qualitative study on couples' attitudes and concerns regarding a freeze all strategy in ART treatment

The freeze all strategy has become a promising alternative to fresh embryo transfer in fertility treatment almost eliminating late ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in the segmented cycle. There is a lack of in-depth knowledge regarding patients' attitudes towards the freeze all strategy. The aim of this study was to explore the attitudes towards a freeze all strategy compared with fresh embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment among couples in a public health care setting. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with ten couples already participants in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and undergoing ART treatment. The couple's responses showed five themes: (i) Starting treatment provides needed relief; (ii) Treatment must be provided with humanity; (iii) Provision of information instigates positive attitudes towards treatment; (iv) Fresh treatment - 'The normal way'; and (v) Freeze all treatment - 'The new black'. When thorough information about treatment procedures and safety aspects regarding both the freeze all and fresh embryo transfer strategy is given prior to initiation of treatment, couples feel secure and content, regardless of which treatment strategy is finally applied. This qualitative study found that starting treatment could prompt longed-for relief, as professionals would now 'take over' and assist in meeting the couple's family building goals.

Immediate versus postponed frozen embryo transfer after IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In Europe, the number of frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles is steadily increasing, now accounting for more than 190 000 cycles per year. It is standard clinical practice to postpone FET for at least one menstrual cycle following a failed fresh transfer or after a freeze-all cycle. The purpose of this practice is to minimise the possible residual negative effect of ovarian stimulation on the resumption of a normal ovulatory cycle and receptivity of the endometrium. Although elective deferral of FET may unnecessarily delay time to pregnancy, immediate FET may be inefficient in a clinical setting, following an increased risk of irregular ovulatory cycles and the presence of functional cysts, increasing the risk of cycle cancellation.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

This review explores the impact of timing of FET in the first cycle (immediate FET) versus the second or subsequent cycle (postponed FET) following a failed fresh transfer or a freeze-all cycle on live birth rate (LBR). Secondary endpoints were implantation, pregnancy and clinical pregnancy rates (CPR) as well as miscarriage rate (MR).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched PubMed (MEDLINE) and EMBASE databases for MeSH and Emtree terms, as well as text words related to timing of FET, up to March 2020, in English language. There were no limitations regarding year of publication or duration of follow-up. Inclusion criteria were subfertile women aged 18-46 years with any indication for treatment with IVF/ICSI. Studies on oocyte donation were excluded. All original studies were included, except for case reports, study protocols and abstracts only. Covidence, a Cochrane-tool, was used for sorting and screening of literature. Risk of bias was assessed using the Robins-I tool and the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.

OUTCOMES

Out of 4124 search results, 15 studies were included in the review. Studies reporting adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for LBR, CPR and MR were included in meta-analyses. All studies (n = 15) were retrospective cohort studies involving a total of 6,304 immediate FET cycles and 13,851 postponed FET cycles including 8,019 matched controls. Twelve studies of very low to moderate quality reported no difference in LBR with immediate versus postponed FET. Two studies of moderate quality reported a statistically significant increase in LBR with immediate FET and one small study of very low quality reported better LBR with postponed FET. Trends in rates of secondary outcomes followed trends in LBR regarding timing of FET. The meta-analyses showed a significant advantage of immediate FET (n =2,076) compared to postponed FET (n =3,833), with a pooled aOR of 1.20 (95% CI 1.01-1.44) for LBR and a pooled aOR of 1.22 (95% CI 1.07-1.39) for CPR.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

The results of this review indicate a slightly higher LBR and CPR in immediate versus postponed FET. Thus, the standard clinical practice of postponing FET for at least one menstrual cycle following a failed fresh transfer or a freeze-all cycle may not be best clinical practice. However, as only retrospective cohort studies were assessed, the presence of selection bias is apparent, and the quality of evidence thus seems low. Randomised controlled trials including data on cancellation rates and reasons for cancellation are highly needed to provide high-grade evidence regarding clinical practice and patient counselling.

Cost-effectiveness of freeze-all policy - A retrospective study based upon the outcome of cumulative live births

OBJECT

We have previously reported that cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs) are higher in the freeze-all group compared with controls (64.3% vs. 45.8%, p = 0.001). Here, we aim to determine if the freeze-all policy is more cost-effective than fresh embryo transfer followed by frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The analysis consisted of 704 ART (Assisted reproductive technology) cycles, which included in IVF (In vitro fertilisation) and ICSI (Intra Cytoplasmic Sperm Injection) cycles performed in Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan between January 2012 and June 2014. The freeze-all group involved 84 patients and the fresh Group 625 patients. Patients were followed up until all embryos obtained from a single controlled ovarian hyper-stimulation cycle were used up, or a live birth had been achieved. The total cost related to treatment of each patient was recorded. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was based on the incremental cost per couple and the incremental live birth rate of the freeze-all strategy compared with the fresh ET strategy. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) were performed.

RESULTS

The total treatment cost per patient was significantly higher for the freeze-all group than in the fresh group (USD 3419.93 ± 638.13 vs. $2920.59 ± 711.08 p < 0.001). However, the total treatment cost per live birth in the freeze-all group was US $5319.89, vs. US $6382.42 in the fresh group. CEAC show that the freeze-all policy was a cost-effective treatment at a threshold of US $2703.57 for one additional live birth. Considering the Willingness-to-pay threshold per live birth, the probability was 60.1% at the threshold of US $2896.5, with the freeze-all group being more cost-effective than the fresh-ET group; or 90.1% at the threshold of $4183.8.

CONCLUSION

The freeze-all policy is a cost-effective treatment, as long as the additional cost of US $2703.57 per additional live birth is financially acceptable for the subjects.

Mitochondrial DNA in Fresh versus Frozen Embryo Culture Media of Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome Patients Undergoing Invitro Fertilization: A Possible Predictive Marker of a Successful Pregnancy

Purpose

Frozen embryos transfer (ET) may improve the live-birth and reduce rates of ovarian hyperstimulation in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) patients. Morphological criteria are the classical way for embryo selection, yet recently, many biochemical and genetic markers have been developed. This study aimed to compare fresh and frozen ET using the mtDNA/gDNA ratio of embryo secretome and the possibility of using this ratio as a predictive marker of PCOS pregnancy rate.

Subjects and Methods

One hundred PCOS patients undergoing IVF were chosen according to Rotterdam criteria and divided into two groups. Group I (50 with fresh ET), group II (50 with frozen ET), and otherwise 33 apparently healthy women as a control group with fresh ET. We then carried out absolute quantification of embryo culture media mtDNA and gDNA by real-time PCR.

Results

mtDNA/gDNA ratio was significantly low in PCOS embryo culture media in comparison with control. Additionally, while the mtDNA/gDNA ratio was significantly high in pregnant PCOS embryo culture media, it was high, though not statistically significant, in the fresh ET than frozen ET group. mtDNA/gDNA ratio sensitivity and specificity in PCOS embryo culture media as a predictive value of pregnancy rate were (86% and 96%, respectively).

Conclusion

mtDNA/gDNA ratio measurement in PCOS embryo culture media is a novel marker that can be clinically applied as a predictive value of the quality of the morphologically good embryo.

Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use:

https://youtu.be/uqKkQgRrql4

The freeze-all strategy after IVF: which indications?

The freeze-all strategy is gaining popularity worldwide as an alternative to the conventional fresh embryo transfer. It consists of cryopreservation of the entire embryo cohort and the embryo transfer in a subsequent cycle that takes place separately from ovarian stimulation. The freeze-all strategy was initially a 'rescue' strategy for women at high risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome; however, this approach has been extended to other indications as a scheduled strategy to improve implantation rates. This assumes that ovarian stimulation can alter endometrial receptivity in fresh cycles owing to the effect of supraphysiological levels of steroids on endometrial maturation. The procedure, however, has not been associated with increased live birth rates in all infertile couples, and concerns have been raised about the occurrence of several adverse perinatal outcomes. It is, therefore, crucial to identify in which subgroups of patients a freeze-all strategy could be beneficial. The aim of this review is to summarize current scientific research in this field to highlight potential indications for this strategy and to guide clinicians in their daily practice.

Repeated cryopreservation process impairs embryo implantation potential but does not affect neonatal outcomes

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does repeated cryopreservation process affect embryo implantation potential and neonatal outcomes of human embryos?

DESIGN

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in the Reproductive Medicine Centre, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology. All assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles were carried out between January 2014 and December 2018. Preferentially matched participants were divided into three groups according to the times of embryo cryopreservation: the fresh group (n = 249), the cryopreservation group (n = 244) and the re-cryopreservation group (n = 216). Embryo implantation rate, live birth rate, miscarriage rate and neonatal complication rate were compared among these three groups.

RESULTS

The embryo implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate in the re-cryopreservation group were significantly lower, and the miscarriage rate also slightly increased. Logistic regression analysis indicated that embryos with repeated cryopreservation and lower trophectoderm scores were at higher risk of embryo implantation failure in single embryo transfer cycles (OR 1.79 and 1.56, respectively). No significant differences were observed in gender, gestational age, birthweight, neonatal abnormality and neonatal complications among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate the adverse effect of repeated cryopreservation on embryo implantation potential. The study offers embryologists and reproductive clinicians a warning of detrimental role of repeated cryopreservation. If unnecessary, it is strongly recommended to avoid repeated practice of vitrification and warming on embryos.

Should we still perform fresh embryo transfers in ART?

An increasing number of researchers have alluded to the potential benefit of deferring the transfer of embryos produced during assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) away from ovarian stimulation, using cryopreservation to enable this. The scientific evidence that may justify this recent trend in the use of the so-called 'freeze-all strategy' includes early, mostly small randomised controlled trials that have demonstrated an increase in live birth rates after elective embryo cryopreservation in certain patient populations, as well as evidence from cohort studies and retrospective analyses. What are the risks and benefits of freeze-all strategies in ART, who are the patients in whom it is likely to be advantageous, and does the current evidence allow us to identify situations when deciding that a fresh embryo transfer would be counter-productive? ART professionals are often faced with challenging clinical decisions regarding the best course of treatment for their patient. The purpose of this opinion paper is to provide a clinical guide for whether to perform a fresh embryo transfer or to opt for freezing all embryos in specific situations.

Freeze-all versus fresh blastocyst transfer strategy during in vitro fertilisation in women with regular menstrual cycles: multicentre randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the ongoing pregnancy rate between a freeze-all strategy and a fresh transfer strategy in assisted reproductive technology treatment.

DESIGN

Multicentre, randomised controlled superiority trial.

SETTING

Outpatient fertility clinics at eight public hospitals in Denmark, Sweden, and Spain.

PARTICIPANTS

460 women aged 18-39 years with regular menstrual cycles starting their first, second, or third treatment cycle of in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

INTERVENTIONS

Women were randomised at baseline on cycle day 2 or 3 to one of two treatment groups: the freeze-all group (elective freezing of all embryos) who received gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist triggering and single frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer in a subsequent modified natural cycle; or the fresh transfer group who received human chorionic gonadotropin triggering and single blastocyst transfer in the fresh cycle. Women in the fresh transfer group with more than 18 follicles larger than 11 mm on the day of triggering had elective freezing of all embryos and postponement of transfer as a safety measure.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the ongoing pregnancy rate defined as a detectable fetal heart beat after eight weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes were live birth rate, positive human chorionic gonadotropin rate, time to pregnancy, and pregnancy related, obstetric, and neonatal complications. The primary analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

Ongoing pregnancy rate did not differ significantly between the freeze-all and fresh transfer groups (27.8% (62/223) v 29.6% (68/230); risk ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.10, P=0.76). Additionally, no significant difference was found in the live birth rate (27.4% (61/223) for the freeze-all group and 28.7% (66/230) for the fresh transfer group; risk ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.10, P=0.83). No significant differences between groups were observed for positive human chorionic gonadotropin rate or pregnancy loss, and none of the women had severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome; only one hospital admission related to this condition occurred in the fresh transfer group. The risks of pregnancy related, obstetric, and neonatal complications did not differ between the two groups except for a higher mean birth weight after frozen blastocyst transfer and an increased risk of prematurity after fresh blastocyst transfer. Time to pregnancy was longer in the freeze-all group.

CONCLUSIONS

In women with regular menstrual cycles, a freeze-all strategy with gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist triggering for final oocyte maturation did not result in higher ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates than a fresh transfer strategy. The findings warrant caution in the indiscriminate application of a freeze-all strategy when no apparent risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is present.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02746562.

Which key performance indicators are optimal to assess clinical management of assisted reproduction cycles?

Like all industries, fertility clinics should identify and follow reference markers of its activity-key performance indicators (KPI)-to allow assisted reproductive technology outcomes to be monitored and compared. Clinical KPIs revolve around following set parameters of the patient population, procedures, and outcome data. Moreover, KPIs should also include identified protocols and standard operating procedures followed in daily practice and should keep track of multiple pregnancy rates, a ruthless confounder of assisted reproductive technology outcomes.

The ART of frozen embryo transfer: back to nature!

The implementation of cryopreservation-techniques in the IVF laboratory and the improved survival rates of oocytes, cleavage and blastocyst stage embryos have led to a significant increase in the number of frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles (FET). FETs can be planned either in a 'pure' natural cycle, a modified natural cycle, a stimulated cycle or a hormonal replacement therapy cycle and the optimal means to prepare the endometrium for frozen embryo transfer is a topic of ongoing controversy. Recent findings report an increased risk of hypertensive disorders if pregnancy is achieved in a frozen embryo transfer cycle without an existing corpus luteum. Therefore, the question of how to prepare the endometrium has gained even more importance and taken on a new dimension as it should not simply be reduced to the basic question of 'which approach will result in superior pregnancy rates?' but instead 'which approach will result in the best pregnancy rates and the safest outcome for mother and baby?'. The aim of this review is to summarize and critically appraise the existing data on the different approaches of endometrial preparation for frozen embryo transfer with a special focus on the 'pure' natural cycle.

Poor Embryo Quality Is Associated With A Higher Risk of Low Birthweight in Vitrified-Warmed Single Embryo Transfer Cycles

Background

Previous studies have reported the association between embryo quality and perinatal outcomes in fresh cycles, after cleavage-stage or blastocyst embryo transfer, and found no significant difference. However, in terms of vitrified-warmed embryo transfer cycles, the impact of embryo quality on neonatal and maternal outcomes has not been evaluated.

Objectives

To explore the association between the quality of a single vitrified-warmed embryo and perinatal outcomes.

Methods

This retrospective study included 2403 live-born singletons derived from single vitrified-warmed embryo transfer cycles during January 2006 and July 2018. Neonatal and maternal outcomes were compared between singletons resulting from the use of single good quality embryo (GQE) (n = 1854) and single poor quality embryo (PQE) (n = 549) and analyzed in the group of cleavage-stage embryo transfer and the group of blastocyst transfer, respectively.

Results

A significantly higher risk of low birthweight (LBW, birthweight <2500 g) was observed in the singletons derived from the transfer of single PQE compared with those derived from the transfer of single GQE both in cleavage and blastocyst stages (cleavage-stage, AOR 2.62, 95% CI 1.27-5.37; blastocyst stage, AOR 1.98, 95% CI 1.06-3.70). An increased risk of preterm birth (PTB, gestational age <37 weeks) was also observed in singletons born after transfer of a PQE of cleavage-stage compared with those after a GQE of cleavage-stage (AOR 2.40, 95% CI 1.28-4.49). The transfer of single poor quality blastocyst was associated with a higher risk of placenta previa compared with the transfer of single good quality blastocyst (AOR 2.65, 95% CI 1.26-5.57). Other maternal complications, neonatal malformations, and neonatal complications were similar between compared groups.

Conclusion

In vitrified-warmed cycles with single embryo transfer, poor embryo quality would result in a significantly higher risk of LBW, regardless of cleavage-stage or blastocyst embryo transfer. Meanwhile, the transfer of poor cleavage-stage embryo was also associated with an increased incidence of PTB.

ART in Europe, 2015: results generated from European registries by ESHRE

STUDY QUESTION

What are the European trends and developments in ART and IUI in 2015 as compared to previous years?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The 19th ESHRE report on ART shows a continuing expansion of treatment numbers in Europe, and this increase, the variability in treatment modalities and the rising contribution to the birth rates in most participating countries all point towards the increasing impact of ART on European society.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Since 1997, the ART data generated by national registries have been collected, analysed and reported in 18 manuscripts published in Human Reproduction.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Collection of European data by the European IVF-Monitoring Consortium (EIM) for ESHRE. The data for treatments performed between 1 January and 31 December 2015 in 38 European countries were provided by national registries or on a voluntary basis by clinics or professional societies.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS

From 1343 institutions in 38 countries offering ART services a total of 849 811 treatment cycles, involving 155 960 with IVF, 385676 with ICSI, 218098 with frozen embryo replacement (FER), 21 041 with preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), 64 477 with egg donation (ED), 265 with IVM and 4294 with FOR were recorded. European data on IUI using husband/partner’s semen (IUI-H) and donor semen (IUI-D) were reported from 1352 institutions offering IUI in 25 countries and 21 countries, respectively. A total of 139 050 treatments with IUI-H and 49 001 treatments with IUI-D were included.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In 18 countries (14 in 2014) with a population of approximately 286 million inhabitants, in which all institutions contributed to their respective national registers, a total of 409 771 treatment cycles were performed, corresponding to 1432 cycles per million inhabitants (range: 727–3068 per million). After IVF the clinical pregnancy rates (PRs) per aspiration and per transfer were slightly lower in 2015 as compared to 2014, at 28.5 and 34.6% versus 29.9 and 35.8%, respectively. After ICSI, the corresponding PR achieved per aspiration and per transfer in 2015 were also slightly lower than those achieved in 2014 (26.2 and 33.2% versus 28.4 and 35.0%, respectively). On the other hand, after FER with own embryos the PR per thawing continued to rise from 27.6% in 2014 to 29.2% in 2015. After ED a slightly lower PR per embryo transfer was achieved: 49.6% per fresh transfer (50.3% in 2014) and 43.4% for FOR (48.7% in 2014). The delivery rates (DRs) after IUI remained stable at 7.8% after IUI-H (8.5% in 2014) and at 12.0% after IUI-D (11.6% in 2014). In IVF and ICSI together, 1, 2, 3 and ≥4 embryos were transferred in 37.7, 53.9, 7.9 and in 0.5% of all treatments, respectively (corresponding to 34.9, 54.5, 9.9 and in 0.7% in 2014). This evolution towards the transfer of fewer embryos in both IVF and ICSI resulted in a proportion of singleton, twin and triplet DR of 83.1, 16.5 and 0.4%, respectively (compared to 82.5, 17.0 and 0.5%, respectively, in 2014). Treatments with FER in 2015 resulted in twin and triplet DR of 12.3 and 0.3%, respectively (versus 12.4 and 0.3% in 2014). Twin and triplet delivery rates after IUI-H were 8.9 and 0.5%, respectively (in 2014: 9.5 and 0.3%), and 7.3 and 0.6% after IUI-D (in 2014: 7.7 and 0.3%).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The methods of data collection and reporting vary among European countries. The EIM receives aggregated data from various countries with variable levels of completeness. Registries from a number of countries have failed to provide adequate data about the number of initiated cycles and deliveries. As long as incomplete data are provided, the results should be interpreted with caution.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The 19th EIM report on ART shows a continuing expansion of treatment numbers in Europe. The number of treatments reported, the variability in treatment modalities and the rising contribution to the birth rates in most participating countries point towards the increasing impact of ART on reproduction in Europe. Being the largest data collection on ART worldwide, detailed information about ongoing developments in the field is provided.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The study has no external funding and all costs are covered by ESHRE. There are no competing interests.

Association between the number of top-quality blastocysts and live births after single blastocyst transfer in the first fresh or vitrified-warmed IVF/ICSI cycle

RESEARCH QUESTION

Is there an association between the total number of top-quality blastocysts (TQB) developed in the first IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle (ICSI) and live births after a single blastocyst transfer (SBT)?

DESIGN

Pregnancy outcomes from 1336 infertile women who had undergone their first IVF/ICSI treatment and accepted a first-time embryo transfer with a single fresh or vitrified-warmed blastocyst between January 2016 and August 2018 were assessed retrospectively. The restricted cubic splines method was used to evaluate the association between the number of TQB, and ongoing pregnancies and live births.

RESULTS

A significant non-linear functional form was found between the number of TQB and the ongoing pregnancies and live births (P < 0.05). The odds of an ongoing pregnancy or live birth were similar, at about 11% or higher for each additional TQB up to five TQB (odds ratio [OR] 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.21). After this, pregnancy outcomes nearly plateaued, indicating that the number of TQB was not related to pregnancy when it was greater than five.

CONCLUSIONS

The quantity of TQB available for transfer or cryopreservation can provide important predictors for pregnancy and live birth after the first embryo transfer cycle with a single blastocyst. This valuable information may assist with the future application of SBT.