Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cervical cerclage is a recognised treatment to prevent late miscarriage and pre-term birth (PTB). Emergency cervical cerclage (ECC) for cervical dilatation with exposed unruptured membranes is less common and the potential benefits of cerclage are less certain. A randomised control trial is needed to accurately assess the effectiveness of ECC in preventing pregnancy loss compared to an expectant approach.Methods: C-STICH2 is a multicentre randomised controlled trial in which women presenting with cervical dilatation and unruptured exposed membranes at 16 + 0 to 27 + 6 weeks gestation are randomised to ECC or expectant management. Trial design includes 18 month internal pilot with embedded qualitative process evaluation, minimal data set and a within-trial health economic analysis. Inclusion criteria are ≥16 years, singleton pregnancy, exposed membranes at the external os, gestation 16 + 0-27 + 6 weeks, and informed consent. Exclusion criteria are contraindication to cerclage, cerclage in situ or previous cerclage in this pregnancy. Randomisation occurs via an online service in a 1:1 ratio, using a minimisation algorithm to reduce chance imbalances in key prognostic variables (site, gestation and dilatation). Primary outcome is pregnancy loss; a composite including miscarriage, termination of pregnancy and perinatal mortality defined as stillbirth and neonatal death in the first week of life. Secondary outcomes include all core outcomes for PTB. Two-year development outcomes will be assessed using general health and Parent Report of Children's Abilities-Revised (PARCA-R) questionnaires. Intended sample size is 260 participants (130 each arm) based on 60% rate of pregnancy loss in the expectant management arm and 40% in the ECC arm, with 90% power and alpha 0.05. Analysis will be by intention-to-treat.Discussion: To date there has been one small trial of ECC in 23 participants which included twin and singleton pregnancies. This small trial along with the largest observational study (n = 161) found ECC to prolong pregnancy duration and reduce deliveries before 34 weeks gestation. It is important to generate high quality evidence on the effectiveness of ECC in preventing pregnancy loss, and improve understanding of the prevalence of the condition and frequency of complications associated with ECC. An adequately powered RCT will provide the highest quality evidence regarding optimum care for these women and their babies.Trial Registration: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN12981869 . Registered on 13th June 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality in low-income countries and contributes to nearly a quarter of maternal deaths globally. The current available interventions for prevention of postpartum haemorrhage, oxytocin and carbetocin, are limited by their need for refrigeration to maintain potency, as the ability to maintain a cold chain across the drug distribution and storage network is inconsistent, thus restricting their use in countries with the highest burden of maternal mortality. We describe a randomized, double-blind non-inferiority trial comparing a newly developed room temperature stable formulation of carbetocin to the standard intervention (oxytocin) for the prevention of PPH after vaginal birth.Methods/design: Approximately 30,000 women delivering vaginally will be recruited across 22 centres in 10 countries. The primary objectives are to evaluate the non-inferiority of room temperature stable carbetocin (100 μg intramuscular) versus oxytocin (10 IU intramuscular) in the prevention of PPH and severe PPH after vaginal birth. The primary endpoints are blood loss ≥500 mL or the use of additional uterotonics (composite endpoint required by drug regulatory authorities) and blood loss ≥1,000 mL (WHO requirement). Non-inferiority will be assessed using a two-sided 95 % confidence interval for the relative risk of the above endpoints for room temperature stable carbetocin versus oxytocin. The upper limit of the two-sided 95 % confidence interval for the relative risk for the composite endpoint of blood loss ≥500 mL or the use of additional uterotonics, and for the endpoint of blood loss ≥1,000 mL, will be compared to a non-inferiority margin of 1.16 and 1.23, respectively. If the upper limit is below the corresponding margin, non-inferiority will have been demonstrated. The safety analysis will include all women receiving treatment. Safety and tolerability will be assessed by a review of adverse events, by conducting inferential testing with significance levels for between-group comparisons.Discussion: If the results of the study show that room temperature stable carbetocin is a safe and effective alternative to oxytocin, this could have a substantial impact on the prevention of postpartum haemorrhage and maternal survival worldwide.Trial Registration: ACTRN12614000870651 (14 August 2014). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A large number of studies have shown an association between inherited thrombophilia and recurrent miscarriage. It has been hypothesized that anticoagulant therapy might reduce the number of miscarriages and stillbirth in these women. In the absence of randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of anticoagulant therapy in women with inherited thrombophilia and recurrent miscarriage, a randomized trial with adequate power that addresses this question is needed. The objective of the ALIFE2 study is therefore to evaluate the efficacy of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in women with inherited thrombophilia and recurrent miscarriage, with live birth as the primary outcome. Methods/Design: Randomized study of LMWH plus standard pregnancy surveillance versus standard pregnancy surveillance alone. Study population: pregnant women of less than 7 weeks' gestation, and confirmed inherited thrombophilia with a history of 2 or more miscarriages or intra-uterine fetal deaths, or both. Setting: multi-center study in centers from the Dutch Consortium of Fertility studies; centers outside the Netherlands are currently preparing to participate. Intervention: LMWH enoxaparin 40 mg subcutaneously once daily started prior to 7 weeks gestational age plus standard pregnancy surveillance or standard pregnancy surveillance alone. Main study parameters/endpoints: the primary efficacy outcome is live birth. Secondary efficacy outcomes include adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as miscarriage, pre-eclampsia, syndrome of hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets (HELLP syndrome), fetal growth restriction, placental abruption, premature delivery and congenital malformations. Safety outcomes include bleeding episodes, thrombocytopenia and skin reactions. Discussion: After an initial period of slow recruitment, the recruitment rate for the study has increased. Improved awareness of the study and acknowledgement of the need for evidence are thought to be contributing to the improved recruitment rates. We aim to increase the number of recruiting centers in order to increase enrollment into the ALIFE2 study. The study website can be accessed via www.ALIFE2study.org. Trial registration: The ALIFE2 study was registered on 19 March 2012 under registration number NTR3361 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare the efficacy of the long GnRH agonist vs. the short GnRH agonist vs. the GnRH antagonist regimens in poor responders undergoing IVF. Design: Randomized controlled trial. Setting: Tertiary referral fertility units. Patient(s): Women with previous poor ovarian response undergoing IVF. Intervention(s): One hundred eleven women were randomized to the long GnRH agonist, short agonist, and antagonist regimens. Main Outcome Measure(s): The primary outcome was the number of oocytes retrieved. Secondary outcome measures were gonadotropin consumption, duration of stimulation, cycle cancellation rate, mature oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate, cycles reaching ET, and clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates. Result(s): Number of oocytes retrieved was significantly higher with long GnRH agonist compared with the short agonist regimen (4.42 ± 3.06 vs. 2.71 ± 1.60), while there was no significant difference between long agonist and antagonist regimens (4.42 ± 3.06 vs. 3.30 ± 2.91). Duration of stimulation and total gonadotropin dose were significantly higher with long agonist compared with short agonist and antagonist regimens. The ongoing pregnancy rate was 8.1% with long and short agonist regimens and 16.2% with the antagonist regimen. Conclusion(s): Long GnRH agonist and antagonist regimens offer a suitable choice for poor responders, whereas the short agonist regimen may be less effective because of fewer eggs retrieved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Poor ovarian response is reported in 9–24% of IVF cycles. Several interventions have been proposed to improve the outcome, although evidence to support these has been scant. There has been interest in the use of adjuvant androgens in this context and a recent worldwide survey showed that nearly a quarter of IVF clinicians used dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) in poor responders. We examine the rationale for the use of adjuvant androgens and suggest that the current clinical uncertainty should be addressed by a randomized controlled trial of DHEA in poor responders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Infertility affects one in seven couples; many of these need in vitro fertilisation (IVF). IVF involves external hormones to stimulate a woman's ovaries to produce eggs which are harvested surgically. Embryos, created in the laboratory by mixing eggs with sperm, are grown in culture for a few days before being replaced within the uterus (fresh embryo transfer). Spare embryos are usually frozen with a view to transfer at a later point in time – especially if the initial fresh transfer does not result in a pregnancy. Despite improvements in technology, IVF success rates remain low with an overall live birth rate of 25–30% per treatment. Additionally, there are concerns about health outcomes for mothers and babies conceived through IVF, particularly after fresh embryo transfer, including maternal ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and preterm delivery. It is believed that high levels of hormones during ovarian stimulation could create a relatively hostile environment for embryo implantation whilst increasing the risk of OHSS. It has been suggested that freezing all embryos with the intention of thawing and replacing them within the uterus at a later stage (thawed frozen embryo transfer) instead of fresh embryo transfer, may lead to improved pregnancy rates and fewer complications. We aim to compare the clinical and cost effectiveness of fresh and thawed frozen embryo transfer, with the primary aim of identifying any difference in the chance of having a healthy baby. Methods: E-Freeze is a pragmatic, multicentre two-arm parallel group randomised controlled trial where women aged ≥18 and < 42 years, with at least three good quality embryos are randomly allocated to receive either a fresh or thawed frozen embryo transfer. The primary outcome is a healthy baby, defined as a term, singleton, live birth with appropriate weight for gestation. Cost effectiveness will be calculated from a healthcare and societal perspective. Discussion: E-Freeze will determine the relative benefits of fresh and thawed frozen embryo transfer in terms of improving the chance of having a healthy baby. The results of this pragmatic study have the potential to be directly transferred to clinical practice. Trial registration: ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN61225414. Date assigned 29/12/2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare GnRH agonists and antagonists in oocyte-donation IVF treatment cycles by a systematic review and meta-analysis of trials. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT). Systematic literature searches were conducted, and all randomized trials that compared GnRH agonists with antagonists in oocyte-donation IVF treatment cycles were included. Study selection, quality appraisal, and data extractions were performed independently and in duplicate. Setting: Tertiary fertility center. Patient(s): A total of 1,024 oocyte donors treated in eight RCTs. Intervention(s): Comparison of GnRH agonists versus antagonists in oocyte-donation IVF treatment. Main Outcome Measure(s): Ongoing pregnancy, oocytes retrieved, duration of stimulation, gonadotropin consumption, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome incidence (OHSS) per randomized oocyte donor. Result(s): Meta-analysis of these studies showed no significant difference in ongoing pregnancy rate between the GnRH agonists and antagonists (risk ratio [RR] 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97 to 1.36). The duration of stimulation was significantly lower with the GnRH antagonist protocol (weighed mean difference [WMD] −0.90 days, 95% CI −1.61 to −0.20). No significant differences were observed in the number of oocytes retrieved (WMD −0.60, 95% CI −2.26 to +1.07), gonadotropin consumption (WMD −264 IU, 95% CI −682 to +154), or OHSS incidence (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.15). Conclusion(s): No significant differences were observed in ongoing pregnancy rate or the number of retrieved oocytes after donor stimulation with GnRH agonist or antagonist protocols. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

A systematic review of studies evaluating the influence of outpatient (office) hysteroscopy on the outcome of the subsequent IVF cycle was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, National Research Register, ISI Conference Proceedings, ISRCTN Register and Meta-register were searched for randomized controlled trials (up to July 2007). All trials comparing the outcome of IVF treatment performed in patients who had outpatient hysteroscopy in the cycle preceding their IVF treatment with a control group in which hysteroscopy was not performed were included. Study selection, quality appraisal and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate. Study authors were contacted for additional information. The main outcome measure was pregnancy rate. In total. 1691 participants were included in two randomized (n = 941) and three non-randomized controlled studies (n = 750). The quality of the studies was variable. Meta-analyses of the results of five studies showed evidence of benefit from outpatient hysteroscopy in improving the pregnancy rate in the subsequent IVF cycle (pooled relative risk = 1.75. 95% CI 1.51-2.03). The evidence from randomized trials was consistent with that from non-randomized controlled studies. Future robust randomized trials comparing outpatient hysteroscopy or mini-hysteroscopy with no intervention before IVF treatment would be a useful addition to further guide clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sperm selection strategies aimed at improving success rates of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) include binding to hyaluronic acid (herein termed hyaluronan). Hyaluronan-selected sperm have reduced levels of DNA damage and aneuploidy. Use of hyaluronan-based sperm selection for ICSI (so-called physiological ICSI [PICSI]) is reported to reduce the proportion of pregnancies that end in miscarriage. However, the effect of PICSI on livebirth rates is uncertain. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of PICSI versus standard ICSI for improving livebirth rates among couples undergoing fertility treatment.Methods: This parallel, two-group, randomised trial included couples undergoing an ICSI procedure with fresh embryo transfer at 16 assisted conception units in the UK. Eligible women (aged 18-43 years) had a body-mass index of 19-35 kg/m2 and a follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) concentration of 3·0-20·0 mIU/mL or, if no FSH measurement was available, an anti-müllerian hormone concentration of at least 1·5 pmol/L. Eligible men (aged 18-55 years) had not had a vasovasostomy or been treated for cancer in the 24 months before recruitment and were able, after at least 3 days of sexual abstinence, to produce freshly ejaculated sperm for the treatment cycle. Couples were randomly assigned (1:1) with an online system to receive either PICSI or a standard ICSI procedure. The primary outcome was full-term (≥37 weeks' gestational age) livebirth, which was assessed in all eligible couples who completed follow-up. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN99214271.Findings: Between Feb 1, 2014, and Aug 31, 2016, 2772 couples were randomly assigned to receive PICSI (n=1387) or ICSI (n=1385), of whom 2752 (1381 in the PICSI group and 1371 in the ICSI group) were included in the primary analysis. The term livebirth rate did not differ significantly between PICSI (27·4% [379/1381]) and ICSI (25·2% [346/1371]) groups (odds ratio 1·12, 95% CI 0·95-1·34; p=0·18). There were 56 serious adverse events in total, including 31 in the PICSI group and 25 in the ICSI group; most were congenital abnormalities and none were attributed to treatment.Interpretation: Compared with ICSI, PICSI does not significantly improve term livebirth rates. The wider use of PICSI, therefore, is not recommended at present.Funding: National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many randomized trials have evaluated the use of various pituitary suppression regimens to improve outcome of poor responders undergoing IVF treatment. A systematic review was conducted of the trials of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist long regimen, GnRH agonist short regimen, GnRH antagonist regimen, as well as other pituitary suppression regimens in poor responders undergoing IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment. The search included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, National Research Register and ISI proceedings, and all randomized controlled trials comparing the various pituitary suppression regimens in poor responders were included. Study selection, quality appraisal and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate. The main outcome measures were number of oocytes retrieved, cycles cancelled before oocyte retrieval and pregnancy rates. A total of 680 women considered as poor responders undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment were included in nine randomized controlled trials. The quality of these studies was variable: for example, only three of the studies had clear evidence of allocation concealment. Meta-analyses of the results of the studies did not show a consistent benefit for any one pituitary suppression regimen over the other regimens in improving outcome measures. Currently available evidence does not favour any one pituitary suppression regimen for women with poor ovarian response undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]