Search

Study Question: What are the reproductive outcomes of patients who cryopreserved oocytes or embryos in the context of fertility preservation in the Netherlands?, Summary Answer: This study shows that after a 10-year follow-up period, the utilization rate to attempt pregnancy using cryopreserved oocytes or embryos was 25.5% and the cumulative live birth rate after embryo transfer was 34.6% per patient., What Is Known Already: Fertility preservation by freezing oocytes or embryos is an established treatment for women with a risk of premature ovarian failure (caused by a benign or oncological disease) or physiological age-related fertility decline. Little is known about the success of cryopreservation, the utilization rate of oocytes or embryos, or the live birth rates., Study Design, Size, Duration: A retrospective observational study was performed in the Netherlands. Data were collected between 2017 and 2019 from 1112 women who cryopreserved oocytes or embryos more than 2 years ago in the context of fertility preservation in 10 IVF centers in the Netherlands., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: A total of 1112 women were included in this study. Medical files and patient databases were used to extract data. Women were categorized based on indication of fertility preservation: oncological, benign, or non-medical. To indicate statistical differences the t-test or Mann-Whitney U test was used. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used for time endpoints, and log-rank analyses were used to assess statistical differences. The study protocol was approved by the medical ethics committee., Main Results and the Role of Chance: Fertility preservation cycles have been performed increasingly over the years in the Netherlands. In the first years, less than 10 cycles per year were performed, increasing to more than 300 cycles per year 10 years later. Initially, embryos were frozen in the context of fertility preservation. In later years, cryopreservation of oocytes became the standard approach. Cryopreservation of oocytes versus embryos resulted in comparable numbers of used embryos (median of 2) for transfer and comparable live birth rates (33.9% and 34.6%, respectively). The 5-year utilization rate was 12.3% and the 10-year utilization rate was 25.5%. The cumulative clinical pregnancy rate was 35.6% and the cumulative live birth rate was 34.6% per patient. Those who had fertility preservation due to benign diseases returned earlier to use their cryopreserved embryos or oocytes., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: The follow-up period after the fertility preservation procedure varied between patients in this study and not all frozen oocytes or embryos had been used at the end of this study. This might have led to underestimated outcomes reported in this study. Furthermore, intention to treat cannot be fully determined since women who started the fertility preservation procedure without success (cancellation due to low response) were not included in this study., Wider Implications of the Findings: This study provides data on the reproductive outcomes after various indications of fertility preservation. This knowledge can be informative for professionals and future patients to improve counseling and informed decision making regarding ovarian stimulation in the context of fertility preservation., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): No funding was obtained for this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare related to this study. V.T.H. received grants paid to the institute for studies outside the present work from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Novartis, Eli Lily, Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo. V.T.H. received consulting fees from Eli Lily outside the present work. M.G. received grants paid to the institute for studies outside the present work from Guerbet and Ferring. E.M.E.B. received a grant from The Dutch Network of Fertility Preservation for a study outside the present work., Trial Registration Number: N/A., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Study Question: Does assisted hatching increase the cumulative live birth rate in subfertile couples with repeated implantation failure?, Summary Answer: This study showed no evidence of effect for assisted hatching as an add-on in subfertile couples with repeated implantation failure., What Is Known Already: The efficacy of assisted hatching, with regard to the live birth rate has not been convincingly demonstrated in randomized trials nor meta-analyses. It is suggested though that especially poor prognosis women, e.g. women with repeated implantation failure, might benefit most from assisted hatching., Study Design, Size, Duration: The study was designed as a double-blinded, multicentre randomized controlled superiority trial. In order to demonstrate a statistically significant absolute increase in live birth rate of 10% after assisted hatching, 294 participants needed to be included per treatment arm, being a total of 588 subfertile couples. Participants were included and randomized from November 2012 until November 2017, 297 were allocated to the assisted hatching arm of the study and 295 to the control arm. Block randomization in blocks of 20 participants was applied and randomization was concealed from participants, treating physicians, and laboratory staff involved in the embryo transfer procedure. Ovarian hyperstimulation, oocyte retrieval, laboratory procedures, embryo selection for transfer and cryopreservation, the transfer itself, and luteal support were performed according to local protocols and were identical in both the intervention and control arm of the study with the exception of the assisted hatching procedure which was only performed in the intervention group. The laboratory staff performing the assisted hatching procedure was not involved in the embryo transfer itself., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Participants were eligible for inclusion in the study after having had either at least two consecutive fresh IVF or ICSI embryo transfers, including the transfer of frozen and thawed embryos originating from those fresh cycles, and which did not result in a pregnancy or as having had at least one fresh IVF or ICSI transfer and at least two frozen embryo transfers with embryos originating from that fresh cycle which did not result in a pregnancy. The study was performed at the laboratory sites of three tertiary referral hospitals and two university medical centres in the Netherlands., Main Results and the Role of Chance: The cumulative live birth rate per started cycle, including the transfer of fresh and subsequent frozen/thawed embryos if applicable, resulted in 77 live births in the assisted hatching group (n = 297, 25.9%) and 68 live births in the control group (n = 295, 23.1%). This proved to be statistically not significantly different (relative risk: 1.125, 95% CI: 0.847 to 1.494, P = 0.416)., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: There was a small cohort of subfertile couples that after not achieving an ongoing pregnancy, still had cryopreserved embryos in storage at the endpoint of the trial, i.e. 1 year after the last randomization. It cannot be excluded that the future transfer of these frozen/thawed embryos increases the cumulative live birth rate in either or both study arms. Next, at the start of this study, there was no international consensus on the definition of repeated implantation failure. Therefore, it cannot be excluded that assisted hatching might be effective in higher order repeated implantation failures., Wider Implications of the Findings: This study demonstrated no evidence of a statistically significant effect for assisted hatching by increasing live birth rates in subfertile couples with repeated implantation failure, i.e. the couples which, based on meta-analyses, are suggested to benefit most from assisted hatching. It is therefore suggested that assisted hatching should only be offered if information on the absence of evidence of effect is provided, at no extra costs and preferably only in the setting of a clinical trial taking cost-effectiveness into account., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): None., Trial Registration Number: Netherlands Trial Register (NTR 3387, NL 3235, https://www.clinicaltrialregister.nl/nl/trial/26138)., Trial Registration Date: 6 April 2012., Date of First Patient’s Enrolment: 28 November 2012., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Objective: To determine if the introduction of value-based healthcare (VBHC) in fertility care can help to create realistic expectations in patients resulting in increased patient value, by demonstrating the relevance of defining outcome measures that truly matter to subfertile patients., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Setting: Tertiary fertility centre., Results: Time to pregnancy (TTP) and ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR), as a proxy for the live birth rate, for the full cycle of fertility care, regardless of which and how many treatment cycles performed, were identified as the most relevant medical outcome measures. Outcome measures were incorporated into a digital dashboard by using anonymised and validated patient data from the electronic patient file. We were able to present the TTP and OPR for the population as a whole as well as stratified for age, diagnosis, gravidity and type of gamete source used thereby resulting in a virtual 'patient like me' resembling the individual patient in the consultation room., Conclusion: We have shown that, by applying VBHC principles, relevant outcome measures can be generated and stratified for different patient characteristics, in order to develop a virtual 'patient like me'. This virtual 'patient like me' can be used in the consulting room in the form of a digital dashboard, attributing to create realistic patient expectations. This facilitates healthcare providers and patients in shared decision-making., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)