Search

Research question Does clinical performance of personalized embryo transfer (PET) guided by endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) differ from frozen embryo transfer (FET) or fresh embryo transfer in infertile patients undergoing IVF? Design Multicentre, open-label randomized controlled trial; 458 patients aged 37 years or younger undergoing IVF with blastocyst transfer at first appointment were randomized to PET guided by ERA, FET or fresh embryo transfer in 16 reproductive clinics. Results Clinical outcomes by intention-to-treat analysis were comparable, but cumulative pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the PET (93.6%) compared with FET (79.7%) (P = 0.0005) and fresh embryo transfer groups (80.7%) (P = 0.0013). Analysis per protocol demonstrates that live birth rates at first embryo transfer were 56.2% in PET versus 42.4% in FET (P = 0.09), and 45.7% in fresh embryo transfer groups (P = 0.17). Cumulative live birth rates after 12 months were 71.2% in PET versus 55.4% in FET (P = 0.04), and 48.9% in fresh embryo transfer (P = 0.003). Pregnancy rates at the first embryo transfer in PET, FET and fresh embryo transfer arms were 72.5% versus 54.3% (P = 0.01) and 58.5% (P = 0.05), respectively. Implantation rates at first embryo transfer were 57.3% versus 43.2% (P = 0.03), and 38.6% (P = 0.004), respectively. Obstetrical outcomes, type of delivery and neonatal outcomes were similar in all groups. Conclusions Despite 50% of patients dropping out compared with 30% initially planned, per protocol analysis demonstrates statistically significant improvement in pregnancy, implantation and cumulative live birth rates in PET compared with FET and fresh embryo transfer arms, indicating the potential utility of PET guided by the ERA test at the first appointment.

Ovarian stimulation treatment is recognized as placing a physical and psychological burden on patients and oocyte donors. The introduction of sustained follicle stimulants will reduce the number of injections and may improve the overall patient experience. This study aimed to evaluate the degree of satisfaction in oocyte donors undergoing treatment with corifollitropin α, a synthetic recombinant rFSH which replaces daily FSH injections for the first week of ovarian stimulation. The results showed no significant differences in clinical parameters between the two protocols (recombinant FSH versus corifollitropin α). Implantation rates for the corifollitropin α and daily FSH protocol groups were 39.1% and 38.4%, respectively, while ongoing pregnancy rates were 45.9% and 44.4%. There were no statistical between-group differences in the responses to the questionnaires. However, donors treated with corifollitropin α who had undergone a previous cycle with daily FSH reported greater satisfaction with the corifollitropin α protocol. In conclusion, no significant differences were found in any analysed parameters between treatments. However, when donors who had undergone both treatments chose which treatment they preferred, the results clearly showed a positive trend towards choosing corifollitropin α, confirming that this protocol may reduce treatment burden and increase donor compliance.