Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Convulsive status epilepticus is the most severe form of epilepsy and requires urgent treatment. We synthesised the current evidence on first-line treatments for controlling seizures in adults with convulsive status epilepticus before, or at, arrival at hospital. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing antiepileptic drugs offered to adults as first-line treatments. Major electronic databases were searched. Results: Four RCTs (1234 adults) were included. None were conducted in the UK and none assessed the use of buccal or intranasal midazolam. Both intravenous lorazepam and intravenous diazepam administered by paramedics were more effective than placebo and, notably, intramuscular midazolam was non-inferior to intravenous lorazepam. Overall, median time to seizure cessation from drug administration varied from 2 to 15 min. Rates of respiratory depression among participants receiving active treatments ranged from 6.4 to 10.6%. Mortality ranged from 2 to 7.6% in active treatment groups and 6.2 to 15.5% in control groups. Conclusions: Intravenous and intramuscular benzodiazepines are safe and effective in this clinical context. Further research is needed to establish the most clinically and cost-effective first-line treatment and preferable mode of administration. Head-to-head trials comparing buccal versus intranasal midazolam versus rectal diazepam would provide useful information to inform the management of the first stage of convulsive status epilepticus in adults, especially when intravenous or intramuscular access is not feasible. Approaches to improve adherence to clinical guidelines on the use of currently available benzodiazepines for the first-line treatment of convulsive status epilepticus should also be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of routinely used tests of visual function and retinal morphology compared with fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA) to detect onset of active macular neovascularization in unaffected fellow eyes of patients with unilateral neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort study conducted in 24 eye clinics in the United Kingdom over 3 years. Older adults (>50 years) with recently diagnosed unilateral nAMD with a fellow (study) eye free of nAMD. Self-reported vision, Amsler, clinic-measured visual acuity (VA), fundus assessment, and spectral domain OCT. The reference standard is FFA. Sensitivity and specificity of the 5 index tests. Of 552 participants monitored for up to 3 years, 145 (26.3%) developed active nAMD in the study eye, of whom 120 had an FFA at detection and constituted the primary analysis cohort. Index test positives at nAMD detection in those confirmed by FFA were self-reported vision much worse (5), distortion on Amsler (33), 10-letter decrease in acuity from baseline (36), fundus examination (64), and OCT (110). Percentage index test sensitivities were: self-reported vision 4.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6–9.8); Amsler 33.7 (95% CI, 25.1–43.5); VA 30.0 (95% CI, 22.5–38.7); fundus examination 53.8 (95% CI, 44.8–62.5); and OCT 91.7 (95% CI, 85.2–95.6). All 5 index test specificities were high at 97.0 (95% CI, 94.6–98.5), 81.4 (95% CI, 76.4–85.5), 66.3 (95% CI, 61.0–71.1), 97.6 (95% CI, 95.3–98.9), and 87.8 (95% CI, 83.8–90.9), respectively. The combination of OCT with one other index test that was a secondary outcome measure increased sensitivity marginally and decreased specificity for all combinations except fundus examination. Tests of self-reported change in vision, unmasking of new distortion, measurements of acuity, and fundus checks to diagnose active nAMD performed poorly in contrast to OCT. Our findings support a change to guidelines in clinical practice to monitor for onset of nAMD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]