Search

Study Question: Do IVF treatment and laboratory factors affect singleton birthweight (BW)?, Summary Answer: BWs of IVF-conceived singleton babies are increasing with time, but we cannot identify the specific treatment factors responsible., What Is Known Already: IVF-conceived singleton babies from fresh transfers have slightly lower BW than those conceived naturally, whilst those from frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles are heavier and comparable to naturally conceived offspring. Our recent studies have shown that BW varies significantly between different IVF centres, and in a single centre, is also increasing with time, without a corresponding change in BWs of naturally conceived infants. Although it is likely that factors in the IVF treatment cycle, such as hormonal stimulation or embryo laboratory culture conditions, are associated with BW differences, our previous study designs were not able to confirm this., Study Design, Size, Duration: Data relating to BW outcomes, IVF treatment and laboratory parameters were collated from pre-existing electronic records in five participating centres for all singleton babies conceived between August 2007 and December 2014., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Seven thousand, five hundred and eighty-eight births, 6207 from fresh and 1381 from FET. Infants with severe congenital abnormalities were excluded. The primary outcome of gestation-adjusted BW and secondary outcomes of unadjusted BW and gestation were analysed using multivariable regression models with robust standard errors to allow for the correlation between infants with the same mother. The models tested treatment factors allowing for confounding by centre, time and patient characteristics. A similar matched analysis of a subgroup of 379 sibling pairs was also performed., Main Results and the Role of Chance: No significant associations of birth outcomes with IVF embryo culture parameters were seen independent of clinic or time, including embryo culture medium, incubator type or oxygen level, although small differences cannot be ruled out. We did not detect any significant differences associated with hormonal stimulation in fresh cycles or hormonal synchronization in FET cycles. Gestation-adjusted BW increased by 13.4 (95% CI 0.6-26.1) g per year over the period of the study, and babies born following FET were 92 (95% CI 57-128) g heavier on average than those from the fresh transfer., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: Although no specific relationships have been identified independent of clinic and time, the confidence intervals remain large and do not exclude clinically relevant effect sizes. As this is an observational study, residual confounding may still be present., Wider Implications of the Findings: This study demonstrates the potential for large scale analysis of routine data to address critical questions concerning the long-term implications of IVF treatment, in accordance with the Developmental Origins of Health and Disease hypothesis. However, much larger studies, at a national scale with sufficiently detailed data, are required to identify the treatment parameters associated with differences in BW or other relevant outcomes., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This work was supported by the EU FP7 project grant, EpiHealthNet (FP7-PEOPLE-2012-ITN-317146). No competing interests were identified., Trial Registration Number: N/A., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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.

There is a global recognition of the need to reduce multiple pregnancies following assisted reproductive technology. Complications of multiple pregnancies can be simply avoided by replacing one embryo at a time. Most policies to reduce the number of double or higher order embryo transfers involve predicting which patients are at most risk by using a multiple birth minimisation strategy. These frequently consider factors such as patient age, previous treatments and embryo quality. However, with improvements in methods of embryo culture, embryo selection and cryopreservation, this chapter will question whether, at present, it is time to move to single embryo transfer (SET) for all., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

The UK Association of Clinical Embryologists held a workshop on Culture Systems for assisted conception in Sheffield on 22 May 2013. The meeting was organised in the light of the availability of numerous commercial products for the culture of human preimplantation embryos in vitro and the absence of data comparing the performance of these products. Expert opinions were presented, along with survey data provided by participating IVF Centres. The workshop highlighted the lack of a sound evidence base to support the selection of any one commercial product over another, and raised concerns over the lack of information defining precisely the composition of media, and the potential for adverse long-term effects of such products following their use in assisted conception.

Aim: The aim of this article is to review the evidence regarding human oocyte cryopreservation by slow freezing and vitrification and to provide evidence-based clinical and laboratory guidelines on the effectiveness and safety of these technologies., Scope: These guidelines will address the following: Stage of oocyte maturity. Methods of cryopreservation/warming. Slow controlled cooling. Vitrification. Techniques used for insemination. Ovarian stimulation regimens. The guidelines do not cover recommendations for ovarian tissue freezing or in vitro oocyte maturation (IVM)., Outcome Measures: The following outcome measures were examined: cryosurvival, fertilisation rate, cleavage rate, clinical pregnancy rate and implantation rate, health of resulting children.

The ability to create an optimal environment for the culture of oocytes and embryos is important to ensure that embryo viability, and therefore pregnancy outcome, is not compromised. Laboratory performance can be monitored using a quality control system. In setting up a new IVF unit, a comprehensive quality control programme was established to monitor laboratory performance and to detect any problems that potentially may have resulted in a sub-optimal service. The measures employed were designed to optimize the environment for human embryo culture by providing aseptic conditions and security for the gametes and embryos, whilst providing a safe working environment for laboratory staff. Equipment function, consumables and environmental parameters were assessed prior to the commencement of treatment in the new unit. A mouse embryo bioassay was used to assess the ability of the new laboratory and equipment to support mammalian embryo development. Prior to the start of clinical treatments a quality control program highlighted equipment that was functioning sub-optimally, which had the potential to cause problems had it been left undetected. Once clinical treatment commenced, quality control monitoring was continued to ensure that the laboratory functioned to a consistently high standard.

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]

Time-lapse imaging (TLI) systems for embryo incubation, assessment and selection are a novel technology available to in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinics. However, there is uncertainty about their clinical and cost-effectiveness and insufficient good quality evidence to warrant their routine use. Despite this, enthusiastic commercial marketing and slipping clinical equipoise have led to the widespread hasty introduction of this technology into practice, often at a considerable expense to the patient. We have reviewed the published literature and aim to summarize the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of these systems. These specialized incubators provide undisturbed embryo culture conditions and, by almost continuous monitoring of embryo development, generate morphokinetic parameters to aid embryo selection. They are thus hypothesized to improve outcomes following IVF. Although literature reports improved reproductive outcomes, these outcomes are largely surrogate and there is a paucity of studies reporting live births. The use of time lapse systems may reduce early pregnancy loss, increase elective single embryo transfers and limit multiple pregnancies through better embryo selection. However, the quality of the studies and hence the evidence so far, is low to moderate quality. We recommend further research producing robust high-quality evidence for and against the use of these systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Embryo selection to improve pregnancy rates remains a significant challenge in IVF. Non-invasive and invasive methods of embryo selection include morphological assessment, metabolomics, time-lapse imaging and preimplantation genetic screening. To date, none has been shown conclusively to yield improved implantation and live birth rates. This review summarises current understanding of methods for embryo selection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A significant number of multiple pregnancies and births worldwide continue to occur following treatment with Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ARTs). Whilst efforts have been made to increase the proportion of elective single embryo transfer (eSET) cycles, the multiple pregnancy rate or MPR remains at a level that most consider unacceptable given the associated clinical risks to mothers and babies, and the additional costs associated with neonatal care of premature and low birth weight babies. Northern Europe, Australia and Japan have continued to lead the way in the adoption of eSET. Randomised controlled trials or RCTs, meta-analyses and economic analyses support the implementation of an eSET policy, particularly in light of recent advances in ARTs. This paper provides a review of current evidence and an update to the eSET guidelines first published by Cutting et al. (2008) intended to assist ART clinics in the implementation of an effective eSET policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on a consensus statement on multiple births caused by fertility treatment in Great Britain. which was drafted in 2011 by a group of British organizations. In the article the authors offer their opinions on the statement and on efforts which Great Britain should make to ensure that single embryo transfers are considered in an effort to reduce the risks of multiple births and to ensure that people considering fertility treatments are educated about treatment risks.

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]