Prognosis-based management of unexplained infertility-why not?

Up to a half of couples seeking medical assistance for infertility are diagnosed with unexplained infertility, characterized by normal ovulation, tubal patency, and semen analysis results. This condition presents a challenge in determining the optimal treatment approach. Available treatments include IUI and IVF, but guidelines vary on when to offer each. Prognosis-based management is identified as a research priority, and various prediction models have been developed to guide treatment decisions. Prognostic factors include female age, duration of subfertility, and sperm parameters, among others. Prognosis-based strategies can enhance cost-effectiveness, safety, and patient outcomes, offering less invasive options to those with good prognoses and more aggressive interventions to those with poor prognoses. However, there is a gap between research evidence and its clinical application. In this article, we discuss the application of prognosis-based management in the context of unexplained infertility, highlighting its potential to improve clinical decision-making and patient outcomes.

Evaluating prognosis in unexplained infertility.

IMPORTANCE: The diagnosis of unexplained infertility presents a dilemma as it signifies both uncertainty about the cause of infertility and the potential for natural conception. Immediate treatment of all would result in overtreatment. Prediction models estimating the likelihood of natural conception and subsequent live birth can guide treatment decisions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if in couples with unexplained infertility, prediction models are effective in guiding treatment decisions. EVIDENCE REVIEW: This review examines 25 studies that assess prediction models for natural conception in couples with unexplained infertility in terms of derivation, validation, and impact analysis. FINDINGS: The largest prediction models have been integrated in the synthesis models of Hunault, which includes female age and infertility duration, having been pregnant before and motile sperm percentage. Despite its limited discriminative capacity, this model demonstrates excellent calibration. Importantly, the impact of the Hunault model has been evaluated in randomized clinical trials, and shows that in couples with unexplained infertility and 12-month natural conception chances exceeding 30%, immediate treatment with intrauterine insemination (IUI) and controlled ovarian hyperstimulation is not better than expectant management for 6 months. Below the threshold of 30%, treatment with IUI is superior over expectant management, but immediate in vitro fertilization was not better than IUI. CONCLUSION: In couples with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis for natural conception, treatment can be delayed, whereas in couples with a poor prognosis, immediate treatment (with IUI-controlled ovarian hyperstimulation) is warranted. RELEVANCE: These data indicate that in couples with unexplained infertility, integration of prediction models into clinical decision making can optimize treatment selection and maximize fertility outcomes while limiting unnecessary treatment.

Setting a tariff for IVF and ICSI treatment: a cost analysis.

In-vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intra-cytoplasmatic sperm injection (ICSI) are available in Scotland through the National Health Service (NHS) according to specific criteria. There is no standardised NHS tariff for these treatments in Scotland, and variation exists amongst different centres providing NHS services. The aim of this study was to calculate the mean cost of IVF and ICSI cycles for NHS-funded treatment in Scotland. A detailed cost analysis of fresh and frozen cycles was performed, and a breakdown of the various cost components was presented. A deterministic approach was applied using NHS-funded individual cycle data from 2015-2018 and aggregate data. All costs were calculated in UK pounds sterling (£- using 2018 prices). Resource use was assigned to individual cycles based on cycle-level data or expert-informed assumptions; whenever needed, average aggregate costs were assigned to cycles. A total of 9442 NHS-funded cycles were included in the analysis. The average cost of fresh IVF and ICSI cycles was £3247 [£1526-£4215] and £3473 [£1526-£4416], respectively. Frozen cycles averaged £938 [£272-£1085]. This data can be useful to decision-makers, especially where IVF/ICSI is publicly funded, as it delivers a detailed IVF/ICSI cost breakdown. It is an opportunity for other authorities to estimate IVF/ICSI costs, as the methods applied are clear and reproducible.

Effectiveness of laparoscopic removal of isolated superficial peritoneal endometriosis for the management of chronic pelvic pain in women (ESPriT2): protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis affects 190 million women and those assigned female at birth worldwide. For some, it is associated with debilitating chronic pelvic pain. Diagnosis of endometriosis is often achieved through diagnostic laparoscopy. However, when isolated superficial peritoneal endometriosis (SPE), the most common endometriosis subtype, is identified during laparoscopy, limited evidence exists to support the common decision to surgically remove it via excision or ablation. Improved understanding of the impact of surgical removal of isolated SPE for the management of chronic pelvic pain in women is required. Here, we describe our protocol for a multi-centre trial to determine the effectiveness of surgical removal of isolated SPE for the management of endometriosis-associated pain. METHODS: We plan to undertake a multi-centre participant-blind parallel-group randomised controlled clinical and cost-effectiveness trial with internal pilot. We plan to randomise 400 participants from up to 70 National Health Service Hospitals in the UK. Participants with chronic pelvic pain awaiting diagnostic laparoscopy for suspected endometriosis will be consented by the clinical research team. If isolated SPE is identified at laparoscopy, and deep or ovarian endometriosis is not seen, participants will be randomised intraoperatively (1:1) to surgical removal (by excision or ablation or both, according to surgeons' preference) versus diagnostic laparoscopy alone. Randomisation with block-stratification will be used. Participants will be given a diagnosis but will not be informed of the procedure they received until 12 months post-randomisation, unless required. Post-operative medical treatment will be according to participants' preference. Participants will be asked to complete validated pain and quality of life questionnaires at 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Our primary outcome is the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 (EHP-30), via a between randomised group comparison of adjusted means at 12 months. Assuming a standard deviation of 22 points around the pain score, 90% power, 5% significance and 20% missing data, 400 participants are required to be randomised to detect an 8-point pain score difference. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to provide high quality evidence of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical removal of isolated SPE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN27244948. Registered 6 April 2021.

Perinatal outcomes in singleton live births after blastocyst transfer: an analysis of 60,926 in vitro fertilization cycles from the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: To compare perinatal outcomes between singleton live births after blastocyst-stage and cleavage-stage fresh embryo transfer using data from all United Kingdom licensed fertility clinics. DESIGN: A cohort study. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): A total of 60,926 in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles resulting in a singleton live birth after blastocyst-stage and cleavage-stage fresh embryo transfer between 2012 and 2018. INTERVENTION(S): Baseline characteristics between IVF/ICSI blastocyst and cleavage-stage transfer groups were compared using the χ2 test for categorical/dichotomized variables and the Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables. Statistical significance was set at <.05. Association between perinatal outcomes and blastocyst transfer compared with cleavage-stage transfer was assessed using multinomial logistic regression, adjusting for confounders selected using directed acyclic graphs (95% confidence interval [CI], adjusted relative risk ratio [aRRR]). A subgroup analysis included cycles in women undergoing their first IVF/ICSI cycle. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE(S): Gestational age at birth and birth weight. RESULT(S): The blastocyst group comprised 42,677 IVF/ICSI cycles and cleavage-stage group 18,249 cycles. There was likely little to no difference in the risk of preterm (aRRR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00-1.15) and very preterm birth (aRRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.91-1.21) in singleton live births after fresh blastocyst and cleavage-stage transfer. Risks of low birth weight (aRRR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.95-1.09), very low birth weight (aRRR 0.96; 95% CI, 0.83-1.11), high birth weight (aRRR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90-1.04), and very high birth weight (aRRR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77-1.08) were likely similar between the groups. The findings were consistent in the subgroup analysis. CONCLUSION(S): Fresh blastocyst transfer does not appear to have a negative impact on gestational age at birth and birth weight in singleton live births compared with fresh cleavage-stage transfer.

A core outcome set for trials in miscarriage management and prevention: An international consensus development study.

OBJECTIVE: To develop core outcome sets (COS) for miscarriage management and prevention. DESIGN: Modified Delphi survey combined with a consensus development meeting. SETTING: International. POPULATION: Stakeholder groups included healthcare providers, international experts, researchers, charities and couples with lived experience of miscarriage from 15 countries: 129 stakeholders for miscarriage management and 437 for miscarriage prevention. METHODS: Modified Delphi method and modified nominal group technique. RESULTS: The final COS for miscarriage management comprises six outcomes: efficacy of treatment, heavy vaginal bleeding, pelvic infection, maternal death, treatment or procedure-related complications, and patient satisfaction. The final COS for miscarriage prevention comprises 12 outcomes: pregnancy loss <24 weeks' gestation, live birth, gestation at birth, pre-term birth, congenital abnormalities, fetal growth restriction, maternal (antenatal) complications, compliance with intervention, patient satisfaction, maternal hospitalisation, neonatal or infant hospitalisation, and neonatal or infant death. Other outcomes identified as important were mental health-related outcomes, future fertility and health economic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This study has developed two core outcome sets, through robust methodology, that should be implemented across future randomised trials and systematic reviews in miscarriage management and prevention. This work will help to standardise outcome selection, collection and reporting, and improve the quality and safety of future studies in miscarriage.

A comparison of perinatal outcomes following fresh blastocyst or cleavage stage embryo transfer in singletons and twins and between singleton siblings.

STUDY QUESTION: Are perinatal outcomes following fresh blastocyst versus fresh cleavage stage embryo transfer (ET) different in singletons, twins, and between singleton siblings? SUMMARY ANSWER: Singleton babies conceived following fresh blastocyst, versus cleavage stage, ET are less likely to be small for gestational age (SGA) or to have a congenital anomaly (a result confirmed by comparing singleton siblings), while singletons born following fresh blastocyst ET were at a higher risk of being large for gestational age (LGA) than their sibling born following fresh cleavage stage ET. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Blastocyst stage transfer is now the preferred strategy in most IVF units. Previous studies have suggested that babies conceived through blastocyst transfer are at increased risk of preterm birth and LGA. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: A national population-based retrospective cohort study was performed using linked Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) data on 130 516 IVF and ICSI livebirths occurring from 103 062 women between 2000 and 2017. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: We included women who had at least one singleton livebirth resulting from IVF/ICSI fresh embryo treatment, using their own eggs and partner's sperm. A linked HFEA dataset was analysed using a multilevel framework, which accommodated repeated IVF cycles resulting in livebirths in the same woman. A population-averaged robust Poisson model was used for binary outcomes and a multinomial logistic regression model was used for categorical outcomes. Unadjusted and adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) (95% CI) were calculated. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There were 130 516 livebirths in 103 062 women, including 86 630 singletons, 43 886 twin births, and 5384 pairs of singleton siblings. In comparison with fresh cleavage stage ET, fresh blastocyst stage transfer in singletons was associated with a lower risk of low birthweight (aRR = 0.92; 95% CI 0.86, 0.99), lower risk of being SGA (0.83; 0.78, 0.89), and lower risk of congenital anomaly (0.79; 0.71, 0.89). This analysis did not show an increase in risk associated with preterm birth (1.00; 0.94, 1.06), high birthweight (0.99; 0.93, 1.06), LGA (0.99; 0.93, 1.05), and the chance of healthy singleton baby (1.00; 1.00, 1.02). Twins resulting from fresh blastocyst stage ET were at slightly higher risk of preterm birth (1.05; 1.02, 1.10) compared with twins conceived following fresh cleavage stage ET. There was insufficient evidence for an association with the other perinatal outcomes. Singleton siblings born following fresh blastocyst stage ET were at a higher risk of being LGA (1.57; 1.01, 2.46) and at lower risk of having a congenital anomaly (0.52; 0.28, 0.97) compared to their singleton siblings born following cleavage stage ET. There was some evidence of excess risk of preterm birth (1.42; 0.97, 2.23) associated with blastocyst stage transfer. However, we could not confirm an association between blastocyst stage ET and low birthweight (1.35; 0.81, 2.27), high birthweight (1.19; 0.80, 1.77), and the chance of being a healthy baby (0.97; 0.86, 1.09). LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: This was an observational study where we were unable to adjust for some key confounders, such as maternal smoking status and BMI, which may change from one pregnancy to another and are not recorded in the HFEA dataset. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: In the largest study of its kind, our analysis of singleton siblings, corrected for unmeasured, non-time varying maternal factors, confirms the previously reported association between blastocyst transfer and LGA babies, and shows a reduced risk of congenital anomaly following blastocyst transfer. Our sibling analysis did not confirm a decreased risk of low birthweight following blastocyst transfer. Overall, absolute risks are low and there is insufficient evidence to challenge the practice of extended culture of embryos. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This project is financed by an NHS Grampian Endowment Research Grant, project number 17/052. One of the authors, S.B., was the Editor in Chief of HROpen until 31 December 2022 and would have been in that role when the paper was first submitted. As an invited speaker, S.B. has received travel expenses, accommodation and honoraria from Merck, Organon, and Ferring. A.M. has received travel expenses, accommodation, and honoraria from Merck Serono, Cook Medical, Pharmasure, Gedeon Richter, and Ferring. D.J.M. is currently a HROpen Associate Editor. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Early pregnancy outcomes of IVF cycles using donor versus partner sperm: analysis of 1 376 454 cycles recorded by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (1991-2016).

STUDY QUESTION: Are the early pregnancy outcomes of IVF pregnancies conceived with donor sperm different to those conceived with partner sperm? SUMMARY ANSWER: Pregnancies conceived with donor sperm have a lower odds of early pregnancy loss and ectopic pregnancy compared to pregnancies conceived with partner sperm. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The number of cycles using donor sperm has risen significantly in recent years. Adverse early pregnancy outcomes have a negative impact on women and their partners. The evidence available to date regarding early pregnancy outcomes for pregnancies conceived with IVF donor sperm is limited by low numbers and lower-quality studies. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a retrospective cohort study of 1 376 454 cycles conceived with either donor or partner sperm between 1991 and 2016 as recorded in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) Register. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The HFEA has recorded data on all fertility treatments carried out in the UK from 1991 onwards, and it publishes this data in an anonymized form. This study assessed the outcomes of all pregnancies conceived with donor sperm and compared them to those conceived with partner sperm among IVF cycles recorded in the HFEA anonymized dataset from 1991 to 2016. Cycles that included intrauterine insemination, donor oocytes, preimplantation genetic testing, oocyte thaw cycles and alternative fertility treatments were excluded. The outcomes of interest were biochemical pregnancy, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, stillbirth and live birth. Logistic regression was used to adjust for confounding factors including age of the female partner, cause of infertility, history of previous pregnancy, fresh or frozen cycle, IVF or ICSI, number of embryos transferred, and year of treatment. Results are reported as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% CIs. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: This study found reductions in the odds of biochemical pregnancy (aOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.78-0.86), miscarriage (aOR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89-0.97), and ectopic pregnancy (aOR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66-0.90) among pregnancies as a result of the use of donor sperm as opposed to partner sperm. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study is retrospective and limited by the constraints of routinely collected data. No data were available for maternal characteristics such as BMI, smoking and partner age, which could all be potential confounders. Clustering of multiple pregnancies within women could not be accounted for as the data are reported only at the cycle level with no maternal identifiers. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study has demonstrated that there are no increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcome with donor sperm pregnancies. The reduction in miscarriage in pregnancies using donor sperm suggests that sperm could have a role in miscarriage, as the selection process for being accepted as donor is stringent. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No external funding was sought for this study. C.A. has received funding from Ferring to attend a UK meeting for trainees in reproductive Medicine. A.M. has received funding from Ferring, Cook, Merck Serono, Geodon Ritcher, and Pharmasure for speaking at, or attending, meetings relating to reproductive medicine. She has also participated in a Ferring advisory board. S.B. has received grants from Tenovus and the UK Medical Research Council. She has also been supported with a Medical Research Scotland PhD studentship. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

The optimal route of progesterone administration for luteal phase support in a frozen embryo transfer: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the optimal route of progesterone administration for luteal phase support in a frozen embryo transfer. DESIGN: Systematic review. PATIENTS: Women undergoing frozen embryo transfer (FET). INTERVENTIONS: We conducted an extensive database search of Medline (PubMed), Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Trials Register using relevant keywords and their combinations to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the routes (i.e., oral, vaginal, intramuscular) of progesterone administration for luteal phase support (LPS) in artificial FET. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical pregnancy, live birth, miscarriage. RESULTS: Four RCTs with 3245 participants undergoing artificial endometrial preparation (EP) cycles during FET were found to be eligible. Four trials compared vaginal progesterone with intramuscular progesterone and two trials compared vaginal progesterone with oral progesterone. One study favored of vaginal versus oral progesterone for clinical pregnancy rates (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22-0.92) and other study favored intramuscular versus vaginal progesterone for clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.21-1.76) and live birth rates (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.28-2.05). Tabulation of overall evidence strength assessment showed low-quality evidence on the basis that for each outcome-comparison pair, there were deficiencies in either directness of outcome measurement or study quality. CONCLUSION: There was little consensus and evidence was heterogeneous on the optimal route of administration of progesterone for LPS during FET in artificial EP cycles. This warrants more trials, indirect comparisons, and network meta-analyses. PROPERO NO: CRD42021251017.

Should we adopt a prognosis-based approach to unexplained infertility?

The treatment of unexplained infertility is a contentious topic that continues to attract a great deal of interest amongst clinicians, patients and policy makers. The inability to identify an underlying pathology makes it difficult to devise effective treatments for this condition. Couples with unexplained infertility can conceive on their own and any proposed intervention needs to offer a better chance of having a baby. Over the years, several prognostic and prediction models based on routinely collected clinical data have been developed, but these are not widely used by clinicians and patients. In this opinion paper, we propose a prognosis-based approach such that a decision to access treatment is based on the estimated chances of natural and treatment-related conception, which, in the same couple, can change over time. This approach avoids treating all couples as a homogeneous group and minimizes unnecessary treatment whilst ensuring access to those who need it early.

Perinatal outcomes of 221,709 singleton and twin pregnancies after the use of donor versus partner sperm.

OBJECTIVE: To study the association of donor sperm on perinatal outcomes of livebirths conceived via in vitro fertilization (IVF) when compared with partner sperm. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study SETTING: National Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority assisted reproductive technology registry PATIENTS: All live born singletons and twins conceived through IVF with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection in the United Kingdom between 1991 and 2016 INTERVENTION(S): Donor sperm compared to partner sperm MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Perinatal outcomes were assessed. The primary outcomes were preterm and very preterm birth; low, very low, high, and very high birthweight; Secondary outcomes were congenital anomaly and health baby. These were assessed for singletons and twins separately. RESULTS: For singleton livebirths, compared to partner sperm, those conceived with donor sperm were at reduced odds of very preterm (odds ratio [OR], 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.91; adjusted OR [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.96), and preterm (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.98; aOR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.01) birth. For birthweight outcomes, donor sperm showed a reduced odds of low (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91; aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.94) and an increased odds of high (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.07-1.23; aOR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.17) birthweight. There was no confirmed difference in the odds ratios of very low (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74-1.06; aOR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78-1.13) or very high (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.04-1.40; aOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.98-1.34) birthweight. Liveborn twins conceived with donor sperm, compared to partner sperm, were at reduced odds of very low (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66-0.88; aOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.96) and low (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.93; aOR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.98) birthweight. There was a suggestion of a reduced odds of very preterm (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70-0.95; aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-1.01) and preterm (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86-1.01; aOR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88-1.04) birth. There was considerable uncertainty around the ORs for high (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.31-1.72; aOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.29-1.80) and very high (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.39-2.67; aOR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.50-3.60) birthweight. CONCLUSION: Although unmeasured confounding remains a possibility, as paternal age, body mass index, and smoking status were unavailable for analysis, women, couples, service providers can be reassured that IVF livebirths conceived with donor sperm have no greater chance of adverse outcomes when compared to partner sperm.

Individual participant data meta-analysis of trials comparing frozen versus fresh embryo transfer strategy (INFORM): a protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Existing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a freeze-all embryo transfer strategy and a fresh embryo transfer strategy have shown conflicting results. A freeze-all or a fresh transfer policy may be preferable for some couples undergoing in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), but it is unclear which couples would benefit most from each policy, how and under which protocols. Therefore, we plan a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis of RCTs comparing a freeze-all and a fresh transfer policy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and CENTRAL) and trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) from their inception to present to identify eligible RCTs. We will also check reference lists of relevant papers. The search was performed on 23 September 2020 and will be updated. We will include RCTs comparing a freeze-all embryo transfer strategy and a fresh embryo transfer strategy in couples undergoing IVF. The primary outcome will be live birth resulting from the first embryo transfer. All outcomes listed in the core outcome set for infertility research will be reported. We will invite the lead investigators of eligible trials to join the Individual participant data meta-analysis of trials comparing frozen versus fresh embryo transfer strategy (INFORM) collaboration and share the deidentified individual participant data (IPD) of their trials. We will harmonise the IPD and perform a two-stage meta-analysis and examine treatment-covariate interactions for important baseline characteristics. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study ethics have been granted by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (Project ID: 30391). The findings will be disseminated via presentations at international conferences and publication in peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021296566.

Comparison of perinatal outcomes after frozen or fresh embryo transfer: separate analyses of singleton, twin, and sibling live births from a linked national in vitro fertilization registry.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether perinatal outcomes following frozen vs. fresh embryo transfer (ET) differ within singletons, within sets of twins, and between siblings. DESIGN: Population-based retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Academic Medical School PATIENT(S): 200,075 live births in 151,561 women who underwent in vitro fertilization with frozen or fresh ET between 1992 and 2017. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Gestational age at birth, birthweight, congenital anomaly, and healthy baby (≥37 weeks of gestation, birthweight 2,500-4,000 g, no congenital malformations). RESULT(S): There were 200,075 live births in 151,561 women including 132,679 singletons, 33,698 sets of twins, and 5,723 pairs of singleton siblings. In singletons, frozen ET was associated with a lower risk of very preterm birth (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73, 0.94), preterm birth (aRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88, 0.97), low birthweight (<2,500 g) (aRR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.68, 0.77), small for gestational age (aRR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.62, 0.70) and congenital anomaly (aRR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78, 0.94), but higher risk of high birthweight (>4,000 g) (aRR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.58, 1.72) and large for gestational age (aRR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.55, 1.70) in comparison with fresh ET. In twins, frozen ET was associated with lower risk of very preterm birth (aRR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73, 0.97), and low birthweight (aRR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.68, 0.77), but with a higher chance of a healthy baby (aRR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06, 1.16) compared to fresh ET. Singletons conceived following frozen ET had a lower risk of low birthweight (aRR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44, 0.74) and being small for gestational age (aRR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.42, 0.68) than a singleton sibling born after a fresh ET. Frozen ET also was associated with higher risk of high birthweight (aRR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.54, 2.24) and being large for gestational age (aRR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.50, 2.20), and also were less likely to be preterm (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67, 0.99). CONCLUSION(S): Our key finding is that singletons born following a frozen ET are less likely to be small for gestational age than a singleton sibling born following fresh ET but are more likely to be large for gestational age.

Subclinical hypothyroidism and antithyroid autoantibodies in women with subfertility or recurrent pregnancy loss: Scientific Impact Paper No. 70 June 2022: Scientific Impact Paper No. 70 June 2022.

The thyroid is a gland located in the neck and is important for many processes in the body. Problems with the thyroid gland are common in women of reproductive age. It is essential to have a normal working thyroid gland in order to achieve a successful pregnancy. One of the most common problems with the thyroid is underactivity (known as hypothyroidism). An early, mild form of an underactive thyroid is called subclinical hypothyroidism. Often people with this condition do not have any symptoms. Another common problem is thyroid autoimmunity. Here, the immune system attacks the thyroid gland, sometimes leading to the development of abnormal thyroid function. This can be diagnosed by the presence of proteins in the bloodstream called antibodies. Mild thyroid problems and the presence of high levels of thyroid antibodies have been linked to miscarriage and premature birth. There is debate in medicine about whether there should be routine testing of thyroid function both in the general population and in individuals who are trying for a baby. In addition, the strategies used to manage certain thyroid problems are questioned. Discussions around testing and subsequent management particularly relate to women with a history of subfertility or repeated miscarriages. This Scientific Impact Paper provides information on thyroid testing and the management of mild thyroid problems and thyroid antibodies in women with a history of subfertility or recurrent miscarriages, using the latest evidence and guidelines. It concludes that there may be a role for treating these women with thyroxine tablets (the hormone produced by the thyroid gland) when subclinical hypothyroidism is present, and gives guidance on the cut-off levels for treatment.

Transfer of thawed frozen embryo versus fresh embryo to improve the healthy baby rate in women undergoing IVF: the E-Freeze RCT.

BACKGROUND: Freezing all embryos, followed by thawing and transferring them into the uterine cavity at a later stage (freeze-all), instead of fresh-embryo transfer may lead to improved pregnancy rates and fewer complications during in vitro fertilisation and pregnancies resulting from it. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate if a policy of freeze-all results in a higher healthy baby rate than the current policy of transferring fresh embryos. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, non-blinded, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Eighteen in vitro fertilisation clinics across the UK participated from February 2016 to April 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of in vitro fertilisation treatment in which the female partner was aged < 42 years. INTERVENTIONS: If at least three good-quality embryos were present on day 3 of embryo development, couples were randomly allocated to either freeze-all (intervention) or fresh-embryo transfer (control). OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was a healthy baby, defined as a live, singleton baby born at term, with an appropriate weight for their gestation. Secondary outcomes included ovarian hyperstimulation, live birth and clinical pregnancy rates, complications of pregnancy and childbirth, health economic outcome, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory scores. RESULTS: A total of 1578 couples were consented and 619 couples were randomised. Most non-randomisations were because of the non-availability of at least three good-quality embryos (n = 476). Of the couples randomised, 117 (19%) did not adhere to the allocated intervention. The rate of non-adherence was higher in the freeze-all arm, with the leading reason being patient choice. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a healthy baby rate of 20.3% in the freeze-all arm and 24.4% in the fresh-embryo transfer arm (risk ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 1.15). Similar results were obtained using complier-average causal effect analysis (risk ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.10), per-protocol analysis (risk ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.26) and as-treated analysis (risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 1.29). The risk of ovarian hyperstimulation was 3.6% in the freeze-all arm and 8.1% in the fresh-embryo transfer arm (risk ratio 0.44, 99% confidence interval 0.15 to 1.30). There were no statistically significant differences between the freeze-all and the fresh-embryo transfer arms in the live birth rates (28.3% vs. 34.3%; risk ratio 0.83, 99% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.06) and clinical pregnancy rates (33.9% vs. 40.1%; risk ratio 0.85, 99% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.11). There was no statistically significant difference in anxiety scores for male participants (mean difference 0.1, 99% confidence interval -2.4 to 2.6) and female participants (mean difference 0.0, 99% confidence interval -2.2 to 2.2) between the arms. The economic analysis showed that freeze-all had a low probability of being cost-effective in terms of the incremental cost per healthy baby and incremental cost per live birth. LIMITATIONS: We were unable to reach the original planned sample size of 1086 and the rate of non-adherence to the allocated intervention was much higher than expected. CONCLUSION: When efficacy, safety and costs are considered, freeze-all is not better than fresh-embryo transfer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN61225414. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

During in vitro fertilisation, eggs and sperm are mixed in a laboratory to create embryos. An embryo is placed in the womb 2­5 days later (fresh-embryo transfer) and the remaining embryos are frozen for future use. Initial research suggested that freezing all embryos followed by thawing and replacing them a few weeks later could improve treatment safety and success. Although these data were promising, the data came from small studies and were not enough to change practice and policy. We conducted a large, multicentre, clinical trial to evaluate the two strategies: fresh-embryo transfer compared with later transfer of frozen embryos. We also compared the costs of both strategies during in vitro fertilisation treatment, pregnancy and delivery. This study was conducted across 18 clinics in the UK from 2016 to 2019, and 619 couples participated. Couples were allocated to one of two strategies: immediate fresh-embryo transfer or freezing of all embryos followed later by transfer of frozen embryo. The study's aim was to find out which type of embryo transfer gave participants a higher chance of having a healthy baby. We found that freezing all embryos followed by frozen-embryo transfer did not lead to a higher chance of having a healthy baby. There were no differences between strategies in the number of live births, the miscarriage rate or the number of pregnancy complications. Fresh-embryo transfer was less costly from both a health-care and a patient perspective. A routine strategy of freezing all embryos is not justified given that there was no increase in success rates but there were extra costs and delays to embryo transfer.

Elective freezing of embryos versus fresh embryo transfer in IVF: a multicentre randomized controlled trial in the UK (E-Freeze).

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.