A multicentre double-blinded randomized controlled trial on the efficacy of laser-assisted hatching in patients with repeated implantation failure undergoing IVF or ICSI

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.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.</p

Fertility preservation in female classic galactosemia patients

Almost every female classic galactosemia patient develops primary ovarian insufficiency (POI) as a diet-independent complication of the disease. This is a major concern for patients and their parents, and physicians are often asked about possible options to preserve fertility. Unfortunately, there are no recommendations on fertility preservation in this group. The unique pathophysiology of classic galactosemia with a severely reduced follicle pool at an early age requires an adjusted approach. In this article recommendations for physicians based on current knowledge concerning galactosemia and fertility preservation are made. Fertility preservation is only likely to be successful in very young prepubertal patients. In this group, cryopreservation of ovarian tissue is currently the only available technique. However, this technique is not ready for clinical application, it is considered experimental and reduces the ovarian reserve. Fertility preservation at an early age also raises ethical questions that should be taken into account. In addition, spontaneous conception despite POI is well described in classic galactosemia. The uncertainty surrounding fertility preservation and the significant chance of spontaneous pregnancy warrant counseling towards conservative application of these techniques. We propose that fertility preservation should only be offered with appropriate institutional research ethics approval to classic galactosemia girls at a young prepubertal age

Comprehensive analysis of karyotypic mosaicism between trophectoderm and inner cell mass

Aneuploidy has been well-documented in blastocyst embryos, but prior studies have been limited in scale and/or lack mechanistic data. We previously reported preclinical validation of microarray 24-chromosome preimplantation genetic screening in a 24-h protocol. The method diagnoses chromosome copy number, structural chromosome aberrations, parental source of aneuploidy and distinguishes certain meiotic from mitotic errors. In this study, our objective was to examine aneuploidy in human blastocysts and determine correspondence of karyotypes between trophectoderm (TE) and inner cell mass (ICM). We disaggregated 51 blastocysts from 17 couples into ICM and one or two TE fractions. The average maternal age was 31. Next, we ran 24-chromosome microarray molecular karyotyping on all of the samples, and then performed a retrospective analysis of the data. The average per-chromosome confidence was 99.95%. Approximately 80% of blastocysts were euploid. The majority of aneuploid embryos were simple aneuploid, i.e. one or two whole-chromosome imbalances. Structural chromosome aberrations, which are common in cleavage stage embryos, occurred in only three blastocysts (5.8%). All TE biopsies derived from the same embryos were concordant. Forty-nine of 51 (96.1%) ICM samples were concordant with TE biopsies derived from the same embryos. Discordance between TE and ICM occurred only in the two embryos with structural chromosome aberration. We conclude that TE karyotype is an excellent predictor of ICM karyotype. Discordance between TE and ICM occurred only in embryos with structural chromosome aberrations

Comparing the cumulative live birth rate of cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfers between IVF cycles:a study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled superiority trial (the ToF trial)

Introduction In vitro fertilisation (IVF) has evolved as an intervention of choice to help couples with infertility to conceive. In the last decade, a strategy change in the day of embryo transfer has been developed. Many IVF centres choose nowadays to transfer at later stages of embryo development, for example, transferring embryos at blastocyst stage instead of cleavage stage. However, it still is not known which embryo transfer policy in IVF is more efficient in terms of cumulative live birth rate (cLBR), following a fresh and the subsequent frozen-thawed transfers after one oocyte retrieval. Furthermore, studies reporting on obstetric and neonatal outcomes from both transfer policies are limited. Methods and analysis We have set up a multicentre randomised superiority trial in the Netherlands, named the Three or Fivetrial. We plan to include 1200 women with an indication for IVF with at least four embryos available on day 2 after the oocyte retrieval. Women are randomly allocated to either (1) control group: embryo transfer on day 3 and cryopreservation of supernumerary good-quality embryos on day 3 or 4, or (2) intervention group: embryo transfer on day 5 and cryopreservation of supernumerary good-quality embryos on day 5 or 6. The primary outcome is the cLBR per oocyte retrieval. Secondary outcomes include LBR following fresh transfer, multiple pregnancy rate and time until pregnancy leading a live birth. We will also assess the obstetric and neonatal outcomes, costs and patients' treatment burden. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol has been approved by the Central Committee on Research involving Human Subjects in the Netherlands in June 2018 (CCMO NL 64060.000.18). The results of this trial will be submitted for publication in international peer-reviewed and in open access journals. Trial registration number Netherlands Trial Register (NL 6857)