Clinical effectiveness and safety of time-lapse imaging systems for embryo incubation and selection in in-vitro fertilisation treatment (TILT): a multicentre, three-parallel-group, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BackgroundTime-lapse imaging systems for embryo incubation and selection might improve outcomes of in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment due to undisturbed embryo culture conditions, improved embryo selection, or both. However, the benefit remains uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of time-lapse imaging systems providing undisturbed culture and embryo selection, and time-lapse imaging systems providing only undisturbed culture, and compared each with standard care without time-lapse imaging.MethodsWe conducted a multicentre, three-parallel-group, double-blind, randomised controlled trial in participants undergoing IVF or ICSI at seven IVF centres in the UK and Hong Kong. Embryologists randomly assigned participants using a web-based system, stratified by clinic in a 1:1:1 ratio to the time-lapse imaging system for undisturbed culture and embryo selection (time-lapse imaging group), time-lapse imaging system for undisturbed culture alone (undisturbed culture group), and standard care without time-lapse imaging (control group). Women were required to be aged 18-42 years and men (ie, their partners) 18 years or older. Couples had to be receiving their first, second, or third IVF or ICSI treatment and could not participate if using donor gametes. Participants and trial staff were masked to group assignment, embryologists were not. The primary outcome was live birth. We performed analyses using the intention-to-treat principle and reported the main analysis in participants with primary outcome data available (full analysis set). The trial is registered on the International Trials Registry (ISRCTN17792989) and is now closed.Findings1575 participants were randomly assigned to treatment groups (525 participants per group) between June 21, 2018, and Sept 30, 2022. The live birth rates were 33·7% (175/520) in the time-lapse imaging group, 36·6% (189/516) in the undisturbed culture group, and 33·0% (172/522) in the standard care group. The adjusted odds ratio was 1·04 (97·5% CI 0·73 to 1·47) for time-lapse imaging arm versus control and 1·20 (0·85 to 1·70) for undisturbed culture versus control. The risk reduction for the absolute difference was 0·7 percentage points (97·5% CI -5·85 to 7·25) between the time-lapse imaging and standard care groups and 3·6 percentage points (-3·02 to 10·22) between the undisturbed culture and standard care groups. 79 serious adverse events unrelated to the trial were reported (n=28 in time-lapse imaging, n=27 in undisturbed culture, and n=24 in standard care).InterpretationIn women undergoing IVF or ICSI treatment, the use of time-lapse imaging systems for embryo culture and selection does not significantly increase the odds of live birth compared with standard care without time-lapse imaging.FundingBarts Charity, Pharmasure Pharmaceuticals, Hong Kong OG Trust Fund, Hong Kong Health and Medical Research Fund, Hong Kong Matching Fund

Clinical effectiveness and safety of time-lapse imaging systems for embryo incubation and selection in in-vitro fertilisation treatment (TILT) - a multicentre, three-arm, parallel-group, double-blind randomised controlled trial

Background: time-lapse imaging systems for embryo incubation and selection might improve outcomes of in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment due to undisturbed embryo culture conditions, improved embryo selection, or both. However, the benefit remains uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of time-lapse imaging systems providing undisturbed culture and embryo selection, and time-lapse imaging systems providing only undisturbed culture, and compared each with standard care without time-lapse imaging.Methods: we conducted a multicentre, three-parallel-group, double-blind, randomised controlled trial in participants undergoing IVF or ICSI at seven IVF centres in the UK and Hong Kong. Embryologists randomly assigned participants using a web-based system, stratified by clinic in a 1:1:1 ratio to the time-lapse imaging system for undisturbed culture and embryo selection (time-lapse imaging group), time-lapse imaging system for undisturbed culture alone (undisturbed culture group), and standard care without time-lapse imaging (control group). Women were required to be aged 18–42 years and men (ie, their partners) 18 years or older. Couples had to be receiving their first, second, or third IVF or ICSI treatment and could not participate if using donor gametes. Participants and trial staff were masked to group assignment, embryologists were not. The primary outcome was live birth. We performed analyses using the intention-to-treat principle and reported the main analysis in participants with primary outcome data available (full analysis set). The trial is registered on the International Trials Registry (ISRCTN17792989) and is now closed.Findings: 1575 participants were randomly assigned to treatment groups (525 participants per group) between June 21, 2018, and Sept 30, 2022. The live birth rates were 33·7% (175/520) in the time-lapse imaging group, 36·6% (189/516) in the undisturbed culture group, and 33·0% (172/522) in the standard care group. The adjusted odds ratio was 1·04 (97·5% CI 0·73 to 1·47) for time-lapse imaging arm versus control and 1·20 (0·85 to 1·70) for undisturbed culture versus control. The risk reduction for the absolute difference was 0·7 percentage points (97·5% CI –5·85 to 7·25) between the time-lapse imaging and standard care groups and 3·6 percentage points (–3·02 to 10·22) between the undisturbed culture and standard care groups. 79 serious adverse events unrelated to the trial were reported (n=28 in time-lapse imaging, n=27 in undisturbed culture, and n=24 in standard care).Interpretation: in women undergoing IVF or ICSI treatment, the use of time-lapse imaging systems for embryo culture and selection does not significantly increase the odds of live birth compared with standard care without time-lapse imaging

Effect of Noninvasive Respiratory Strategies on Intubation or Mortality Among Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and COVID-19: The RECOVERY-RS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) have been recommended for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19. Uncertainty exists regarding the effectiveness and safety of these noninvasive respiratory strategies. Objective To determine whether either CPAP or HFNO, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Design, Setting, and Participants A parallel group, adaptive, randomized clinical trial of 1273 hospitalized adults with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The trial was conducted between April 6, 2020, and May 3, 2021, across 48 acute care hospitals in the UK and Jersey. Final follow-up occurred on June 20, 2021. Interventions Adult patients were randomized to receive CPAP (n = 380), HFNO (n = 418), or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 475). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days. Results The trial was stopped prematurely due to declining COVID-19 case numbers in the UK and the end of the funded recruitment period. Of the 1273 randomized patients (mean age, 57.4 [95% CI, 56.7 to 58.1] years; 66% male; 65% White race), primary outcome data were available for 1260. Crossover between interventions occurred in 17.1% of participants (15.3% in the CPAP group, 11.5% in the HFNO group, and 23.6% in the conventional oxygen therapy group). The requirement for tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days was significantly lower with CPAP (36.3%; 137 of 377 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (44.4%; 158 of 356 participants) (absolute difference, -8% [95% CI, -15% to -1%], P = .03), but was not significantly different with HFNO (44.3%; 184 of 415 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (45.1%; 166 of 368 participants) (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -8% to 6%], P = .83). Adverse events occurred in 34.2% (130/380) of participants in the CPAP group, 20.6% (86/418) in the HFNO group, and 13.9% (66/475) in the conventional oxygen therapy group. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, an initial strategy of CPAP significantly reduced the risk of tracheal intubation or mortality compared with conventional oxygen therapy, but there was no significant difference between an initial strategy of HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy. The study may have been underpowered for the comparison of HFNO vs conventional oxygen therapy, and early study termination and crossover among the groups should be considered when interpreting the findings. Trial Registration isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16912075