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

Predicting live birth, preterm and low birth weight infant after in-vitro fertilisation: a prospective study of 144018 treatment cycles

Background The extent to which baseline couple characteristics affect the probability of live birth and adverse perinatal outcomes after assisted conception is unknown. Methods and Findings We utilised the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority database to examine the predictors of live birth in all in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles undertaken in the UK between 2003 and 2007 (n = 144,018). We examined the potential clinical utility of a validated model that pre-dated the introduction of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) as compared to a novel model. For those treatment cycles that resulted in a live singleton birth (n = 24,226), we determined the associates of potential risk factors with preterm birth, low birth weight, and macrosomia. The overall rate of at least one live birth was 23.4 per 100 cycles (95% confidence interval [CI] 23.2–23.7). In multivariable models the odds of at least one live birth decreased with increasing maternal age, increasing duration of infertility, a greater number of previously unsuccessful IVF treatments, use of own oocytes, necessity for a second or third treatment cycle, or if it was not unexplained infertility. The association of own versus donor oocyte with reduced odds of live birth strengthened with increasing age of the mother. A previous IVF live birth increased the odds of future success (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.46–1.71) more than that of a previous spontaneous live birth (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.99–1.24); p-value for difference in estimate &#60;0.001. Use of ICSI increased the odds of live birth, and male causes of infertility were associated with reduced odds of live birth only in couples who had not received ICSI. Prediction of live birth was feasible with moderate discrimination and excellent calibration; calibration was markedly improved in the novel compared to the established model. Preterm birth and low birth weight were increased if oocyte donation was required and ICSI was not used. Risk of macrosomia increased with advancing maternal age and a history of previous live births. Infertility due to cervical problems was associated with increased odds of all three outcomes—preterm birth, low birth weight, and macrosomia. Conclusions Pending external validation, our results show that couple- and treatment-specific factors can be used to provide infertile couples with an accurate assessment of whether they have low or high risk of a successful outcome following IVF

External validation and calibration of IVFpredict:A national prospective cohort study of 130,960 in vitro fertilisation Cycles

© 2015 Smith et al. Background Accurately predicting the probability of a live birth after in vitro fertilisation (IVF) is important for patients, healthcare providers and policy makers. Two prediction models (Templeton and IVFpredict) have been previously developed from UK data and are widely used internationally. The more recent of these, IVFpredict, was shown to have greater predictive power in the development dataset. The aim of this study was external validation of the two models and comparison of their predictive ability. Methods and Findings 130,960 IVF cycles undertaken in the UK in 2008-2010 were used to validate and compare the Templeton and IVFpredict models. Discriminatory power was calculated using the area under the receiver-operator curve and calibration assessed using a calibration plot and Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic. The scaled modified Brier score, with measures of reliability and resolution, were calculated to assess overall accuracy. Both models were compared after updating for current live birth rates to ensure that the average observed and predicted live birth rates were equal. The discriminative power of both methods was comparable: the area under the receiver-operator curve was 0.628 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.625-0.631) for IVFpredict and 0.616 (95% CI: 0.613-0.620) for the Templeton model. IVFpredict had markedly better calibration and higher diagnostic accuracy, with calibration plot intercept of 0.040 (95% CI: 0.017-0.063) and slope of 0.932 (95% CI: 0.839 - 1.025) compared with 0.080 (95% CI: 0.044-0.117) and 1.419 (95% CI: 1.149-1.690) for the Templeton model. Both models underestimated the live birth rate, but this was particularly marked in the Templeton model. Updating the models to reflect improvements in live birth rates since the models were developed enhanced their performance, but IVFpredict remained superior. Conclusion External validation in a large population cohort confirms IVFpredict has superior discrimination and calibration for informing patients, clinicians and healthcare policy makers of the probability of live birth following IVF

Risk of cancer in children and young adults conceived by assisted reproductive technology

STUDY QUESTION: Do children conceived by ART have an increased risk of cancer? SUMMARY ANSWER: Overall, ART-conceived children do not appear to have an increased risk of cancer. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Despite the increasing use of ART, i.e. IVF or ICSI worldwide, information about possible long-term health risks for children conceived by these techniques is scarce. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A nationwide historical cohort study with prospective follow-up (median 21 years), including all live-born offspring from women treated with subfertility treatments between 1980 and 2001. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: All offspring of a nationwide cohort of subfertile women (OMEGA study) treated in one of the 12 Dutch IVF clinics or two fertility clinics. Of 47 690 live-born children, 24 269 were ART-conceived, 13 761 naturally conceived and 9660 were conceived naturally or through fertility drugs, but not by ART. Information on the conception method of each child and potential confounders were collected through the mothers’ questionnaires and medical records. Cancer incidence was ascertained through linkage with The Netherlands Cancer Registry from 1 January 1989 until 1 November 2016. Cancer risk in ART-conceived children was compared with risks in naturally conceived children from subfertile women (hazard ratios [HRs]) and with the general population (standardized incidence ratios [SIRs]). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The median follow-up was 21 years (interquartile range (IQR): 17–25) and was shorter in ART-conceived children (20 years, IQR: 17–23) compared with naturally conceived children (24 years, IQR: 20–30). In total, 231 cancers were observed. Overall cancer risk was not increased in ART-conceived children, neither compared with naturally conceived children from subfertile women (HR: 1.00, 95% CI 0.72–1.38) nor compared with the general population (SIR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.90–1.36). From 18 years of age onwards, the HR of cancer in ART-conceived versus naturally conceived individuals was 1.25 (95% CI: 0.73–2.13). Slightly but non-significantly increased risks were observed in children conceived by ICSI or cryopreservation (HR = 1.52, 95% CI: 0.81–2.85; 1.80, 95% CI: 0.65–4.95, respectively). Risks of lymphoblastic leukemia (HR = 2.44, 95% CI: 0.81–7.37) and melanoma (HR = 1.86, 95% CI: 0

Risk of borderline and invasive ovarian tumours after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization in a large Dutch cohort

BACKGROUND: Long-term effects of ovarian stimulation for IVF on the risk of ovarian malignancies are unknown. METHODS: We identified a nationwide historic cohort of 19 146 women who received IVF treatment in the Netherlands between 1983 and 1995, and a comparison group of 6006 subfertile women not treated with IVF. In 1997-1999, data on reproductive risk factors were obtained from 65% of women and data on subfertility (treatment) were obtained from the medical records. The incidence of ovarian malignancies (including borderline ovarian tumours) through 2007 was assessed through linkage with disease regi RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 14.7 years, the risk of borderline ovarian tumours was increased in the IVF group compared with the general population [standardized incidence ratio (SIR) = 1.76; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.16-2.56]. The overall SIR for invasive ovarian cancer was not significantly elevated, but increased with longer follow-up after first IVF (P = 0.02); the SIR was 3.54 (95% CI = 1.62-6.72) after 15 years. The risks of borderline ovarian tumours and of all ovarian mali CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian stimulation for IVF may increase the risk of ovarian malignancies, especially borderline ovarian tumours. More large cohort studies are needed to confirm these findings and to examine the effect of IVF treatment characteristics

Risk of cancer in children and young adults conceived by assisted reproductive technology

STUDY QUESTION: Do children conceived by ART have an increased risk of cancer? SUMMARY ANSWER: Overall, ART-conceived children do not appear to have an increased risk of cancer. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Despite the increasing use of ART, i.e. IVF or ICSI worldwide, information about possible long-term health risks for children conceived by these techniques is scarce. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A nationwide historical cohort study with prospective follow-up (median 21 years), including all live-born offspring from women treated with subfertility treatments between 1980 and 2001. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: All offspring of a nationwide cohort of subfertile women (OMEGA study) treated in one of the 12 Dutch IVF clinics or two fertility clinics. Of 47 690 live-born children, 24 269 were ART-conceived, 13 761 naturally conceived and 9660 were conceived naturally or through fertility drugs, but not by ART. Information on the conception method of each child and potential confounders were collected through the mothers’ questionnaires and medical records. Cancer incidence was ascertained through linkage with The Netherlands Cancer Registry from 1 January 1989 until 1 November 2016. Cancer risk in ART-conceived children was compared with risks in naturally conceived children from subfertile women (hazard ratios [HRs]) and with the general population (standardized incidence ratios [SIRs]). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The median follow-up was 21 years (interquartile range (IQR): 17–25) and was shorter in ART-conceived children (20 years, IQR: 17–23) compared with naturally conceived children (24 years, IQR: 20–30). In total, 231 cancers were observed. Overall cancer risk was not increased in ART-conceived children, neither compared with naturally conceived children from subfertile women (HR: 1.00, 95% CI 0.72–1.38) nor compared with the general population (SIR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.90–1.36). From 18 years of age onwards, the HR of cancer in ART-conceived versus naturally conceived individuals was 1.25 (95% CI: 0.73–2.13). Slightly but non-significantly increased risks were observed in children conceived by ICSI or cryopreservation (HR = 1.52, 95% CI: 0.81–2.85; 1.80, 95% CI: 0.65–4.95, respectively). Risks of lymphoblastic leukemia (HR = 2.44, 95% CI: 0.81–7.37) and melanoma (HR = 1.86, 95% CI: 0