Protocol for developing a core outcome set for male infertility research:an international consensus development study

Abstract STUDY QUESTION We aim to develop, disseminate and implement a minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, for future male infertility research. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Research into male infertility can be challenging to design, conduct and report. Evidence from randomized trials can be difficult to interpret and of limited ability to inform clinical practice for numerous reasons. These may include complex issues, such as variation in outcome measures and outcome reporting bias, as well as failure to consider the perspectives of men and their partners with lived experience of fertility problems. Previously, the Core Outcome Measure for Infertility Trials (COMMIT) initiative, an international consortium of researchers, healthcare professionals and people with fertility problems, has developed a core outcome set for general infertility research. Now, a bespoke core outcome set for male infertility is required to address the unique challenges pertinent to male infertility research. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals, scientists, researchers and people with fertility problems, will be invited to participate. Formal consensus science methods will be used, including the modified Delphi method, modified Nominal Group Technique and the National Institutes of Health’s consensus development conference. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS An international steering group, including the relevant stakeholders outlined above, has been established to guide the development of this core outcome set. Possible core outcomes will be identified by undertaking a systematic review of randomized controlled trials evaluating potential treatments for male factor infertility. These outcomes will be entered into a modified Delphi method. Repeated reflection and re-scoring should promote convergence towards consensus outcomes, which will be prioritized during a consensus development meeting to identify a final core outcome set. We will establish standardized definitions and recommend high-quality measurement instruments for individual core outcomes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This work has been supported by the Urology Foundation small project award, 2021. C.L.R.B. is the recipient of a BMGF grant and received consultancy fees from Exscentia and Exceed sperm testing, paid to the University of Dundee and speaking fees or honoraria paid personally by Ferring, Copper Surgical and RBMO. S.B. received royalties from Cambridge University Press, Speaker honoraria for Obstetrical and Gynaecological Society of Singapore, Merk SMART Masterclass and Merk FERRING Forum, paid to the University of Aberdeen. Payment for leadership roles within NHS Grampian, previously paid to self, now paid to University of Aberdeen. An Honorarium is received as Editor in Chief of Human Reproduction Open. M.L.E. is an advisor to the companies Hannah and Ro. B.W.M. received an investigator grant from the NHMRC, No: GNT1176437 is a paid consultant for ObsEva and has received research funding from Ferring and Merck. R.R.H. received royalties from Elsevier for a book, consultancy fees from Glyciome, and presentation fees from GryNumber Health and Aytu Bioscience. Aytu Bioscience also funded MiOXYS systems and sensors. Attendance at Fertility 2020 and Roadshow South Africa by Ralf Henkel was funded by LogixX Pharma Ltd. R.R.H. is also Editor in Chief of Andrologia and has been an employee of LogixX Pharma Ltd. since 2020. M.S.K. is an associate editor with Human Reproduction Open. K.Mc.E. received an honoraria for lectures from Bayer and Pharmasure in 2019 and payment for an ESHRE grant review in 2019. His attendance at ESHRE 2019 and AUA 2019 was sponsored by Pharmasure and Bayer, respectively. The remaining authors declare no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative registration No: 1586. Available at www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1586. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE N/A. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT N/A

Top-quality embryo transfer is associated with lower odds of ectopic pregnancy

Abstract Introduction: The incidence of ectopic pregnancy is up to four times higher after in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) than in spontaneous pregnancies, and the risk of ectopic pregnancy is increased by tubal factor infertility and the transfer of multiple embryos. However, the effect of embryo quality on the probability of ectopic pregnancy has not been investigated until now and it is not clear whether ovarian stimulation parameters affect the incidence of ectopic pregnancy. Material and Methods: An historical cohort study of 15 006 clinical pregnancies (diagnosed by ultrasound at 6–8 gestational weeks) after non-donor IVF/ICSI with fresh embryo transfer (n = 8952) or frozen–thawed embryo transfer (n = 6054). Treatments were performed during 2000–2017 in Finland. A total of 9207 (61.4%) single and 5799 (38.6%) double embryo transfers of no more than one top-quality embryo were evaluated. We analyzed the effects of multiple factors on ectopic pregnancy by logistic regression, including type of cycle (fresh vs frozen embryo transfer), female age, number and quality of embryos transferred, tubal factor infertility and factors of ovarian response to gonadotropin stimulation. Results: Ectopic pregnancy was observed in 2.3% of cycles. There was no significant difference in ectopic pregnancy rate after fresh embryo transfer and frozen embryo transfer (2.2% vs 2.4%, p = 0.3). The ectopic pregnancy rate was lower in cycles with top-quality embryo transfer (1.9%) than of those where only non-top quality embryos were transferred (2.7%, p < 0.0001). Tubal factor infertility was diagnosed more often in ectopic pregnancy than in intrauterine pregnancies (21.2% vs 11.0%, p < 0.0001). Logistic regression revealed lower odds for ectopic pregnancy after a top-quality embryo transfer than after transfer of a non-top quality embryo (odds ratio [OR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56–0.92, p = 0.007). Transfer of two vs one embryo (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.05–1.70, p = 0.02) and tubal factor infertility (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.68–2.91, p < 0.0001) significantly increased the risk of ectopic pregnancy. Conclusions: Transfer of non-top quality embryos is associated with a higher rate of ectopic pregnancy. This is particularly important to keep in mind in treatments with only non-top embryos available even in the absence of tubal factor infertility. To minimize the risk of ectopic pregnancy, the number of embryos transferred should be as low as possible