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

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

PATHOPHYSIOLOGY OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS:THE ROLE OF NUCLEOSOMES

Lupus nephritis is regarded as an immune complex mediated disease. Since anti-DNA antibodies are present in the circulation and in diseased glomeruli of patients with lupus nephritis, these antibodies have been assigned a pivotal role in the initiation of lupus nephritis. It remains however unclear how these antibodies become localized in the glomerulus. Contrary td the classical concept of glomerular deposition of DNA/anti-DNA complexes, it has been suggested that anti-DNA antibodies can interact with intrinsic glomerular antigens. Some anti-DNA antibodies can cross-react with heparan sulphate (HS), which is such an intrinsic constituent of the glomerular basement membrane (GBM). Serum HS reactivity coincides with the occurrence of lupus nephritis. It was found that this HS reactivity was exhibited by anti-DNA antibodies complexed to nucleosomes and not by the antibody itself. Nucleosomes are DNA/histone complexes, present in the nucleus, which are released by dying cells. The histone part of the nucleosome is responsible for the binding to the GBM. Recently, it has become clear that also anti-nucleosome antibodies can bind to HS in the GBM via nucleosomes. These nucleosome-containing immune complexes exhibit anti-DNA reactivity in ELISA and Farr assay. It is now thought that nucleosomes released by dying cells bind to anti-DNA or anti-nucleosome antibodies in the circulation, giving rise to nephritogenic immune complexes. Alternatively, nucleosomes may bind to the GBM and serve then as planted antigen for subsequent binding of antibodies via an in situ mechanism. Binding of antibodies via both mechanisms leads to complement activation and damage of the GBM. The recent finding of histones and DNA in glomerular depositions in lupus nephritis is in line with this hypothesis

Heparan sulfate staining of the glomerular basement membrane in relation to circulating anti-RNA and anti-heparan sulfate reactivity:A longitudinal study in NZB/W F1 mice

Reactivity of serum antibodies with heparan sulfate (HS) has been associated with human and murine lupus nephritis, although the aetiological significance of this association is not clear. Recent work from our laboratories showed that binding of these antibodies to HS could be mediated by histone containing immune complexes. In human lupus nephritis we found a strong decrease in HS staining in the glomerular basement membrane (GBM). The aim of this study was to elucidate the correlation in experimental systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) between albuminuria, staining of HS in the GEM and anti-DNA and anti-HS reactivity in plasma. We therefore studied NZB/W F1 mice during different stages of glomerular disease and compared them with age matched control NZB/W F1 mice without albuminuria. Anti-DNA and anti-HS reactivity were measured in longitudinally collected plasma samples and correlated with the onset of albuminuria, staining of HS in the glomerular basement HS staining was of mice with prolonged proteinuria in comparison with age matched control mice (P=0.0013). This decreased HS staining was correlated with increased Ig deposition in the capillary loops (tau=-0.42,