Comparison of a 'freeze-all' strategy including GnRH agonist trigger versus a 'fresh transfer' strategy including hCG trigger in assisted reproductive technology (ART):a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Introduction Pregnancy rates after frozen embryo transfer (FET) have improved in recent years and are now approaching or even exceeding those obtained after fresh embryo transfer. This is partly due to improved laboratory techniques, but may also be caused by a more physiological hormonal and endometrial environment in FET cycles. Furthermore, the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is practically eliminated in segmentation cycles followed by FET and the use of natural cycles in FETs may be beneficial for the postimplantational conditions of fetal development. However, a freeze-all strategy is not yet implemented as standard care due to limitations of large randomised trials showing a benefit of such a strategy. Thus, there is a need to test the concept against standard care in a randomised controlled design. This study aims to compare ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates between a freeze-all strategy with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist triggering versus human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) trigger and fresh embryo transfer in a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Methods and analysis Multicentre randomised, controlled, double-blinded trial of women undergoing assisted reproductive technology treatment including 424 normo-ovulatory women aged 18-39 years from Denmark and Sweden. Participants will be randomised (1:1) to either (1) GnRH agonist trigger and single vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer in a subsequent hCG triggered natural menstrual cycle or (2) hCG trigger and single blastocyst transfer in the fresh (stimulated) cycle. The primary endpoint is to compare ongoing pregnancy rates per randomised patient in the two treatment groups after the first single blastocyst transfer. Ethics and dissemination The study will be performed in accordance with the ethical principles in the Helsinki Declaration. The study is approved by the Scientific Ethical Committees in Denmark and Sweden. The results of the study will be publically disseminated. Trial registration number NCT02746562; Pre-results

Is paternal age associated with transfer day, developmental stage, morphology, and initial hCG-rise of the competent blastocyst leading to live birth?:A multicenter cohort study

In this study we investigated whether age of men undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment was associated with day of transfer, stage, morphology, and initial hCG-rise of the competent blastocyst leading to a live birth? The design was a multicenter historical cohort study based on exposure (age) and outcome data (blastocyst stage and morphology and initial hCG-rise) from men whose partner underwent single blastocyst transfer resulting in singleton pregnancy/birth. The ART treatments were carried out at sixteen private and university-based public fertility clinics. We included 7246 men and women, who between 2014 and 2018 underwent controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) or Frozen-thawed Embryo Transfer (FET) with a single blastocyst transfer resulting in singleton pregnancy were identified. 4842 men with a partner giving birth were included, by linking data to the Danish Medical Birth Registry. We showed that the adjusted association between paternal age and transfer day in COS treatments was OR 1.06, 95% CI (1.00;1.13). Meaning that for every increase of one year, men had a 6% increased probability that the competent blastocyst was transferred on day 6 compared to day 5. Further we showed that the mean difference in hCG values when comparing paternal age group 30–34, 35–39 and 40–45 with the age group 25–29 in those receiving COS treatment, all showed significantly lower adjusted values for older men. In conclusion we hypothesize that the later transfer (day 6) in female partners of older men may be due to longer time spent by the oocyte to repair fragmented DNA of the sperm cells, which should be a focus of future research in men

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in patients without severe male factor infertility:Study protocol for the randomised, controlled, multicentre trial INVICSI

Introduction Over the last decades, the use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has increased, even among patients without male factor infertility. The increase has happened even though there is no evidence to support that ICSI results in higher live birth rates compared with conventional in vitro fertilisation (IVF) in cases with nonmale factor infertility. The lack of robust evidence on an advantage of using ICSI over conventional IVF in these patients is problematic since ICSI is more invasive, complex and requires additional resources, time and effort. Therefore, the primary objective of the IVF versus ICSI (INVICSI) study is to determine whether ICSI is superior to standard IVF in patients without severe male factor infertility. The primary outcome measure is first live birth from fresh and frozen-thawed transfers after one stimulated cycle. Secondary outcomes include fertilisation rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, birth weight and congenital anomalies.Methods and analysis This is a two-armed, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. In total, 824 couples/women with infertility without severe male factor will be recruited and allocated randomly into two groups (IVF or ICSI) in a 1:1 ratio. Participants will be randomised in variable block sizes and stratified by trial site and age. The main inclusion criteria are (1) no prior IVF/ICSI treatment, (2) male partner sperm with an expected count of minimum 2 million progressive motile spermatozoa following density gradient purification on the day of oocyte pick up and (3) age of the woman between 18 and 42 years.Ethics and dissemination The study will be performed in accordance with the ethical principles in the Helsinki Declaration. The study is approved by the Scientific Ethical Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark. Study findings will be presented, irrespectively of results at international conferences and submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration number NCT04128904. Pre-results