Predicting the chance of live birth for women undergoing IVF: a novel pretreatment counselling tool.

STUDY QUESTION: Which pretreatment patient variables have an effect on live birth rates following assisted conception? SUMMARY ANSWER: The predictors in the final multivariate logistic regression model found to be significantly associated with reduced chances of IVF/ICSI success were increasing age (particularly above 36 years), tubal factor infertility, unexplained infertility and Asian or Black ethnicity. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The two most widely recognized prediction models for live birth following IVF were developed on data from 1991 to 2007; pre-dating significant changes in clinical practice. These existing IVF outcome prediction models do not incorporate key pretreatment predictors, such as BMI, ethnicity and ovarian reserve, which are readily available now. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: In this cohort study a model to predict live birth was derived using data collected from 9915 women who underwent IVF/ICSI treatment at any CARE (Centres for Assisted Reproduction) clinic from 2008 to 2012. Model validation was performed on data collected from 2723 women who underwent treatment in 2013. The primary outcome for the model was live birth, which was defined as any birth event in which at least one baby was born alive and survived for more than 1 month. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Data were collected from 12 fertility clinics within the CARE consortium in the UK. Multivariable logistic regression was used to develop the model. Discriminatory ability was assessed using the area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve, and calibration was assessed using calibration-in-the-large and the calibration slope test. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The predictors in the final model were female age, BMI, ethnicity, antral follicle count (AFC), previous live birth, previous miscarriage, cause and duration of infertility. Upon assessing predictive ability, the AUROC curve for the final model and validation cohort was (0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.63) and (0.62; 95% CI 0.60-0.64) respectively. Calibration-in-the-large showed a systematic over-estimation of the predicted probability of live birth (Intercept (95% CI) = -0.168 (-0.252 to -0.084), P < 0.001). However, the calibration slope test was not significant (slope (95% CI) = 1.129 (0.893-1.365), P = 0.28). Due to the calibration-in-the-large test being significant we recalibrated the final model. The recalibrated model showed a much-improved calibration. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our model is unable to account for factors such as smoking and alcohol that can affect IVF/ICSI outcome and is somewhat restricted to representing the ethnic distribution and outcomes for the UK population only. We were unable to account for socioeconomic status and it may be that by having 75% of the population paying privately for their treatment, the results cannot be generalized to people of all socioeconomic backgrounds. In addition, patients and clinicians should understand this model is designed for use before treatment begins and does not include variables that become available (oocyte, embryo and endometrial) as treatment progresses. Finally, this model is also limited to use prior to first cycle only. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to present a novel, up-to-date model encompassing three readily available prognostic factors; female BMI, ovarian reserve and ethnicity, which have not previously been used in prediction models for IVF outcome. Following geographical validation, the model can be used to build a user-friendly interface to aid decision-making for couples and their clinicians. Thereafter, a feasibility study of its implementation could focus on patient acceptability and quality of decision-making. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST: None.

Comparison of Solomon technique with selective laser ablation for twin-twin transfusion syndrome: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the Solomon and selective techniques for fetoscopic laser ablation (FLA) for the treatment of twin-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS) in monochorionic-diamniotic twin pregnancies. METHODS: This was a systematic review conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Electronic searches were performed for relevant citations published from inception to September 2014. Selected studies included pregnancies undergoing FLA for TTTS that reported on recurrence of TTTS, occurrence of twin anemia-polycythemia sequence (TAPS) or survival. RESULTS: From 270 possible citations, three studies were included, two cohort studies and one randomized controlled trial (RCT), which directly compared the Solomon and selective techniques for FLA. The odds ratios (OR) of recurrent TTTS when using the Solomon vs the selective technique in the two cohort studies (n = 249) were 0.30 (95% CI, 0.00-4.46) and 0.45 (95% CI, 0.07-2.20). The RCT (n = 274) demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in risk of recurrent TTTS with the Solomon technique (OR, 0.21 (95% CI, 0.04-0.98); P = 0.03). The ORs for the development of TAPS following the Solomon and the selective techniques were 0.20 (95% CI, 0.00-2.46) and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.05-5.53) in the cohort studies and 0.16 (95% CI, 0.05-0.49) in the RCT, with statistically significant differences for the RCT only (P < 0.001). Observational evidence suggested overall better survival with the Solomon technique, which was statistically significant for survival of at least one twin. The RCT did not demonstrate a significant difference in survival between the two techniques, most probably owing to the small sample size and lack of power. CONCLUSION: This systematic review of observational, comparative cohort and RCT data suggests a trend towards a reduction in TAPS and recurrent TTTS and an increase in twin survival, with no increase in the occurrence of complications or adverse events, when using the Solomon compared to the selective technique for the treatment of TTTS. These findings need to be confirmed by an appropriately-powered RCT with long-term neurological follow-up.

Additional information from chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) over conventional karyotyping when diagnosing chromosomal abnormalities in miscarriage: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 50% of spontaneous miscarriages are associated with chromosome abnormalities. Identification of these karyotypic abnormalities helps to estimate recurrence risks in future pregnancies. Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) is transforming clinical cytogenetic practice with its ability to examine the human genome at increasingly high resolution. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether CMA testing on the products of conception following miscarriage provides better diagnostic information compared with conventional karyotyping. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE (from 1996 to December 2012), EMBASE (from 1974 to December 2012), and CINAHL (from 1996 to December 2012) databases were searched electronically. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were selected if CMA was used on products of conception following miscarriage, alongside conventional karyotyping. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Nine papers were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. All statistical analyses were performed using stata 11.0 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA). MAIN RESULTS: There was agreement between CMA and karyotyping in 86.0% of cases (95% CI 77.0-96.0%). CMA detected 13% (95% CI 8.0-21.0) additional chromosome abnormalities over conventional full karyotyping. In addition, traditional, full karyotyping detected 3% (95% CI 1.0-10.0%) additional abnormalities over CMA. The incidence of a variant of unknown significance (VOUS) being detected was 2% (95% CI 1.0-10.0%). AUTHOR'S CONCLUSIONS: Compared with karyotyping, there appears to be an increased detection rate of chromosomal abnormalities when CMA is used to analyse the products of conception; however, some of these abnormalities are VOUS, and this information should be provided when counselling women following miscarriage and when taking consent for the analysis of miscarriage products by CMA.