Clinical outcomes of uninterrupted embryo culture with or without time-lapse-based embryo selection versus interrupted standard culture (SelecTIMO): a three-armed, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Time-lapse monitoring is increasingly used in fertility laboratories to culture and select embryos for transfer. This method is offered to couples with the promise of improving pregnancy chances, even though there is currently insufficient evidence for superior clinical results. We aimed to evaluate whether a potential improvement by time-lapse monitoring is caused by the time-lapse-based embryo selection method itself or the uninterrupted culture environment that is part of the system. METHODS: In this three-armed, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, couples undergoing in-vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection were recruited from 15 fertility clinics in the Netherlands and randomly assigned using a web-based, computerised randomisation service to one of three groups. Couples and physicians were masked to treatment group, but embryologists and laboratory technicians could not be. The time-lapse early embryo viability assessment (EEVA; TLE) group received embryo selection based on the EEVA time-lapse selection method and uninterrupted culture. The time-lapse routine (TLR) group received routine embryo selection and uninterrupted culture. The control group received routine embryo selection and interrupted culture. The co-primary endpoints were the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate within 12 months in all women and the ongoing pregnancy rate after fresh single embryo transfer in a good prognosis population. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered on the ICTRP Search Portal, NTR5423, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: 1731 couples were randomly assigned between June 15, 2017, and March 31, 2020 (577 to the TLE group, 579 to the TLR group, and 575 to the control group). The 12-month cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate did not differ significantly between the three groups: 50·8% (293 of 577) in the TLE group, 50·9% (295 of 579) in the TLR group, and 49·4% (284 of 575) in the control group (p=0·85). The ongoing pregnancy rates after fresh single embryo transfer in a good prognosis population were 38·2% (125 of 327) in the TLE group, 36·8% (119 of 323) in the TLR group, and 37·8% (123 of 325) in the control group (p=0·90). Ten serious adverse events were reported (five TLE, four TLR, and one in the control group), which were not related to study procedures. INTERPRETATION: Neither time-lapse-based embryo selection using the EEVA test nor uninterrupted culture conditions in a time-lapse incubator improved clinical outcomes compared with routine methods. Widespread application of time-lapse monitoring for fertility treatments with the promise of improved results should be questioned. FUNDING: Health Care Efficiency Research programme from Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development and Merck.

A short versus a long time interval between semen collection and intrauterine insemination: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does a short interval (i.e. ≤90 min), compared to a long interval (i.e. ≥180 min), between semen collection and intrauterine insemination (IUI) increase the cumulative chance of an ongoing pregnancy after six IUI cycles? SUMMARY ANSWER: A long interval between semen collection and IUI resulted in a borderline significant improvement in cumulative ongoing pregnancies and a statistically significant shorter time to pregnancy. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Retrospective studies assessing the effect of the time interval between semen collection and IUI on pregnancy outcomes have shown inconclusive results. Some studies have indicated a beneficial effect of a short interval between semen collection and IUI on IUI outcomes, while others have not found any differences. To date, no prospective trials have been published on this subject. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The study was performed as a non-blinded, single-center RCT with 297 couples undergoing IUI treatment in a natural or stimulated cycle. The study was conducted between February 2012 and December 2018. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and an indication for IUI were randomly assigned for up to six IUI cycles into either the control group (long interval, i.e. 180 min or more between semen collection and insemination) or the study group (short interval, i.e. insemination as soon as possible after semen processing and within 90 min of semen collection). The study was carried out in an academic hospital-based IVF center in the Netherlands. The primary endpoint of the study was ongoing pregnancy rate per couple, defined as a viable intrauterine pregnancy at 10 weeks after insemination. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In the short interval group, 142 couples were analyzed versus 138 couples in the long interval group. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the long interval group (71/138; 51.4%) compared to that in the short interval group (56/142; 39.4%; relative risks 0.77; 95% CI 0.59-0.99; P = 0.044). The time to pregnancy was significantly shorter in the long interval group (log-rank test, P = 0.012). A Cox regression analysis showed similar results (adjusted hazard ratio 1.528, 95% CI 1.074-2.174, P = 0.019). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Limitations of our study are the non-blinded design, the long inclusion and follow-up period of nearly seven years and the large number of protocol violations, especially because they predominantly occurred in the short interval group. The non-significant results in the per-protocol (PP) analyses and the weaknesses of the study should be taken into account in the assessment of the borderline significance of the results in the ITT analyses. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Because it is not necessary to perform the IUI immediately after semen processing, there can be more time available to choose the optimum work-flow and clinic occupancy. Clinics and laboratories should find their optimal timing of insemination, considering the time between human chorionic gonadotropin injection and insemination in relation to the sperm preparation techniques used as well as the storage time and conditions until insemination. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): There were no external funding and no competing interests to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch trial registry, trial registration number NTR3144. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 14 November 2011. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLLMENT: 5 February 2012.

Immobilization or mobilization after IUI: an RCT.

STUDY QUESTION: Does 15 min of immobilization after IUI improve pregnancy rates? SUMMARY ANSWER: Immobilization for 15 min after IUI does not improve pregnancy rates. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Prior RCTs report a beneficial effect of supine immobilization for 15 min following IUI compared to immediate mobilization, however, these studies can be criticized. Given the importance for the logistics in daily practice and the lack of biological plausibility we planned a replication study prior to potential implementation of this procedure. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A single centre RCT, based in an academic setting in the Netherlands, was performed. Participants were randomly assigned for 15 min of supine immobilization following IUI for a maximum of six cycles compared to the standard procedure of immediate mobilization following IUI. Participants and caregivers were not blinded to group assignment. An independent researcher used computer-generated tables to allocate treatments. Stratification occurred to the indication of IUI (unexplained or mild male subfertility). Revelation of allocation took place just before the insemination by the caregiver. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy rate per couple. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: A total of 498 couples diagnosed with unexplained or mild male subfertility and an indication for treatment with IUI were approached and randomized in the study, of which 244 participants were assigned to 15 min of supine immobilization and 254 participants to immediate mobilization. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Participant characteristics were comparable between the groups, and 236 participants were analysed in the immobilization group, versus 245 in the mobilization group. The ongoing pregnancy rate per couple was not found to be superior in the immobilization group (one-sided P-value = 0.97) with 76/236 ongoing pregnancies (32.2%) being accomplished in the immobilization and 98/245 ongoing pregnancies (40.0%) in the immediate mobilization group (relative risk 0.81; 95% CI [0.63, 1.02], risk difference: -7.8%, 95% CI [-16.4%, 0.8%]). No difference was found in miscarriage rate, multiple gestation rate, live birth rate and time to pregnancy between the groups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Owing to discontinuation of the planned treatment not all participants reached six IUI cycles or an ongoing pregnancy. However, this is as expected in IUI treatment and mirrors clinical practice. These participants were equally distributed across the two groups. Women with tubal pathology and endocrine disorders were excluded for this trial, and this might narrow generalizability. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study shows no positive effect of 15 min of immobilization following IUI on pregnancy rates. Based on available evidence today, including our study, a possible beneficial effect of supine immobilization after IUI is at least doubtful and straightforward implementation does not seem to be justified. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No funding was received. All authors have nothing to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register NTR 2418. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 20 July 2010. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT's ENROLMENT: 11 August 2010.

No evidence that embryo selection by near-infrared spectroscopy in addition to morphology is able to improve live birth rates: results from an individual patient data meta-analysis.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the value of embryo selection by metabolomic profiling of culture medium with near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy as an adjunct to morphology, compared with embryo selection by morphology alone, based on an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPD MA)? SUMMARY ANSWER: The IPD MA indicates that the live birth rate after embryo selection by NIR spectroscopy and morphology is not significantly different compared with the live birth rate after embryo selection by morphology alone. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Retrospective proof of principle studies has consistently shown that high NIR viability scores are correlated with a high implantation potential of embryos. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have generally shown no benefit of the NIR technology over embryo morphology, although there have been some conflicting results between pregnancy outcomes on different days of embryo transfer. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This IPD MA included all existing RCTs (n = 4) in which embryo selection by morphology was compared with embryo selection by morphology and the use of NIR spectroscopy of spent embryo culture medium by the Viametrics-E(™). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Searches of PubMed, the Cochrane Library and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry were conducted and the sole manufacturer of the Viametrics-E(™) was consulted to identify clinics where an RCT comparing embryo selection by morphology to embryo selection by morphology and the use of the Viametrics-E(™) (NIR viability score) was performed. A total of 20 citations were potentially eligible for inclusion, two of which met the inclusion criteria. The manufacturer of the Viametrics-E(™) provided two additional clinical sites of use. In total, four RCTs were identified as eligible for inclusion. The IPD MA was based on a fixed effect model due to the lack of heterogeneity between included studies. Differences between study groups were tested and reported using logistic regression models adjusted for significant confounders. The pooled analysis of the primary outcome led to a total sample size of 924 patients: 484 patients in the control group (embryo selection by morphology alone) and 440 patients in the treatment group (embryo selection by morphology plus NIR spectroscopy). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The live birth rates in the control group and the NIR group were 34.7% (168 of 484) and 33.2% (146 of 440), respectively. The pooled odds ratio (OR) was 0.98 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-1.29], indicating no difference in live birth rates between the two study groups. The data of the four studies showed no significant heterogeneity (I(2) = 26.2% P = 0.26). The multivariate regression analysis including all confounders show that maternal age (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.87-0.94) and the number of previous IVF cycles (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71-0.96) were significantly related to live birth. The study group (i.e. embryo selection by morphology or embryo selection by morphology plus NIR) was not related to live birth (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.73-1.29). LIMITATIONS AND REASONS FOR CAUTION: The availability of at least two similar best quality embryos as an inclusion criterion prior to transfer in the two largest RCTs might have caused a selection bias towards a better prognosis patient group. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: There is at present no evidence that NIR spectroscopy of spent embryo culture media in its current form can be used in daily practice to improve live birth rates.

Standardization of catheter load speed during embryo transfer: comparison of manual and pump-regulated embryo transfer.

The position of transfer air bubbles after embryo transfer is related to the pregnancy rate. With the conventional manual embryo-transfer technique it is not possible to predict the final position of the air bubbles. This position mainly depends on the catheter load speed at transfer (injection speed), a parameter that remains uncontrollable with the conventional technique even after standardization of the protocol. Therefore, the development of an automated device that generates a standardized injection speed is desirable. This study aimed to examine the variation in injection speeds in manual embryo transfer and pump-regulated embryo transfer (PRET). Seven laboratory technicians were asked to perform simulated transfers using the conventional embryo-transfer technique. Their injection speeds were compared with that of a PRET device. The results indicate that in manually performed transfers, even after standardization of the protocol, there is still a large variation in injection speed, while a PRET device generates a reliable and reproducible injection speed and therefore brings new possibilities for further standardization of the embryo-transfer procedure. Future research should reveal whether these experiments mimic real clinical circumstances and if a standardized injection speed results in more exact positioning of the transferred embryos and therefore higher pregnancy rates.

Metabolomic profiling by near-infrared spectroscopy as a tool to assess embryo viability: a novel, non-invasive method for embryo selection.

BACKGROUND: The morphology of an embryo has a limited predictive value for assessing viability and ongoing pregnancy, therefore new selection tools are needed to maintain success rates with single-embryo transfer (SET). In this study, we investigated if metabolomic profiling of biomarkers of embryo culture medium by near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy has a correlation with ongoing pregnancy in SET. METHODS: A total of 333 patients scheduled for in vitro fertilization (IVF) with SET were included in the study. Embryos were selected for transfer by morphological criteria on Days 2 and 3 of in vitro culture, and left over culture media samples were analyzed by NIR spectroscopy. RESULTS: The NIR spectral analysis produced unique metabolomic profiles that correlated to an embryo's reproductive potential. Resulting relative viability scores between positive and negative pregnancy outcomes were statistically significant (P < 0.03). A logistic regression of factors correlated to pregnancy outcomes showed that maternal age, percent fragmentation and relative viability scores all demonstrated a relationship. The extent of the correlation was determined by accuracy computation, where the accuracy of assessing viable embryos on Day 3 by metabolomic profiling was 53.6% and the accuracy of the morphological selection was 38.5%. In addition, the positive predictive value of metabolomic profiling was 0.365 and the negative predictive value was 0.830. CONCLUSIONS: NIR metabolomic profiling of spent embryo culture media was able to distinguish viable embryos from non-viable embryos for reproduction.

The addition of a low-quality embryo as part of a fresh day 3 double embryo transfer does not improve ongoing pregnancy rates.

STUDY QUESTION: Does the addition of a low-quality embryo in fresh Day 3 double embryo transfer (DET) affect the ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) and multiple gestation rate in patients with only one or no high-quality embryos available? SUMMARY ANSWER: In patients with only one- or no high-quality embryo available, the addition of a low-quality embryo in fresh Day 3 DET does not improve the OPR but increases multiple gestation rates in fresh DET. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Pregnancy rates after DET are considered to be higher compared to single embryo transfer (SET) when analyzed per first embryo transfer only. However, these conclusions are based on RCTs in which mostly patients with two or more high-quality embryos were included, and can therefore not be applied to patients with only one or no high-quality embryo available. This is particularly relevant since it has been suggested that low-quality embryos could impair the implantation of simultaneously transferred embryos by paracrine signaling. Hence, we investigated in patients with only one or no high-quality embryo available whether the addition of a low-quality embryo in DET affects the OPR, multiple gestation rate and miscarriage rate. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This was a retrospective cohort study of 5050 patients receiving 7252 fresh embryo transfers on Day 3 after fertilization in IVF/ICSI cycles from 2012 to 2015 in two academic hospitals. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: We included all women that received fresh SET or DET with any combination of high-quality embryos (7, 8 or 9 blastomeres, with equal to or <20% fragmentation) or low-quality embryos (all other embryos). Outcomes were OPR (primary outcome, defined as a positive fetal heartbeat by transvaginal ultrasound at least 10 weeks after oocyte retrieval), miscarriage rate and multiple gestation rate. We used a generalized estimating equations model adjusting for maternal age, number of oocytes retrieved, center of treatment and the interaction between maternal age and number of oocytes retrieved. Other baseline characteristics, including infertility diagnosis, fertilization method and the number of consecutive fresh embryo transfers per patient, did not contribute significantly to the GEE model and were therefore excluded, and not adjusted for. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Compared to SET with one high-quality embryo, DET with two high-quality embryos resulted in a higher OPR (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.38, 95% CI 1.14-1.67), while DET with one high- and one low-quality embryo resulted in a lower OPR (adjusted OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49-0.90). However, SET in patients with only one high-quality embryo available resulted in a lower OPR compared to SET in patients with two or more high-quality embryos available (adjusted OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.39-0.70). After adjusting for this confounding factor, we found that both DET with two high-quality embryos (adjusted OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74-1.31) and DET with one high- and one low-quality embryo (adjusted OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47-1.27) resulted in a not significantly different OPR compared to SET with one high-quality embryo. If only low-quality embryos were available, DET did not increase the OPR as compared to SET with one low-quality embryo (adjusted OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.55-1.28). Multiple gestation rates were higher in all DET groups compared to SET (DET with ≥1 high-quality embryo(s) compared to SET with one high-quality embryo; DET with two low-quality embryos compared to SET with one low-quality embryo; all comparisons P < 0.001). Miscarriage rates were not different in all DET groups compared to SET (DET with ≥1 high-quality embryo(s) compared to SET with one high-quality embryo; DET with two low-quality embryos compared to SET with one low-quality embryo; all comparisons P > 0.05). LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Limitations to this study include the retrospective design and possible bias between study groups related to embryo transfer policies between 2012 and 2015. Consequently, we may have underestimated pregnancy chances in all DET groups. Furthermore, the OPR was calculated as a percentage of the number of fresh embryo transfers in each study group, and not the total number of started IVF/ICSI cycles. Therefore, the reported pregnancy outcomes may not truly reflect the pregnancy chances of couples at the start of treatment. A possible confounding effect of maternal age in our study is acknowledged but we could not compare clinical outcomes in different age groups separately owing to small sample sizes. Analysis of pregnancy outcomes in lower prognosis patients (higher maternal age, fewer oocytes retrieved) separately is an avenue for future research. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The decision to perform DET rather than SET in order to increase the OPR per fresh embryo transfer seems not to be justified for those patients with only one or no high-quality embryo(s) available. However, owing to the limitations of this study, prospective RCTs are needed that specifically investigate pregnancy outcomes in patients with only one or no high-quality embryo(s) available in SET and DET. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was funded by a grant from the joint Amsterdam Reproduction & Development Institute of the Academic Medical Center and VU University Medical Center (www.amsterdam-reproduction-and-development.org). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.