Assessment of immune cells in the uterine fluid at the time of the embryo transfer.

PROBLEM: Although endometrial receptivity is a key factor in influencing implantation in both naturally conceived and assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles, very little is known about the endometrium milieu around the time of implantation. Previous studies have demonstrated the presence of several cytokines in the endometrium that affect implantation. However, there is lacking data about the presence of immune cell subtypes within the endometrium and in the uterine cavity at the time of implantation. METHOD OF STUDY: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (# 225589). The study was designed as a prospective observational cohort study between May 2021 and December 2022 at a single academic-based fertility center. All patients underwent at least one In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) cycle and have frozen embryos. Twenty-four participants were recruited for this study which was conducted during the frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycle regardless of the outcome of previous cycles. Two samples were acquired from each subject, denoted as lower and upper. A trial transfer catheter was introduced under ultrasound guidance into the lower uterine segment. Upon removal, the tip was rinsed in IMDM medium containing 10% FBS (lower uterus). A transfer catheter was then loaded with the embryo that was placed in the upper uterus under ultrasound guidance. The tip of the transfer catheter was rinsed in separate aliquot of the above media (upper uterus). After centrifugation, pelleted cells were stained for the following surface markers: CD45, CD3, CD19, CD4, CD8, gamma delta TCR, CD25, CD127, CD66b, CD14, CD16, CD56 and acquired on Sony SP6800 Spectral Analyzer. RESULTS: Upon staining the pelleted cells, we were able to identify viable leukocytes from samples obtained from both, upper and lower uterus (0.125 × 106 cells ± SD 0.32), (0.123 × 106 cells ± SD 0.12), respectively. Among total viable cells, there was no significant difference in both percent and number of CD45+ cells between the upper and lower uterus (9.88% ± 6.98 SD, 13.67% ± 9.79 SD, p = .198) respectively. However, there was significantly higher expression of CD3+ (p = .006), CD19+ (p = .032) and CD14+ (p = .019) cells in samples collected from upper compared to lower uterus. Within all CD3+ cells, we found that gamma delta T cells (GDT) were the major population of T cells in both upper and lower uterus. In contrast, CD8+ T cells were significantly higher in the lower uterus when compared to the upper uterus (p = .009). There was no statistically significant difference in the expression of CD4+ T cells, T regulatory cells (CD4+CD25+CD127-), NK cells (CD56+), neutrophils (CD66b+) and FcγRIII+ cells (CD16+) between upper and lower uterus. CONCLUSIONS: We believe the immune milieu at the time of embryo transfer will affect implantation. Understanding the composition of immune cells will guide further research in identifying optimal immune milieus that favor implantation. Comprehensive analysis of endometrium is expected to lead to new diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to improve IVF outcomes.

Mosaic embryo transfer versus additional IVF with PGT-A Cycle: a decision model comparing live birth rate and cost.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the relative live birth rate and net cost difference between mosaic embryo transfer and an additional cycle of IVF with PGT-A for patients whose only remaining embryos are non-euploid. METHODS: A decision analytic model was designed with model parameters varying based on discrete age cutoffs (<35, 35-37, 38-39, 40-42, 43-44, >44). Model inputs included probabilities of successful IVF, clinical pregnancy, and live birth as well as costs of IVF with PGT-A, embryo transfer, live birth, amniocentesis, and dilation and curettage. All costs were modeled from the healthcare system perspective and adjusted for inflation to 2023 $USD. Model outcomes were sub-stratified by degree and type of mosaicism. RESULTS: For patients younger than 43, an additional cycle of IVF with PGT-A resulted in a higher relative live birth rate (<35, +20%; 35-37, +15%; 38-39, +17%; 40-42, +6%; average, +14.5%) compared to mosaic embryo transfer with an average additional cost of $16,633. For patients older than 42, mosaic embryo transfer resulted in a higher live birth rate (43-44, +5%; >44, +3%; average, +4%) while on average costing $9572 less than an additional cycle of IVF with PGT-A. CONCLUSION: Mosaic embryo transfers are a superior alternative to an additional cycle of IVF with PGT-A for patients older than 42 whose only remaining embryos are non-euploid. Mosaic embryo transfers also should be considered for patients younger than 42 who are unable to pursue additional autologous IVF cycles. Counseling and care should be personalized to individual patients and embryos.

AI-Based Optimal Treatment Strategy Selection for Female Infertility for First and Subsequent IVF-ET Cycles.

Over the last 20 years, China's infertility rate has risen from 3% to 12.5%-15%. Infertility has become the third largest disease following cancer and cardiovascular disease. Then, the in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET) becomes more and more important in infertility treatment field. However, the reported success rate for IVT-ET is 30%-40% and costs are gradually rising. Meanwhile, to increase success rates and decrease costs, the optimal selection of the IVF-ET treatment strategy is crucial. In a clinical work, the IVF-ET treatment strategy selection is always based on the experience of the doctor without a uniform standard. To solve this important and complex problem, we proposed an artificial intelligence (AI)-based optimal treatment strategy selection system to extract implicit knowledge from clinical data for new and returning patients, by mimicking the IVF-ET process and analysing a myriad of treatment decisions. We demonstrated that the performance of the model was different in 10 AI classification algorithms. Hence, we need to select the optimal method for predicting patient pregnancy result in different IVF-ET treatment strategies. Moreover, feature ranking is determined in the proposed model to measure the importance of each patient characteristics. Therefore, better advice can be provided for individual patient characteristics, doctors can provide more valid suggestions regarding certain patient characteristics to improve the accuracy of diagnosis and efficiency.

Monitoring of health status, performance and transcript abundance of some genes in dairy heifers produced by embryo transfer or artificial insemination.

The use of multiple ovulation and embryo transfer (MOET) technology in the dairy cattle industry has increased dramatically in recent decades for the production of offspring from genetically superior cows. Yet, its long-term ramifications on adult performance have not been adequately clarified. Therefore, this study targeted comparing dairy heifers born after the transfer of in vivo-produced embryos (MOET-heifers, n = 400) and those born after artificial insemination (AI-heifers, n = 340). The performance of MOET-heifers and AI-heifers was compared from birth till completion of the first lactation regarding health, fertility and some lactational performance parameters. The transcript abundance of several genes was also assessed in peripheral blood leukocytes (PBWC). Results showed greater pre-weaning mortalities, greater likelihood of being culled as a nulliparous heifer and younger age at first insemination in AI-heifers (p < .001). At their first calving, primiparous MOET-heifers experienced a greater (p < .01) incidence of stillbirth compared to primiparous AI-heifers. In spite of that, primiparous AI-heifers were more likely to be culled due to infertility (p < .001), took a greater number of inseminations to achieve pregnancy (p < .01) and displayed a longer first calving interval. There was a similar lactational performance between the two groups. Upregulation of the transcript levels of TAC3, LOC522763, TFF2, SAXO2, CNKSR3 and ALAS2 was interestingly observed in primiparous MOET-heifers, compared to primiparous AI-heifers. In conclusion, MOET-heifers were less likely to be culled during the first year of life, had superior reproductive performance versus AI-heifers during their first lactation and expressed upregulation of genes associated with fertility.

Comparative Assessment of Survival and Clinical Outcome Between Two Commercial Vitrification Kits with Different Warming Protocols After Blastocyst Culture: Potential Perspectives Toward Simplified Warming Procedures.

This study investigates whether there is an effect on laboratory results and clinical outcome using commercial kits with similar vitrification but different warming procedures for blastocysts vitrified on day 5 or day 6. A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed between 2011 and 2020. A change from a stage-specific kit (Kit 1) to a universal kit (Kit 2) was undertaken in 2017. A total of 1845 untested blastocysts were warmed for single vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfers (SVBT). Eight hundred and twenty-five blastocysts were vitrified with Kit 1 and 1020 with Kit 2. Blastocyst survival was not different (96.1% versus 97.3%). Seven hundred seventy-seven SVBT were performed from Kit 1 and 981 from Kit 2. Overall clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were not different (35.4% versus 34.1% and 30.9% versus 30.5% for Kit 1 and 2, respectively). Subgroup analysis for live birth rates in relation to the day of blastocyst vitrification showed no differences (36.1% and 36.1% for day 5 and 25.4% and 23.5% for day 6 blastocysts, respectively). For both kits, the mean gestational age was not different (38.8 ± 2.5 weeks versus 38.8 ± 2.0 weeks) with a singleton birth weight of 3413 ± 571 g and 3410 ± 528 g for Kit 1 and Kit 2, respectively. Differences in warming procedures do not affect laboratory performance or clinical outcome after blastocyst vitrification. The plasticity of a human blastocyst may allow for further investigation on simplification of blastocyst warming procedures.

Personalized embryo transfer (pET) guided by endometrial receptivity (ER) assessment - a possibility to increase effectiveness of IVF procedures. Review of available methods.

The continuous development of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) implies the search for solutions that could increase the effectiveness ofavailable methods. In the context of in vitro fertilization (IVF), a significant proportion of failures are due to unsuccessful embryo transfers. At this stage the most important issue is proper dialogue between implanting embryo and the maternal endometrium. Therefore, it seems justified to assess endometrial receptivity (ER), defined as the tissue's ability to accept an embryo to attach and invade into the mucosa. Window of implantation (WOI), is a certain period in which implantation of the properly developed embryo is possible. The cause of endometrial receptivity disorders is believed to be the disturbed expression of cytokines and endometrial surface proteins, the presence of which has been proven in commonly diagnosed diseases such as endometriosis or chronic endometritis. Despite many years of research on endometrial receptivity, the area of ​​diagnostic methods enabling clinical monitoring of ER still remains undeveloped. The aim of this study is to review the utility of selected markers and the available methods of ER assessment, ranging from noninvasive ultrasound, through endometrial fluid analysis, to genomic studies based on endometrial biopsy, in order to increase the effectiveness of IVF. Such an approach could potentially be a significant step towards personalizing medical procedures especially in patients diagnosed with repeated implantation failure (RIF).

Freeze-all embryos during treatment with assisted reproduction: Health economic aspects.

Assisted reproductive technologies are evolving, with the most recent example being the introduction of the freeze-all policy during which a fresh embryo transfer does not take place and all embryos of good quality are cryopreserved to be used in future frozen embryo transfers. As the freeze-all policy is becoming more prevalent, it is important to review the economic aspects of this approach, along with considerations of efficacy and safety, and the role of emerging freeze-all-specific ovarian stimulation strategies. Based on the available evidence, the freeze-all policy presents distinct clinical advantages, particularly for high responders. Available health economic evaluations are limited. Two good-quality cost-effectiveness analyses based on randomized controlled trials suggest that the freeze-all strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective in non-polycystic ovarian syndrome (non-PCOS), normally responding patients. However, the cost-effectiveness of the freeze-all strategy in different populations of patients and in different settings has not been evaluated, nor has the clinical and economic efficacy of modern freeze-all-specific ovarian stimulation protocols that are likely to simplify treatment and make it more affordable for patients. Economic evaluations that incorporate good practice health technology assessment (HTA) methods are needed to compare freeze-all with conventional embryo transfer strategies. Furthermore, future research should address the unique limitation of traditional HTA methods in valuing a life conceived through fertility treatment.

Observations on clinical assessment of endometrial receptivity.

This brief review will examine the investigation of the endometrial cavity before embryo transfer using various techniques, including hysteroscopy, endometrial biopsy using immunohistochemistry and molecular microarray, and ultrasound imaging. All these investigative tools are presently subject to controversy and require large prospective controlled trials for validation. During embryo transfer, the occurrence of a retained embryo does not appear to have a negative impact on pregnancy outcome, and finally, consistent data indicate that physical activity immediately after embryo transfer has no impact on pregnancy outcome.

Human uterine fluid lavage-derived extracellular vesicle isolation: a comparative study for minimally invasive endometrial receptivity assessment.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does pre-implantation uterine fluid lavage (UFL) of patients undergoing IVF and frozen embryo transfer (FET) affect implantation and clinical pregnancy rates? Which methods among ultracentrifugation, sucrose cushion and qEV column are suitable for isolating UFL extracellular vesicles? DESIGN: First, UFL was collected from 20 patients undergoing IVF and FET 2 days before embryo transfer as the case group. The control group consisted of 20 patients undergoing IVF and FET patients without lavage. All patients were monitored for 6 weeks. In the next step, the UFLs (n = 30) were collected and pooled. The UFL-derived extracellular vesicles were extracted by ultracentrifugation, sucrose cushion and qEV column methods and characterized. RESULTS: Preimplantation uterine lavage sampling did not affect implantation and clinical pregnancy rates. Extracellular vesicles were successfully isolated from UFL by all three methods. Scanning electron microscopy and dynamic light scattering analysis showed that the isolated vesicles were morphologically spherical. The qEV technique showed that they were smaller and homogenized in size. SDS-PAGE of extracellular vesicles showed a weaker albumin band in the qEV column. Western blot analysis indicated that the isolated extracellular vesicles by the qEV column were more immunoreactive for all the common extracellular vesicle markers (CD81, CD9, CD63, and TSG101). Six reference genes were compared by real-time polymerase chain reaction in the isolated extracellular vesicle subpopulations, and lowest cycle threshold value was observed for the 18SrRNA gene. CONCLUSIONS: The isolation of endometrial secretome extracellular vesicles is a minimally invasive procedure for individual assessment of endometrial receptivity and can be carried out during conception cycles along with transvaginal ultrasonography. Molecular analysis of UFL-derived extracellular vesicle components could suggest biomarkers to determine precise extracellular vesicle timing.

Transfer of thawed frozen embryo versus fresh embryo to improve the healthy baby rate in women undergoing IVF: the E-Freeze RCT.

BACKGROUND: Freezing all embryos, followed by thawing and transferring them into the uterine cavity at a later stage (freeze-all), instead of fresh-embryo transfer may lead to improved pregnancy rates and fewer complications during in vitro fertilisation and pregnancies resulting from it. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate if a policy of freeze-all results in a higher healthy baby rate than the current policy of transferring fresh embryos. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, non-blinded, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Eighteen in vitro fertilisation clinics across the UK participated from February 2016 to April 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of in vitro fertilisation treatment in which the female partner was aged < 42 years. INTERVENTIONS: If at least three good-quality embryos were present on day 3 of embryo development, couples were randomly allocated to either freeze-all (intervention) or fresh-embryo transfer (control). OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was a healthy baby, defined as a live, singleton baby born at term, with an appropriate weight for their gestation. Secondary outcomes included ovarian hyperstimulation, live birth and clinical pregnancy rates, complications of pregnancy and childbirth, health economic outcome, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory scores. RESULTS: A total of 1578 couples were consented and 619 couples were randomised. Most non-randomisations were because of the non-availability of at least three good-quality embryos (n = 476). Of the couples randomised, 117 (19%) did not adhere to the allocated intervention. The rate of non-adherence was higher in the freeze-all arm, with the leading reason being patient choice. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a healthy baby rate of 20.3% in the freeze-all arm and 24.4% in the fresh-embryo transfer arm (risk ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 1.15). Similar results were obtained using complier-average causal effect analysis (risk ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.10), per-protocol analysis (risk ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.26) and as-treated analysis (risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 1.29). The risk of ovarian hyperstimulation was 3.6% in the freeze-all arm and 8.1% in the fresh-embryo transfer arm (risk ratio 0.44, 99% confidence interval 0.15 to 1.30). There were no statistically significant differences between the freeze-all and the fresh-embryo transfer arms in the live birth rates (28.3% vs. 34.3%; risk ratio 0.83, 99% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.06) and clinical pregnancy rates (33.9% vs. 40.1%; risk ratio 0.85, 99% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.11). There was no statistically significant difference in anxiety scores for male participants (mean difference 0.1, 99% confidence interval -2.4 to 2.6) and female participants (mean difference 0.0, 99% confidence interval -2.2 to 2.2) between the arms. The economic analysis showed that freeze-all had a low probability of being cost-effective in terms of the incremental cost per healthy baby and incremental cost per live birth. LIMITATIONS: We were unable to reach the original planned sample size of 1086 and the rate of non-adherence to the allocated intervention was much higher than expected. CONCLUSION: When efficacy, safety and costs are considered, freeze-all is not better than fresh-embryo transfer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN61225414. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

During in vitro fertilisation, eggs and sperm are mixed in a laboratory to create embryos. An embryo is placed in the womb 2­5 days later (fresh-embryo transfer) and the remaining embryos are frozen for future use. Initial research suggested that freezing all embryos followed by thawing and replacing them a few weeks later could improve treatment safety and success. Although these data were promising, the data came from small studies and were not enough to change practice and policy. We conducted a large, multicentre, clinical trial to evaluate the two strategies: fresh-embryo transfer compared with later transfer of frozen embryos. We also compared the costs of both strategies during in vitro fertilisation treatment, pregnancy and delivery. This study was conducted across 18 clinics in the UK from 2016 to 2019, and 619 couples participated. Couples were allocated to one of two strategies: immediate fresh-embryo transfer or freezing of all embryos followed later by transfer of frozen embryo. The study's aim was to find out which type of embryo transfer gave participants a higher chance of having a healthy baby. We found that freezing all embryos followed by frozen-embryo transfer did not lead to a higher chance of having a healthy baby. There were no differences between strategies in the number of live births, the miscarriage rate or the number of pregnancy complications. Fresh-embryo transfer was less costly from both a health-care and a patient perspective. A routine strategy of freezing all embryos is not justified given that there was no increase in success rates but there were extra costs and delays to embryo transfer.

Noninvasive embryo evaluation and selection by time-lapse monitoring vs. conventional morphologic assessment in women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a single-center randomized controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether time-lapse monitoring (TLM) for cleavage-stage embryo selection improves reproductive outcomes in comparison with conventional morphological assessment (CMA) selection. DESIGN: Prospective randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Single academic center. PATIENTS: We randomly assigned 139 women who were undergoing their first in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle to undergo either fresh embryo transfer or first frozen embryo transfer (FET). Only 1 cleavage-stage embryo was transferred to each participant. INTERVENTIONS: The patients were randomly assigned to either the CMA or the TLM group. In the CMA group, day 2 and day 3 embryos were observed. A good-quality cleavage-stage embryo was selected for transfer or freezing in both groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary and secondary outcomes were the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and the live birth rate (LBR), respectively, after the first embryo transfer (fresh embryo transfer or FET). RESULTS: The CPR and LBR were significantly lower in the TLM group than in the CMA group (CPR: 49.18% vs. 70.42%; relative risk, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.94; LBR: 45.90% vs. 64.79%; relative risk, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98). The CPR with fresh embryo transfer or FET did not significantly differ between the TLM and the CMA groups (fresh embryo transfer: 44.44% vs. 70.0%, relative risk, 0.63, 95% CI, 0.39-1.03; FET: 52.94% vs. 70.73%, relative risk, 0.75, 95% CI, 0.52-1.09). There was a significant difference in the LBR with fresh embryo transfer between the TLM and the CMA groups (40.74% vs. 66.67%; relative risk, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.36-1.03). The LBRs with FET were similar in the TLM and the CMA groups (50.0% vs. 63.41%; relative risk, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.52-1.19). The rates of early spontaneous abortion and ectopic pregnancy did not differ between the TLM and the CMA groups. CONCLUSIONS: Elective single cleavage-stage embryo transfer with TLM-based selection did not have any advantages over CMA when day 2 and day 3 embryo morphology was combined in young women with a good ovarian reserve. Because of these results, we conclude that TLM remains an investigational procedure for in vitro fertilization practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR1900021981.

Blastocyst versus cleavage embryo transfer improves cumulative live birth rates, time and cost in oocyte recipients: a randomized controlled trial.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does embryo transfer day (day 5 versus day 3) affect cumulative live birth rates (CLBR), time to live birth (TLB) and cost per live birth (CPL) in recipients of donated oocytes? STUDY DESIGN: A single-centre RCT conducted between April 2017 and August 2018. Recipients of donated oocytes were randomized to cleavage-stage (day 3) or to blastocyst-stage (day 5) embryo transfer. Eligible recipients were aged 18-50 years and in their first or second synchronous cycle. Primary outcome was CLBR (12 months from first embryo transfer), and fresh and subsequent cryopreserved transfers were considered; TLB and CPL were also analysed. RESULTS: Recipients (n = 134) were randomized to the day-3 group (n = 69) or to the day-5 group (n = 65). Day-5 transfer resulted in a 15.9% relative increase in CLBR and a significant shorter TLB compared with day-3 transfer. To reach a 50% CLBR, the day-3 group required 6 months more than the day-5 group (15.3 versus 8.9 months, respectively). The average CPL in the day-3 strategy cost 24% more than the day-5 strategy (€14817.10 versus €10959.20). Clinical pregnancy rate was 25% less in the day-3 group. The trial was prematurely stopped after poor initial results in the day-3 arm led to unplanned interim analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The transfer of blastocyst-stage embryos in recipients of donated oocytes is preferred as it leads to a higher clinical pregnancy rate, live birth rate, shorter time to pregnancy and lower costs to achieve live birth, compared with cleavage-stage embryo transfer.

Elective freezing of embryos versus fresh embryo transfer in IVF: a multicentre randomized controlled trial in the UK (E-Freeze).

STUDY QUESTION: Does a policy of elective freezing of embryos, followed by frozen embryo transfer result in a higher healthy baby rate, after first embryo transfer, when compared with the current policy of transferring fresh embryos? SUMMARY ANSWER: This study, although limited by sample size, provides no evidence to support the adoption of a routine policy of elective freeze in preference to fresh embryo transfer in order to improve IVF effectiveness in obtaining a healthy baby. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The policy of freezing all embryos followed by frozen embryo transfer is associated with a higher live birth rate for high responders but a similar/lower live birth after first embryo transfer and cumulative live birth rate for normal responders. Frozen embryo transfer is associated with a lower risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), preterm delivery and low birthweight babies but a higher risk of large babies and pre-eclampsia. There is also uncertainty about long-term outcomes, hence shifting to a policy of elective freezing for all remains controversial given the delay in treatment and extra costs involved in freezing all embryos. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A pragmatic two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial (E-Freeze) was conducted across 18 clinics in the UK from 2016 to 2019. A total of 619 couples were randomized (309 to elective freeze/310 to fresh). The primary outcome was a healthy baby after first embryo transfer (term, singleton live birth with appropriate weight for gestation); secondary outcomes included OHSS, live birth, clinical pregnancy, pregnancy complications and cost-effectiveness. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of IVF/ICSI treatment, with at least three good quality embryos on Day 3 where the female partner was ≥18 and <42 years of age were eligible. Those using donor gametes, undergoing preimplantation genetic testing or planning to freeze all their embryos were excluded. IVF/ICSI treatment was carried out according to local protocols. Women were followed up for pregnancy outcome after first embryo transfer following randomization. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 619 couples randomized, 307 and 309 couples in the elective freeze and fresh transfer arms, respectively, were included in the primary analysis. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in outcomes in the elective freeze group compared to the fresh embryo transfer group: healthy baby rate {20.3% (62/307) versus 24.4% (75/309); risk ratio (RR), 95% CI: 0.84, 0.62 to 1.15}; OHSS (3.6% versus 8.1%; RR, 99% CI: 0.44, 0.15 to 1.30); live birth rate (28.3% versus 34.3%; RR, 99% CI 0.83, 0.65 to 1.06); and miscarriage (14.3% versus 12.9%; RR, 99% CI: 1.09, 0.72 to 1.66). Adherence to allocation was poor in the elective freeze group. The elective freeze approach was more costly and was unlikely to be cost-effective in a UK National Health Service context. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We have only reported on first embryo transfer after randomization; data on the cumulative live birth rate requires further follow-up. Planned target sample size was not obtained and the non-adherence to allocation rate was high among couples in the elective freeze arm owing to patient preference for fresh embryo transfer, but an analysis which took non-adherence into account showed similar results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Results from the E-Freeze trial do not lend support to the policy of electively freezing all for everyone, taking both efficacy, safety and costs considerations into account. This method should only be adopted if there is a definite clinical indication. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (13/115/82). This research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (NIHR unique award identifier) using UK aid from the UK Government to support global health research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. J.L.B., C.C., E.J., P.H., J.J.K., L.L. and G.S. report receipt of funding from NIHR, during the conduct of the study. J.L.B., E.J., P.H., K.S. and L.L. report receipt of funding from NIHR, during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. A.M. reports grants from NIHR personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees for lectures from Merck Serono, Ferring and Cooks outside the submitted work; travel/meeting support from Ferring and Pharmasure and participation in a Ferring advisory board. S.B. reports receipt of royalties and licenses from Cambridge University Press, a board membership role for NHS Grampian and other financial or non-financial interests related to his roles as Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and Editor and Contributing Author of Reproductive Medicine for the MRCOG, Cambridge University Press. D.B. reports grants from NIHR, during the conduct of the study; grants from European Commission, grants from Diabetes UK, grants from NIHR, grants from ESHRE, grants from MRC, outside the submitted work. Y.C. reports speaker fees from Merck Serono, and advisory board role for Merck Serono and shares in Complete Fertility. P.H. reports membership of the HTA Commissioning Committee. E.J. reports membership of the NHS England and NIHR Partnership Programme, membership of five Data Monitoring Committees (Chair of two), membership of six Trial Steering Committees (Chair of four), membership of the Northern Ireland Clinical Trials Unit Advisory Group and Chair of the board of Oxford Brain Health Clinical Trials Unit. R.M. reports consulting fees from Gedeon Richter, honorarium from Merck, support fees for attendance at educational events and conferences for Merck, Ferring, Bessins and Gedeon Richter, payments for participation on a Merck Safety or Advisory Board, Chair of the British Fertility Society and payments for an advisory role to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. G.S. reports travel and accommodation fees for attendance at a health economic advisory board from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. N.R.-F. reports shares in Nurture Fertility. Other authors' competing interests: none declared. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN: 61225414. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 29 December 2015. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 16 February 2016.

Outcomes of embryo transfers performed by Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility fellows vs. faculty: an 11-year retrospective review.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and live birth rate (LBR) of embryo transfer episodes (ETEs) performed by Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility fellows vs. those of ETEs performed by faculty physicians. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. SETTING: Academic reproductive endocrinology and infertility practice. PATIENT(S): In total, 3,073 ETEs for 1,488 unique patients were performed by fellows or faculty physicians between January 2009 and January 2020. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Clinical pregnancy rate and LBR. RESULT(S): Fifteen fellows performed 1,225 (39.9%) of 3,073 ETEs after completing 30 mock transfers. On comparing outcomes among fellowship years (FY1, FY2, and FY3), CPR (44.1% vs. 43.2% vs. 45.7%, respectively, P = .83) and LBR (39.1% vs. 38.1% vs. 38.4%, respectively, P = .97) were not significantly different. Fellowship year 1 fellows' initial 30 ETEs vs. all the remaining FY1 ETEs had a significantly higher CPR (48.1% vs. 40.5%, respectively, P = .030) and LBR (45.4% vs. 34.3%, respectively, P = .001). There were no significant differences between faculty versus fellow ETEs in terms of CPR (43.0% vs. 45.0%, respectively, P = .30) or LBR (37.3% vs. 39.8%, respectively, P = .16), even after adjusting for patient age, body mass index, primary infertility diagnosis, autologous vs. donor oocyte, fresh vs. frozen embryo, number of embryos transferred, type of transfer catheter, and year of transfer (P = .32 for CPR, P = .22 for LBR). CONCLUSION(S): Appropriately trained FY1 fellows had success rates maintained throughout all FYs. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between fellow- and faculty-performed transfers. These data demonstrated that allowing fellows to perform live embryo transfers is not detrimental to clinical outcomes.

Do Strategies Favoring Frozen-thawed Embryo Transfer Have an Impact on Differences in IVF Success Rate, Multiple Pregnancy Rate, and Cost per Live Birth Between Fertility Clinics?

The aim of this retrospective cohort study is to establish whether strategies favoring frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) have an impact on differences in cumulative live birth rate (CLBR), weighted mean cost per live birth, and multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) between fertility clinics. Data were extracted from the Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Italian National Registry and refer to classical IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles performed in 2018 in public funded Lombardy region fertility clinics. Propensity to FET cycles was expressed with the so-called freezing tendency index (FTI): [(No. of FETs + No. of transfers of embryos obtained from frozen-thawed oocytes) / (No. of fresh ETs + No. of canceled IVF cycles + Numerator)] × 100. Fertility clinics were divided according to their FTI: group A (FTI: 0-20%); group B (FTI: 20-40%); and group C (FTI: 40-60%). Groups A, B, and C included 6, 8, and 8 fertility clinics, respectively. The CLBR (95% CI) per started COH cycle was 13.1% (11.8-14.5%) in group A, 19.6% (18.6-20.7%) in group B, and 27.8% (26.8-28.9%) in group C (p < 0.0001). The weighted mean live birth cost was 32,770 ± 10,662 € in group A, 25,863 ± 11,510 € in group B, and 20,426 ± 3788 € in group C (p < 0.0001). The MPR (95% CI) was 15.4% (12.1-19.4%) in group A, 10.2% (8.7-12.1%) in group B (p = 0.0065), and 6.3% (5.2-7.6%) in group C (p = 0.0001). In conclusion, our results suggest that strategies favoring FET cycles are associated with an increased CLBR, a decreased weighted mean cost per live birth, and a decreased MPR.

Biphasic (5-2%) oxygen concentration strategy significantly improves the usable blastocyst and cumulative live birth rates in in vitro fertilization.

Oxygen (O2) concentration is approximately 5% in the fallopian tube and 2% in the uterus in humans. A "back to nature" approach could increase in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes. This hypothesis was tested in this monocentric observational retrospective study that included 120 couples who underwent two IVF cycles between 2014 and 2019. Embryos were cultured at 5% from day 0 (D0) to D5/6 (monophasic O2 concentration strategy) in the first IVF cycle, and at 5% O2 from D0 to D3 and 2% O2 from D3 to D5/6 (biphasic O2 concentration strategy) in the second IVF cycle. The total and usable blastocyst rates (44.4% vs. 54.8%, p = 0.049 and 21.8% vs. 32.8%, p = 0.002, respectively) and the cumulative live birth rate (17.9% vs. 44.1%, p = 0.027) were significantly higher with the biphasic (5%-2%) O2 concentration strategy. Whole transcriptome analysis of blastocysts donated for research identified 707 RNAs that were differentially expressed in function of the O2 strategy (fold-change > 2, p value < 0.05). These genes are mainly involved in embryo development, DNA repair, embryonic stem cell pluripotency, and implantation potential. The biphasic (5-2%) O2 concentration strategy for preimplantation embryo culture could increase the "take home baby rate", thus improving IVF cost-effectiveness and infertility management.

Preimplantation genetic testing for BRCA gene mutation carriers: a cost effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Gynecologic oncologists should be aware of the option of conception through IVF/PGT-M for families with high BRCA related morbidity or mortality. Our objective was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of preimplantation genetic testing for selection and transfer of BRCA negative embryo in BRCA mutation carriers compared to natural conception. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness of two strategies, conception through IVF/PGT-M and BRCA negative embryo transfer versus natural conception with a 50% chance of BRCA positive newborn for BRCA mutation carriers was compared using a Markovian process decision analysis model. Costs of the two strategies were compared using quality adjusted life years (QALYs'). All costs were discounted at 3%. Incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) compared to willingness to pay threshold was used for cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: IVF/ PGT-M is cost-effective with an ICER of 150,219 new Israeli Shekels, per QALY gained (equivalent to 44,480 USD), at a 3% discount rate. CONCLUSIONS: IVF/ PGT-M and BRCA negative embryo transfer compared to natural conception among BRCA positive parents is cost effective and may be offered for selected couples with high BRCA mutation related morbidity or mortality. Our results could impact decisions regarding conception among BRCA positive couples and health care providers.

Cost-effectiveness of freeze-all policy - A retrospective study based upon the outcome of cumulative live births.

OBJECT: We have previously reported that cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs) are higher in the freeze-all group compared with controls (64.3% vs. 45.8%, p = 0.001). Here, we aim to determine if the freeze-all policy is more cost-effective than fresh embryo transfer followed by frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The analysis consisted of 704 ART (Assisted reproductive technology) cycles, which included in IVF (In vitro fertilisation) and ICSI (Intra Cytoplasmic Sperm Injection) cycles performed in Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan between January 2012 and June 2014. The freeze-all group involved 84 patients and the fresh Group 625 patients. Patients were followed up until all embryos obtained from a single controlled ovarian hyper-stimulation cycle were used up, or a live birth had been achieved. The total cost related to treatment of each patient was recorded. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was based on the incremental cost per couple and the incremental live birth rate of the freeze-all strategy compared with the fresh ET strategy. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) were performed. RESULTS: The total treatment cost per patient was significantly higher for the freeze-all group than in the fresh group (USD 3419.93 ± 638.13 vs. $2920.59 ± 711.08 p < 0.001). However, the total treatment cost per live birth in the freeze-all group was US $5319.89, vs. US $6382.42 in the fresh group. CEAC show that the freeze-all policy was a cost-effective treatment at a threshold of US $2703.57 for one additional live birth. Considering the Willingness-to-pay threshold per live birth, the probability was 60.1% at the threshold of US $2896.5, with the freeze-all group being more cost-effective than the fresh-ET group; or 90.1% at the threshold of $4183.8. CONCLUSION: The freeze-all policy is a cost-effective treatment, as long as the additional cost of US $2703.57 per additional live birth is financially acceptable for the subjects.

Non-invasive Embryo Assessment: Altered Individual Protein Profile in Spent Culture Media from Embryos Transferred at Day 5.

In order to improve ART outcome, non-invasive embryo assessment is gaining more and more attention. Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine the consecutive implantation potential via the secretome between blastocysts with or without implantation and to analyse possible interactions between these differentially expressed proteins. In this prospective study, 69 spent culture media from blastocysts transferred at day 5 were collected from patients undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment in a single IVF centre between April 2015 and November 2018 after informed consent and analysed individually. Exclusion criteria were the absence of informed consent, PCOS, endometriosis and maternal age > 42 years. Dependent on the treatment outcome, media were subsequently divided into two groups: from embryos who implanted successfully (n = 37) and from embryos without implantation (n = 32). Ninety-two proteins were measured simultaneously using the proximity extension assay (PEA) technology with the Olink® CVD III panel employing oligonucleotide-labelled antibodies. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Student's t test, the Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test. Media from implanted blastocysts showed significantly higher expression of EPHB4, ALCAM, CSTB, BMH, TIMP4, CCL24, SELE, FAS, JAM-A, PON3, PDGF-A, vWF and PECAM-1 compared with media from blastocysts without subsequent implantation. The highest relative expression change could be demonstrated for PECAM-1 and TIMP4. PECAM-1, SELE and vWF were co-expressed. Especially EPHB 4, SELE, ALCAM, MCP-1, CCL24, FAS, JAM-A and PDGF-A have already been described in early embryonic development and metabolism. Therefore, these proteins together with PECAM-1 indicate possible biomarkers for non-invasive embryo assessment in the future. However, due to the innovative methodology, defining a threshold for the use as biomarkers remains to be assessed.

Pregnancy outcome and cost-effectiveness comparisons of artificial cycle-prepared frozen embryo transfer with or without GnRH agonist pretreatment for polycystic ovary syndrome: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the live birth rate and cost effectiveness of artificial cycle-prepared frozen embryo transfer (AC-FET) with or without GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) pretreatment for women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). DESIGN: Open-label, randomised, controlled trial. SETTING: Reproductive centre of a university-affiliated hospital. SAMPLE: A total of 343 women with PCOS, aged 24-40 years, scheduled for AC-FET and receiving no more than two blastocysts. METHODS: The pretreatment group (n = 172) received GnRH-a pretreatment and the control group (n = 171) did not. Analysis followed the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was live birth rate. Secondary outcome measures included clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, early pregnancy loss rate and direct treatment costs per FET cycle. RESULTS: Among the 343 women randomised, 330 (96.2%) underwent embryo transfer and 328 (95.6%) completed the protocols. Live birth rate according to ITT did not differ between the pretreatment and control groups [85/172 (49.4%) versus 92/171 (53.8%), absolute rate difference -4.4%, 95% CI -10.8% to 2.0% (P = 0.45). Implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate and early pregnancy loss rate also did not differ between groups, but median direct cost per FET cycle was significantly higher in the pretreatment group (7799.2 versus 4438.9 RMB, OR = 1.9, 95%CI 1.2-3.4, P < 0.001). Median direct cost per live birth was also significantly higher in the pretreatment group (15663.1 versus 8189.9 RMB, odds ratio [OR] = 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-3.8, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment with GnRH-a does not improve pregnancy outcomes for women with PCOS receiving AC-FET, but significantly increases patient cost. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: For women with PCOS, artificial cycle-prepared FET with GnRH agonist pretreatment provides no pregnancy outcome benefit but incurs higher cost.