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.

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.