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.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of an incentive strategy on the questionnaire response rate in parents of premature babies: a randomised controlled Study Within A Trial (SWAT) nested within SIFT.

BACKGROUND: Loss to follow-up resulting in missing outcomes compromises the validity of trial results by reducing statistical power, negatively affecting generalisability and undermining assumptions made at analysis, leading to potentially biased and misleading results. Evidence that incentives are effective at improving response rates exists, but there is little evidence regarding the best approach, especially in the field of perinatal medicine. The NIHR-funded SIFT trial follow-up of infants at 2 years of age provided an ideal opportunity to address this remaining uncertainty. METHODS: Participants: parents of infants from participating neonatal units in the UK and Ireland followed up for SIFT (multicentre RCT investigating two speeds of feeding in babies with gestational age at birth < 32 weeks and/or birthweight < 1500 g). INTERVENTIONS: parents were randomly allocated to receive incentives (£15 gift voucher) before or after questionnaire return. The objective was to establish whether offering an unconditional incentive in advance or promising an incentive on completion of a questionnaire (conditional) improved the response rate in parents of premature babies. The primary outcome was questionnaire response rate. Permuted block randomisation was performed (variable size blocks), stratified by SIFT allocation (slower/faster feeds) and single/multiple birth. Multiple births were given the same incentives allocation. Parents were unaware that they were in an incentives SWAT; SIFT office staff were not blinded to allocation. RESULTS: Parents of 923 infants were randomised: 459 infants allocated to receive incentive before, 464 infants allocated to receive incentive after; analysis was by intention to treat. Allocation to the incentive before completion led to a significantly higher response rate, 83.0% (381/459) compared to the after-completion group, 76.1% (353/464); adjusted absolute difference of 6.8% (95% confidence interval 1.6% to 12.0%). Giving an incentive in advance is the more costly approach, but the mean difference of ~£3 per infant is small given the higher return. CONCLUSIONS: An unconditional incentive in advance led to a significantly higher response rate compared to the promise of an incentive on completion. Against a backdrop of falling response rates to questionnaires, incentives can be an effective way to increase returns. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SIFT ( ISRCTN76463425 ). Registered on March 5, 2013.; SWAT registration (SWAT 69 available from http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/TheNorthernIrelandNetworkforTrialsMethodologyResearch/FileStore/Filetoupload,864297,en.pdf ). Registered on June 27, 2016.

Two speeds of increasing milk feeds for very preterm or very low-birthweight infants: the SIFT RCT.

BACKGROUND: Observational data suggest that slowly advancing enteral feeds in preterm infants may reduce necrotising enterocolitis but increase late-onset sepsis. The Speed of Increasing milk Feeds Trial (SIFT) compared two rates of feed advancement. OBJECTIVE: To determine if faster (30 ml/kg/day) or slower (18 ml/kg/day) daily feed increments improve survival without moderate or severe disability and other morbidities in very preterm or very low-birthweight infants. DESIGN: This was a multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Randomisation was via a web-hosted minimisation algorithm. It was not possible to safely and completely blind caregivers and parents. SETTING: The setting was 55 UK neonatal units, from May 2013 to June 2015. PARTICIPANTS: The participants were infants born at < 32 weeks' gestation or a weight of < 1500 g, who were receiving < 30 ml/kg/day of milk at trial enrolment. INTERVENTIONS: When clinicians were ready to start advancing feed volumes, the infant was randomised to receive daily feed increments of either 30 ml/kg/day or 18 ml/kg/day. In total, 1400 infants were allocated to fast feeds and 1404 infants were allocated to slow feeds. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months of age, corrected for gestational age. The secondary outcomes were mortality; moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months corrected for gestational age; death before discharge home; microbiologically confirmed or clinically suspected late-onset sepsis; necrotising enterocolitis (Bell's stage 2 or 3); time taken to reach full milk feeds (tolerating 150 ml/kg/day for 3 consecutive days); growth from birth to discharge; duration of parenteral feeding; time in intensive care; duration of hospital stay; diagnosis of cerebral palsy by a doctor or other health professional; and individual components of the definition of moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability. RESULTS: The results showed that survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months occurred in 802 out of 1224 (65.5%) infants allocated to faster increments and 848 out of 1246 (68.1%) infants allocated to slower increments (adjusted risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 1.01). There was no significant difference between groups in the risk of the individual components of the primary outcome or in the important hospital outcomes: late-onset sepsis (adjusted risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.07) or necrotising enterocolitis (adjusted risk ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.16). Cost-consequence analysis showed that the faster feed increment rate was less costly but also less effective than the slower rate in terms of achieving the primary outcome, so was therefore found to not be cost-effective. Four unexpected serious adverse events were reported, two in each group. None was assessed as being causally related to the intervention. LIMITATIONS: The study could not be blinded, so care may have been affected by knowledge of allocation. Although well powered for comparisons of all infants, subgroup comparisons were underpowered. CONCLUSIONS: No clear advantage was identified for the important outcomes in very preterm or very low-birthweight infants when milk feeds were advanced in daily volume increments of 30 ml/kg/day or 18 ml/kg/day. In terms of future work, the interaction of different milk types with increments merits further examination, as may different increments in infants at the extremes of gestation or birthweight. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN76463425. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Some infants who are born early need to be fed through a tube into their stomach. A small volume of milk is given to begin with, which is gradually increased. To determine whether infants do better if they are fed faster or slower, this study compared increasing the milk feeds by 30 ml/kg/day with increasing the milk feeds by 18 ml/kg/day, aiming to get to full feeds (when other fluids are not needed) in 5 or 9 days. We compared results from the two groups at discharge from hospital and at 24 months of age, after correcting for prematurity. We also assessed the economic impact of the two daily feed increments, interviewed parents about taking part in multiple studies and tested methods for improving questionnaire returns. The faster-fed group reached full milk feeds sooner and needed less intravenous nutrition, and the proportion of infants developing bowel inflammation or bloodstream infection were similar. At 24 months of age, we found an unexpected increase in the risk of moderate or severe motor impairment in the faster-fed group, which is difficult to explain. We also saw that other types of disability were more frequent in the faster group, although this was not significantly different mathematically. This means that no clear advantage of increasing feeds at faster or slower rates was identified and health professionals will need to carefully consider how to increase feeds. After accepting the increased risk of disability, an economic evaluation showed that increasing milk feed volumes at a faster rate was not a cost-effective strategy. Interviews with parents showed that they valued opportunities for their infant to take part in studies, but this interaction is complex and difficult to remember at a stressful and confusing time and made worse by considering multiple studies. More questionnaires were returned when vouchers were given before rather than after receiving them.