The vaginal microbiome as a predictor for outcome of in vitro fertilization with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a prospective study.

STUDY QUESTION: Is the presence or absence of certain vaginal bacteria associated with failure or success to become pregnant after an in vitro fertilization (IVF) or IVF with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF-ICSI) treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER: Microbiome profiling with the use of interspace profiling (IS-pro) technique enables stratification of the chance of becoming pregnant prior to the start of an IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Live-birth rates for an IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment vary between 25 and 35% per cycle and it is difficult to predict who will or will not get pregnant after embryo transfer (ET). Recently, it was suggested that the composition of the vaginal microbiota prior to treatment might predict pregnancy outcome. Analysis of the vaginal microbiome prior to treatment might, therefore, offer an opportunity to improve the success rate of IVF or IVF-ICSI. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: In a prospective cohort study, 303 women (age, 20-42 years) undergoing IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment in the Netherlands were included between June 2015 and March 2016. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Study subjects provided a vaginal sample before the start of the IVF or IVF-ICSI procedure. The vaginal microbiota composition was determined using the IS-pro technique. IS-pro is a eubacterial technique based on the detection and categorization of the length of the 16S-23S rRNA gene interspace region. Microbiome profiles were assigned to community state types based on the dominant bacterial species. The predictive accuracy of the microbiome profiles for IVF and IVF-ICSI outcome of fresh ET was evaluated by a combined prediction model based on a small number of bacterial species. From this cohort, a model was built to predict outcome of fertility treatment. This model was externally validated in a cohort of 50 women who were undergoing IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment between March 2018 and May 2018 in the Dutch division of the MVZ VivaNeo Kinderwunschzentrum Düsseldorf, Germany. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In total, the vaginal microbiota of 192 women who underwent a fresh ET could be analysed. Women with a low percentage of Lactobacillus in their vaginal sample were less likely to have a successful embryo implantation. The prediction model identified a subgroup of women (17.7%, n = 34) who had a low chance to become pregnant following fresh ET. This failure was correctly predicted in 32 out of 34 women based on the vaginal microbiota composition, resulting in a predictive accuracy of 94% (sensitivity, 26%; specificity, 97%). Additionally, the degree of dominance of Lactobacillus crispatus was an important factor in predicting pregnancy. Women who had a favourable profile as well as <60% L. crispatus had a high chance of pregnancy: more than half of these women (50 out of 95) became pregnant. In the external validation cohort, none of the women who had a negative prediction (low chance of pregnancy) became pregnant. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Because our study uses a well-defined study population, the results will be limited to the IVF or IVF-ICSI population. Whether these results can be extrapolated to the general population trying to achieve pregnancy without ART cannot be determined from these data. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our results indicate that vaginal microbiome profiling using the IS-pro technique enables stratification of the chance of becoming pregnant prior to the start of an IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment. Knowledge of their vaginal microbiota may enable couples to make a more balanced decision regarding timing and continuation of their IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment cycles. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was financed by NGI Pre-Seed 2014-2016, RedMedTech Discovery Fund 2014-2017, STW Valorisation grant 1 2014-2015, STW Take-off early phase trajectory 2015-2016 and Eurostars VALBIOME grant (reference number: 8884). The employer of W.J.S.S.C. has in collaboration with ARTPred acquired a MIND subsidy to cover part of the costs of this collaboration project. The following grants are received but not used to finance this study: grants from Innovatie Prestatie Contract, MIT Haalbaarheid, other from Dutch R&D tax credit WBSO, RedMedTech Discovery Fund, (J.D.d.J.). Grants from Ferring (J.S.E.L., K.F., C.B.L. and J.M.J.S.S.), Merck Serono (K.F. and C.B.L.), Dutch Heart Foundation (J.S.E.L.), Metagenics Inc. (J.S.E.L.), GoodLife (K.F.), Guerbet (C.B.L.). R.K. is employed by ARTPred B.V. during her PhD at Erasmus Medical Centre (MC). S.A.M. has a 100% University appointment. I.S.P.H.M.S., S.A.M. and A.E.B. are co-owners of IS-Diagnostics Ltd. J.D.d.J. is co-owner of ARTPred B.V., from which he reports personal fees. P.H.M.S. reports non-financial support from ARTPred B.V. P.H.M.S., J.D.d.J. and A.E.B. have obtained patents `Microbial population analysis' (9506109) and `Microbial population analysis' (20170159108), both licenced to ARTPred B.V. J.D.d.J. and A.E.B. report patent applications `Method and kit for predicting the outcome of an assisted reproductive technology procedure' (392EPP0) and patent `Method and kit for altering the outcome of an assisted reproductive technology procedure' by ARTPred. W.J.S.S.C. received personal consultancy and educational fees from Goodlife Fertility B.V. J.S.E.L. reports personal consultancy fees from ARTPred B.V., Titus Health B.V., Danone, Euroscreen and Roche during the conduct of the study. J.S.E.L. and N.G.M.B. are co-applicants on an Erasmus MC patent (New method and kit for prediction success of in vitro fertilization) licenced to ARTPred B.V. F.J.M.B. reports personal fees from Advisory Board Ferring, Advisory Board Merck Serono, Advisory Board Gedeon Richter and personal fees from Educational activities for Ferring, outside the submitted work. K.F. reports personal fees from Ferring (commercial sponsor) and personal fees from GoodLife (commercial sponsor). C.B.L. received speakers' fee from Ferring. J.M.J.S.S. reports personal fees and other from Merck Serono and personal fees from Ferring, unrelated to the submitted paper. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN83157250. Registered 17 August 2018. Retrospectively registered.

[Reduction of patient discomfort, risks and costs, but not pregnancies, by a mild strategy for in-vitro fertilisation]. / Minder risico's, patiëntenongemak en kosten, maar niet minder zwangerschappen in de milde behandelstrategie voor ivf.

OBJECTIVE: To compare a so-called mild in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment strategy with the standard IVF treatment on the following aspects: the chance of a pregnancy resulting in full-term live birth within 1 year, patient discomfort, multiple pregnancies, and costs. DESIGN: Randomised, open-label, prospective trial (www.controlledtrials.com, number ISRCTN35766970). METHOD: 404 patients were assigned to undergo either a mild treatment, consisting of ovarian stimulation with a gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist combined with single embryo transfer, or the standard treatment consisting of prolonged stimulation with a GnRH agonist combined with the transfer of two embryos. The primary outcome measures were: (1) the percentage of cumulative pregnancies within one year after randomisation leading to full-term live birth; (2) total costs per couple and child up to 6 weeks after expected delivery; and (3) overall patient discomfort. Analysis was done according to the intention-to-treat principle and was intended to show that the mild treatment was not inferior to the standard treatment; the non-inferiority threshold was -12.5%. RESULTS: The proportion of cumulative pregnancies resulting in full-term live birth after 1 year was 43.4% in the mild and 44.7% in the standard treatment group. The lower limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval was equal to -9.8%. The respective proportion of couples with multiple pregnancies was 0.5% versus 13.1% (p < 0.0001), and the average total costs were Euro 8,333.- versus Euro 10,745.- (difference: Euro 2,412.-, 95% CI: 703-4,131). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with regard to anxiety, depression, physical discomfort, and sleep quality. CONCLUSION: After 1 year of treatment, the cumulative percentage of pregnancies leading to full-term live birth and the total patient discomfort were the same for the mild treatment (average 2.3 IVF-cycles) and the standard treatment (average 1.7 IVF-cycles). The mild treatment significantly reduced the number of multiple pregnancies and the overall costs.

The added value of embryo cryopreservation to cumulative ongoing pregnancy rates per IVF treatment: is cryopreservation worth the effort?

PURPOSE: To calculate the added benefit of a cryopreservation program to the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate over a maximum of three cycles of IVF. METHODS: A total of 1251 couples beginning their first IVF treatment between January 1995 and December 1999 were evaluated. Ongoing pregnancies from fresh and subsequent cryopreserved embryo transfer cycles were analyzed. Pregnancies arising from the cryopreservation cycle were considered to augment the cumulative pregnancy rate when no ongoing pregnancy arose from the fresh embryo transfer cycle. RESULTS: The ongoing pregnancy rate per cryopreserved embryo transfer was 11.7%. The cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate following three successive started fresh IVF cycles was 42.5%. When pregnancies arising from the transfer of thawed cryopreserved embryos were included, the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate increased to 43.8%, rising to 44.8% when extrapolated data from as yet unthawed embryos was included. CONCLUSIONS: When analyzed in these terms, the supplementary benefit of cryopreserving supranumerical embryos appears limited.

Ovarian stimulation for IVF and endometrial receptivity--the missing link.

The contemporary approach to ovarian stimulation for IVF treatment results in supraphysiological concentrations of steroids during the follicular and luteal phases of the menstrual cycle. These sex steroids act directly and indirectly to mature the endometrium, influencing receptivity for implantation. Corpus luteum function is distinctly abnormal in IVF cycles, and therefore luteal support is widely used. Various reasons may underlie the defective luteal phase, including (i) ovarian hyperstimulation per se, (ii) gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue co-treatment and (iii) the use of human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) to induce final oocyte maturation. The recent introduction of GnRH antagonist co-treatment for the prevention of a premature LH rise during the late follicular phase allows for different approaches to ovarian stimulation for IVF. However, a recent meta-analysis showed that implantation rates may be compromised by using GnRH antagonists in currently employed regimens. The development of endometrium receptive to embryo implantation is a complex process and may be altered by inappropriate exposure to sex steroids in terms of timing, duration and magnitude. New approaches to the assessment of endometrial receptivity are now required. Novel approaches to ovarian stimulation aimed at adjusted GnRH antagonist regimens and achieving a more physiological luteal phase endocrinology are now appearing in the literature and may represent an important step in the improvement of the overall health economics of IVF.