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.

Expectant management versus IUI in unexplained subfertility and a poor pregnancy prognosis (EXIUI study): a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: For couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, is 6 months expectant management (EM) inferior to IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS), in terms of live births? SUMMARY ANSWER: In couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, 6 months of EM is inferior compared to IUI-OS in terms of live births. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis are often treated with IUI-OS. In couples with unexplained subfertility and a relatively good prognosis for natural conception (>30% in 12 months), IUI-OS does not increase the live birth rate as compared to 6 months of EM. However, in couples with a poor prognosis for natural conception (<30% in 12 months), the effectiveness of IUI-OS is uncertain. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a non-inferiority multicentre randomized controlled trial within the infrastructure of the Dutch Consortium for Healthcare Evaluation and Research in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. We intended to include 1091 couples within 3 years. The couples were allocated in a 1:1 ratio to 6 months EM or 6 months IUI-OS with either clomiphene citrate or gonadotrophins. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied heterosexual couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception (<30% in 12 months). The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to a live birth. Non-inferiority would be shown if the lower limit of the one-sided 90% risk difference (RD) CI was less than minus 7% compared to an expected live birth rate of 30% following IUI-OS. We calculated RD, relative risks (RRs) with 90% CI and a corresponding hazard rate for live birth over time based on intention-to-treat and per-protocol (PP) analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between October 2016 and September 2020, we allocated 92 couples to EM and 86 to IUI-OS. The trial was halted pre-maturely owing to slow inclusion. Mean female age was 34 years, median duration of subfertility was 21 months. Couples allocated to EM had a lower live birth rate than couples allocated to IUI-OS (12/92 (13%) in the EM group versus 28/86 (33%) in the IUI-OS group; RR 0.40 90% CI 0.24 to 0.67). This corresponds to an absolute RD of minus 20%; 90% CI: -30% to -9%. The hazard ratio for live birth over time was 0.36 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.70). In the PP analysis, live births rates were 8 of 70 women (11%) in the EM group versus 26 of 73 women (36%) in the IUI-OS group (RR 0.32, 90% CI 0.18 to 0.59; RD -24%, 90% CI -36% to -13%) in line with inferiority of EM. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our trial did not reach the planned sample size, therefore the results are limited by the number of participants. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study confirms the results of a previous trial that in couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, EM is inferior to IUI-OS. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The trial was supported by a grant of the SEENEZ healthcare initiative. The subsidizing parties were The Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW 837004023, www.zonmw.nl) and the umbrella organization of 10 health insurers in The Netherlands. E.R.G. receives personal fees from Titus Health care outside the submitted work. M.G. declares unrestricted research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring not related to the presented work, paid to their institution VU medical centre. A.B.H. reports receiving travel and speakers fees from Nordic Pharma and Merck and he is member of the Nordic Pharma ANGEL group and of the Safety Monitoring Board of Womed. C.B.L. reports speakers fee from Inmed and Yingming, and his department receives research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet paid to VU medical centre. B.W.J.M. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437) and reports consultancy for ObsEva and Merck. M.v.W. received a grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development ZonMW (80-8520098-91072). F.M. received two grants from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development ZonMW (NTR 5599 and NTR 6590). The other authors report no competing interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial register NL5455 (NTR5599). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 18 December 2015. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 26 January 2017.

Karyotyping, congenital anomalies and follow-up of children after intracytoplasmic sperm injection with non-ejaculated sperm: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: For men with azoospermia, it is possible to father their own progeny by intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) with epididymal or testicular sperm. Some studies show that children born after assisted reproductive technology (ART) are at increased risk of birth defects, other studies suggest that there is no extra concern about ICSI children conceived with epididymal or testicular sperm. METHODS: Studies about the karyotypes of fetuses, congenital anomalies and the follow-up of the children born after ICSI with non-ejaculated sperm were identified by means of a systematic literature search. RESULTS: Eight relevant studies were identified; two studies reported karyotype, five reported malformations and one reported follow-up of children after ICSI. In total, there were 55 out of 1973 (2.8%) abnormal karyotypes in the ICSI with ejaculated sperm group, 0 out of 31 in the ICSI with epididymal sperm group and 5 out of 191 (2.6%) in the ICSI with testicular sperm group. Major malformations were found in 543 out of 12 377 (4.4%) in the ICSI with ejaculated sperm group, 17 out of 533 (3.2%) in the ICSI with epididymal sperm group and 31 out of 670 (4.6%) in the ICSI with testicular sperm group. CONCLUSIONS: Although there were no statistical differences, the study groups were small and heterogenic, with a number of potential biases. We therefore recommend a standardized methodology of follow-up studies after ART, with well-defined groups of ICSI with ejaculated sperm, ICSI with epididymal sperm and ICSI with testicular sperm, and a control group of naturally conceived children.

Cervical insemination versus intra-uterine insemination of donor sperm for subfertility.

BACKGROUND: Insemination with donor sperm is an option for couples for whom in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has been unsuccessful, couples with azoospermia and for single women or same sex couples. Insemination of sperm can be done via cervical (CI) or intra-uterine (IUI) routes. IUI has been considered potentially more effective than CI as the sperm bypasses the cervical mucus and is deposited closer to the fallopian tubes. The cost and risks of IUI may be higher because of the need for sperm preparation and the introduction of foreign material into the uterus. Donor sperm used for artificial insemination is mainly cryopreserved, due to concerns about HIV transmission. However, cycle fecundity is higher for fresh sperm. Insemination is often combined with ovulatory stimulation, with either clomiphene or gonadotrophin. There may be risks associated with these therapies, such as higher multiple pregnancy rates. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether pregnancy outcomes are improved using intra-uterine insemination in comparison to cervical insemination in women undergoing artificial insemination with donor sperm. SEARCH STRATEGY: The following databases were searched: the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library) , MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the reference lists of articles retrieved. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing IUI with CI were included. Crossover studies were included if pre-crossover data was available. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study quality assessment and data extraction were carried out independently by two review authors (DB, JM). Authors of studies that potentially met the inclusion criteria were contacted, where possible if additional information was needed. MAIN RESULTS: The search strategy found 232 articles. Fifteen studies potentially met the inclusion criteria. Four studies were included in this review. All the included studies used cryopreserved sperm in stimulated cycles. In two studies 134 women had gonadotrophin-stimulated cycles and in two studies 74 women had clomiphene-stimulated cycles. The evidence showed that IUI after 6 cycles significantly improved live birth rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 3.86) and pregnancy rates (OR 3.37, 95% CI 1.90 to 5.96) in comparison to cervical insemination. There was no statistically significant evidence of an effect on multiple pregnancies (OR 2.19, 95% CI 0.79 to 6.07) or miscarriages (relative risk (RR) 3.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 17.96). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this systematic review support the use of IUI rather than CI in stimulated cycles using cryopreserved sperm for donor insemination.