A pilot randomized controlled trial of Day 3 single embryo transfer with adjunctive time-lapse selection versus Day 5 single embryo transfer with or without adjunctive time-lapse selection.

Compared to D5 selection with conventional morphology (CM), does adjunctive use of the Eeva™ test on D3 or D5 improve the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) per transfer? The evidence is insufficient to conclude that adjunctive use of the Eeva™ test on D3 or D5 improves CPR per transfer as compared to D5 selection with CM. Time-lapse imaging is increasingly used for embryo selection, despite there being no class I data to support its clinical application. Pilot randomized controlled trial included 163 patients from August 2014 to February 2016. Patients up to age 41 years with a planned fresh autologous single embryo transfer (SET), less than four prior oocyte retrievals, and four or more zygotes were blocked according to age (<35, 35-37, 38-40 years) and randomized to one of three study arms: (1) D3 SET + EevaTM, (2) D5 SET + Eeva™ or (3) D5 SET with CM alone. All embryos were cultured in the same time-lapse system under identical conditions. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and as-treated analyses of the primary endpoint (CPR at 7 weeks) and secondary endpoint (ongoing pregnancy rate at 12 weeks) were performed. Multivariate regression analyses adjusted for patient age and ICSI. Of 478 eligible patients, 217 consented and 163 were randomized. Demographic characteristics were similar among the three study arms. There were no statistically significant differences in the clinical pregnancy rate or the ongoing pregnancy rate between the study arms for either the ITT or as-treated analyses (CPR ITT: D3 + Eeva™: 41.1% vs. D5 + Eeva™: 38.9% vs. D5 CM: 49.1%). This study was designed as a pilot randomized controlled trial and was not powered to detect a statistically significant difference at α < 0.05. Importantly, the study was terminated prematurely by the sponsor due to a change in funding priorities, so the sample size is limited and the results should be interpreted with caution due to the role of chance. Furthermore, these findings may not be generalizable to other time-lapse systems. Our findings do not support the clinical application of these time-lapse markers. This study was funded by Progyny, Inc. There are no competing interests. clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02218255. 14 August 2014. 3 September 2014.

Kaser DJ ，Bormann CL ，Missmer SA ，Farland LV ，Ginsburg ES ，Racowsky C ... -  《-》

Single embryo transfer by Day 3 time-lapse selection versus Day 5 conventional morphological selection: a randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial.

Yang L ，Cai S ，Zhang S ，Kong X ，Gu Y ，Lu C ，Dai J ，Gong F ，Lu G ，Lin G ... -  《-》

A double-blind randomized controlled trial investigating a time-lapse algorithm for selecting Day 5 blastocysts for transfer.

Can use of a commercially available time-lapse algorithm for Day 5 blastocyst selection improve pregnancy rates compared with morphology alone? The use of a time-lapse selection model to choose blastocysts for fresh single embryo transfer on Day 5 did not improve ongoing pregnancy rate compared to morphology alone. Evidence from time-lapse monitoring suggests correlations between timing of key developmental events and embryo viability. No good quality evidence exists to support improved pregnancy rates following time-lapse selection. A prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial including 776 randomized patients was performed between 2018 and 2021. Patients with at least two good quality blastocysts on Day 5 were allocated by a computer randomization program in a proportion of 1:1 into either the control group, whereby single blastocysts were selected for transfer by morphology alone, or the intervention group whereby final selection was decided by a commercially available time-lapse model. The embryologists at the time of blastocyst morphological scoring were blinded to which study group the patients would be randomized, and the physician and patients were blind to which group they were allocated until after the primary outcome was known. The primary outcome was number of ongoing pregnancies in the two groups. From 10 Nordic IVF clinics, 776 patients with a minimum of two good quality blastocysts on Day 5 (D5) were randomized into one of the two study groups. A commercial time-lapse model decided the final selection of blastocysts for 387 patients in the intervention (time-lapse) group, and blastocysts with the highest morphological score were transferred for 389 patients in the control group. Only single embryo transfers in fresh cycles were performed. In the full analysis set, the ongoing pregnancy rate for the time-lapse group was 47.4% (175/369) and 48.1% (181/376) in the control group. No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups: mean difference -0.7% (95% CI -8.2, 6.7, P = 0.90). Pregnancy rate (60.2% versus 59.0%, mean difference 1.1%, 95% CI -6.2, 8.4, P = 0.81) and early pregnancy loss (21.2% versus 18.5%, mean difference 2.7%, 95% CI -5.2, 10.6, P = 0.55) were the same for the time-lapse and the control group. Subgroup analyses showed that patient and treatment characteristics did not significantly affect the commercial time-lapse model D5 performance. In the time-lapse group, the choice of best blastocyst changed on 42% of occasions (154/369, 95% CI 36.9, 47.2) after the algorithm was applied, and this rate was similar for most treatment clinics. During 2020, the patient recruitment rate slowed down at participating clinics owing to coronavirus disease-19 restrictions, so the target sample size was not achieved as planned and it was decided to stop the trial prematurely. The study only investigated embryo selection at the blastocyst stage on D5 in fresh IVF transfer cycles. In addition, only blastocysts of good morphological quality were considered for transfer, limiting the number of embryos for selection in both groups: also, it could be argued that this manual preselection of blastocysts limits the theoretical selection power of time-lapse, as well as restricting the results mainly to a good prognosis patient group. Most patients were aimed for blastocyst stage transfer when a minimum of five zygotes were available for extended culture. Finally, the primary clinical outcome evaluated was pregnancy to only 6-8 weeks. The study suggests that time-lapse selection with a commercially available time-lapse model does not increase chance of ongoing pregnancy after single blastocyst transfer on Day 5 compared to morphology alone. The study was financed by a grant from the Swedish state under the ALF-agreement between the Swedish government and the county councils (ALFGBG-723141). Vitrolife supported the study with embryo culture dishes and culture media. During the study period, T.H. changed his employment from Livio AB to Vitrolife AB. All other authors have no conflicts of interests to disclose. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT03445923. 26 February 2018. 11 June 2018.

Ahlström A ，Lundin K ，Lind AK ，Gunnarsson K ，Westlander G ，Park H ，Thurin-Kjellberg A ，Thorsteinsdottir SA ，Einarsson S ，Åström M ，Löfdahl K ，Menezes J ，Callender S ，Nyberg C ，Winerdal J ，Stenfelt C ，Jonassen BR ，Oldereid N ，Nolte L ，Sundler M ，Hardarson T ... -  《-》

Prospective study of automated versus manual annotation of early time-lapse markers in the human preimplantation embryo.

How does automated time-lapse annotation (Eeva™) compare to manual annotation of the same video images performed by embryologists certified in measuring durations of the 2-cell (P2; time to the 3-cell minus time to the 2-cell, or t3-t2) and 3-cell (P3; time to 4-cell minus time to the 3-cell, or t4-t3) stages? Manual annotation was superior to the automated annotation provided by Eeva™ version 2.2, because manual annotation assigned a rating to a higher proportion of embryos and yielded a greater sensitivity for blastocyst prediction than automated annotation. While use of the Eeva™ test has been shown to improve an embryologist's ability to predict blastocyst formation compared to Day 3 morphology alone, the accuracy of the automated image analysis employed by the Eeva™ system has never been compared to manual annotation of the same time-lapse markers by a trained embryologist. We conducted a prospective cohort study of embryos (n = 1477) cultured in the Eeva™ system (n = 8 microscopes) at our institution from August 2014 to February 2016. Embryos were assigned a blastocyst prediction rating of High (H), Medium (M), Low (L), or Not Rated (NR) by Eeva™ version 2.2 according to P2 and P3. An embryologist from a team of 10, then manually annotated each embryo and if the automated and manual ratings differed, a second embryologist independently annotated the embryo. If both embryologists disagreed with the automated Eeva™ rating, then the rating was classified as discordant. If the second embryologist agreed with the automated Eeva™ score, the rating was not considered discordant. Spearman's correlation (ρ), weighted kappa statistics and the intra-class correlation (ICC) coefficients with 95% confidence intervals (CI) between Eeva™ and manual annotation were calculated, as were the proportions of discordant embryos, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and NPV of each method for blastocyst prediction. The distribution of H, M and L ratings differed by annotation method (P < 0.0001). The correlation between Eeva™ and manual annotation was higher for P2 (ρ = 0.75; ICC = 0.82; 95% CI 0.82-0.83) than for P3 (ρ = 0.39; ICC = 0.20; 95% CI 0.16-0.26). Eeva™ was more likely than an embryologist to rate an embryo as NR (11.1% vs. 3.0%, P < 0.0001). Discordance occurred in 30.0% (443/1477) of all embryos and was not associated with factors such as Day 3 cell number, fragmentation, symmetry or presence of abnormal cleavage. Rather, discordance was associated with direct cleavage (P2 ≤ 5 h) and short P3 (≤0.25 h), and also factors intrinsic to the Eeva™ system, such as the automated rating (proportion of discordant embryos by rating: H: 9.3%; M: 18.1%; L: 41.3%; NR: 31.4%; P < 0.0001), microwell location (peripheral: 31.2%; central: 23.8%; P = 0.02) and Eeva™ microscope (n = 8; range 22.9-42.6%; P < 0.0001). Manual annotation upgraded 82.6% of all discordant embryos from a lower to a higher rating, and improved the sensitivity for predicting blastocyst formation. One team of embryologists performed the manual annotations; however, the study staff was trained and certified by the company sponsor. Only two time-lapse markers were evaluated, so the results are not generalizable to other parameters; likewise, the results are not generalizable to future versions of Eeva™ or other automated image analysis systems. Based on the proportion of discordance and the improved performance of manual annotation, clinics using the Eeva™ system should consider manual annotation of P2 and P3 to confirm the automated ratings generated by Eeva™. These data were acquired in a study funded by Progyny, Inc. There are no competing interests. N/A.

Kaser DJ ，Farland LV ，Missmer SA ，Racowsky C ... -  《-》

Embryo selection using time-lapse analysis (Early Embryo Viability Assessment) in conjunction with standard morphology: a prospective two-center pilot study.

Does prospective embryo selection using the results from the Eava Test (Early Embryo Viability Assessment) in combination with standard morphology increase the pregnancy rate of IVF and ICSI patients compared to embryo selection based on morphology only? Embryo selection using the Eeva Test plus standard morphology on Day 3 results in comparable pregnancy rates as conventional morphological embryo selection. Time-lapse monitoring of embryo development may represent a superior way to culture and select embryos in vitro. The Eeva Test records the development of each embryo with a cell-tracking system and predicts the likelihood (High, Medium or Low) that an embryo will form a blastocyst based on an automated analysis of early cell division timings. This trial was designed as a prospective, observational, two-center pilot study with a propensity matched control group. The analysis involved 280 of 302 enrolled patients who were included in the Eeva Test group in 2013 and 560 control patients who were treated in the years 2011-2013. The majority of transfers (98%) were single embryo transfers. Two academic hospitals (VUmc Amsterdam and UZ Gent) enrolled patients <41 years old, with <3 previous attempts and ≥5 normally fertilized eggs. Propensity matching was used to identify a propensity matched control group from a cohort of 1777 patients based on age, cycle number, oocyte number and number of fertilized oocytes. There was no difference in patient baseline characteristics between the two groups. The ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) of patients enrolled in the Eeva Test group (34.3%; 96/280) did not differ significantly from the OPR in the propensity matched control group (34.6%, 194/560; P = 0.92). However, significantly less top quality embryos (eight-cell embryos with ≤25% fragmentation) were transferred in the Eeva Test group compared to the propensity matched control group (70.4% vs. 82.3%; P < 0.001). The transfer of Eeva High and Medium embryos resulted in a significantly higher OPR of 36.8% (89/242) compared to 18.4% (7/38) for Eeva Low embryos (P = 0.02). This pilot study is limited by its nonrandomized design with a concurrent and historical control. Our pilot data did not reveal significant differences between time-lapse based and conventional embryo selection. Interestingly, the pregnancy rates were comparable in both groups even though the morphological quality of the transferred embryos was significantly lower in the Eeva Test group compared to the propensity matched control group. A sufficiently powered three-armed randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a solid design should be performed to generate decisive evidence in the future. Progyny Inc., formerly Auxogyn provided the Eeva scopes, software and technical support for this study. The funding sources did neither influence data collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data, nor the preparation of the manuscript. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01671644.

Kieslinger DC ，De Gheselle S ，Lambalk CB ，De Sutter P ，Kostelijk EH ，Twisk JW ，van Rijswijk J ，Van den Abbeel E ，Vergouw CG ... -  《-》