Elective freezing of embryos versus fresh embryo transfer in IVF: a multicentre randomized controlled trial in the UK (E-Freeze).

Does a policy of elective freezing of embryos, followed by frozen embryo transfer result in a higher healthy baby rate, after first embryo transfer, when compared with the current policy of transferring fresh embryos? This study, although limited by sample size, provides no evidence to support the adoption of a routine policy of elective freeze in preference to fresh embryo transfer in order to improve IVF effectiveness in obtaining a healthy baby. The policy of freezing all embryos followed by frozen embryo transfer is associated with a higher live birth rate for high responders but a similar/lower live birth after first embryo transfer and cumulative live birth rate for normal responders. Frozen embryo transfer is associated with a lower risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), preterm delivery and low birthweight babies but a higher risk of large babies and pre-eclampsia. There is also uncertainty about long-term outcomes, hence shifting to a policy of elective freezing for all remains controversial given the delay in treatment and extra costs involved in freezing all embryos. A pragmatic two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial (E-Freeze) was conducted across 18 clinics in the UK from 2016 to 2019. A total of 619 couples were randomized (309 to elective freeze/310 to fresh). The primary outcome was a healthy baby after first embryo transfer (term, singleton live birth with appropriate weight for gestation); secondary outcomes included OHSS, live birth, clinical pregnancy, pregnancy complications and cost-effectiveness. Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of IVF/ICSI treatment, with at least three good quality embryos on Day 3 where the female partner was ≥18 and <42 years of age were eligible. Those using donor gametes, undergoing preimplantation genetic testing or planning to freeze all their embryos were excluded. IVF/ICSI treatment was carried out according to local protocols. Women were followed up for pregnancy outcome after first embryo transfer following randomization. Of the 619 couples randomized, 307 and 309 couples in the elective freeze and fresh transfer arms, respectively, were included in the primary analysis. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in outcomes in the elective freeze group compared to the fresh embryo transfer group: healthy baby rate {20.3% (62/307) versus 24.4% (75/309); risk ratio (RR), 95% CI: 0.84, 0.62 to 1.15}; OHSS (3.6% versus 8.1%; RR, 99% CI: 0.44, 0.15 to 1.30); live birth rate (28.3% versus 34.3%; RR, 99% CI 0.83, 0.65 to 1.06); and miscarriage (14.3% versus 12.9%; RR, 99% CI: 1.09, 0.72 to 1.66). Adherence to allocation was poor in the elective freeze group. The elective freeze approach was more costly and was unlikely to be cost-effective in a UK National Health Service context. We have only reported on first embryo transfer after randomization; data on the cumulative live birth rate requires further follow-up. Planned target sample size was not obtained and the non-adherence to allocation rate was high among couples in the elective freeze arm owing to patient preference for fresh embryo transfer, but an analysis which took non-adherence into account showed similar results. Results from the E-Freeze trial do not lend support to the policy of electively freezing all for everyone, taking both efficacy, safety and costs considerations into account. This method should only be adopted if there is a definite clinical indication. NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (13/115/82). This research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (NIHR unique award identifier) using UK aid from the UK Government to support global health research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. J.L.B., C.C., E.J., P.H., J.J.K., L.L. and G.S. report receipt of funding from NIHR, during the conduct of the study. J.L.B., E.J., P.H., K.S. and L.L. report receipt of funding from NIHR, during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. A.M. reports grants from NIHR personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees for lectures from Merck Serono, Ferring and Cooks outside the submitted work; travel/meeting support from Ferring and Pharmasure and participation in a Ferring advisory board. S.B. reports receipt of royalties and licenses from Cambridge University Press, a board membership role for NHS Grampian and other financial or non-financial interests related to his roles as Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and Editor and Contributing Author of Reproductive Medicine for the MRCOG, Cambridge University Press. D.B. reports grants from NIHR, during the conduct of the study; grants from European Commission, grants from Diabetes UK, grants from NIHR, grants from ESHRE, grants from MRC, outside the submitted work. Y.C. reports speaker fees from Merck Serono, and advisory board role for Merck Serono and shares in Complete Fertility. P.H. reports membership of the HTA Commissioning Committee. E.J. reports membership of the NHS England and NIHR Partnership Programme, membership of five Data Monitoring Committees (Chair of two), membership of six Trial Steering Committees (Chair of four), membership of the Northern Ireland Clinical Trials Unit Advisory Group and Chair of the board of Oxford Brain Health Clinical Trials Unit. R.M. reports consulting fees from Gedeon Richter, honorarium from Merck, support fees for attendance at educational events and conferences for Merck, Ferring, Bessins and Gedeon Richter, payments for participation on a Merck Safety or Advisory Board, Chair of the British Fertility Society and payments for an advisory role to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. G.S. reports travel and accommodation fees for attendance at a health economic advisory board from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. N.R.-F. reports shares in Nurture Fertility. Other authors' competing interests: none declared. ISRCTN: 61225414. 29 December 2015. 16 February 2016.

Maheshwari A ，Bell JL ，Bhide P ，Brison D ，Child T ，Chong HY ，Cheong Y ，Cole C ，Coomarasamy A ，Cutting R ，Hardy P ，Hamoda H ，Juszczak E ，Khalaf Y ，Kurinczuk JJ ，Lavery S ，Linsell L ，Macklon N ，Mathur R ，Pundir J ，Raine-Fenning N ，Rajkohwa M ，Scotland G ，Stanbury K ，Troup S ，Bhattacharya S ... -  《-》

Psychosocial wellbeing shortly after allocation to a freeze-all strategy compared with a fresh transfer strategy in women and men: a sub-study of a randomized controlled trial.

Is the psychosocial wellbeing affected in women and men shortly after allocation to a freeze-all strategy with postponement of embryo transfer compared to a fresh transfer strategy? In general, psychosocial wellbeing (i.e. emotional reactions to the treatment, quality-of-life, infertility-related stress, and marital benefit) was similar in women and men allocated to a freeze-all versus those allocated to a fresh-transfer strategy 6 days after disclosure of treatment strategy (i.e. 4 days after oocyte retrieval), although women in the freeze-all group reported a slightly higher degree of depressive symptoms and mood swings compared to women in the fresh transfer group. The use of a freeze-all strategy, i.e. freezing of the entire embryo cohort followed by elective frozen embryo transfer in subsequent cycles has increased steadily over the past decade in assisted reproductive technology (ART). This strategy essentially eliminates the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and has proven beneficial regarding some reproductive outcomes in subgroups of women. However, patients experience a longer time interval between oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer, hence a longer time to pregnancy, possibly adding additional stress to the ART treatment. So far, little focus has been on the possible psychosocial strains caused by postponement of embryo transfer. This is a self-reported questionnaire based sub-study of a multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT) including 460 women and 396 male partners initiating their first, second, or third treatment cycle of invitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) from May 2016 to September 2018. This sub-study was included in the primary project protocol and project plan for the RCT, as psychosocial wellbeing was considered a secondary outcome. Women from eight public fertility clinics in Denmark and Sweden and one private clinic in Spain were randomized in a 1:1 ratio on the day of inclusion (menstrual cycle day 2 or 3) to either a freeze-all strategy with postponement of embryo transfer to a subsequent modified natural menstrual cycle or a fresh transfer strategy with embryo transfer in the hormone stimulated cycle. Treatment allocation was blinded until the day of the ovulation trigger. Women and their male partners were asked to complete a validated self-reported questionnaire 6 days after unblinding of treatment group allocation, corresponding to 4 days after oocyte retrieval, investigating their psychosocial wellbeing related to the treatment defined as emotional reactions to the treatment, quality-of-life, infertility-related stress, and marital benefit. The questionnaire included items from the Copenhagen Multi-Centre Psychosocial Infertility (COMPI) Fertility Problem Stress Scales and the COMPI Marital Benefit Measure. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups for both women and men. In total, response rates were 90.7% for women and 90.2% for men. In the freeze-all group, 207 women and 179 men completed the questionnaire compared with 204 women and 178 men in the fresh transfer group. Men in the two treatment groups did not differ in any of the explored aspects of psychosocial wellbeing (i.e. emotional reactions to the treatment, quality-of-life, infertility-related stress, and marital benefit) 6 days after disclosure of treatment strategy. Women in the freeze-all group reported a slightly higher degree of depressive symptoms (P = 0.045) and mood swings (P = 0.001) (i.e. variables included in 'emotional reactions to treatment') compared to women in the fresh transfer group. When adjusted for multiple testing, depressive symptoms were no longer significantly different between the two groups. No additional differences in psychosocial wellbeing were found. Self-reported quality-of-life during treatment was also rated as similar between the two groups in both women and men, but was slightly lower than they would rate their quality-of-life when not in fertility treatment. Although response rates were high, selection bias cannot be excluded. As this study was an RCT, we assume that psychosocial characteristics of the participants were equally distributed in the two groups, thus it is unlikely that the identified psychosocial differences between the freeze-all and fresh transfer group were present already at baseline. Furthermore, the questionnaire was completed as a one-time assessment 4 days after oocyte retrieval, thus not reflecting the whole treatment process, whereas an assessment after the full completed treatment cycle is needed to draw firm conclusions about the psychosocial consequences of the whole waiting period. However, a question posted that late would be highly biased on whether or not a pregnancy had been achieved. The results indicate that individuals in the freeze-all group exhibited slightly higher levels of depressive symptoms and mood swings compared to those in the fresh transfer group. Nevertheless, it is important to note that any worries related to potential emotional strains stemming from delaying embryo transfer should not overshadow the adoption of a freeze-all approach in cases where it is clinically recommended. As long as patients are provided with comprehensive information about the treatment strategy before initiating the process, it is worth emphasising that other aspects of psychosocial wellbeing were comparable between the two groups. The study is part of the Reprounion collaborative study, co-financed by the European Union, Interreg V Öresund-Kattegat-Skagerrak. L.P. reports financial support from Merck A/S. H.S.N. reports grants from Freya Biosciences ApS, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, BioInnovation Institute, Ministry of Education, Novo Nordic Foundation, Augustinus Fonden, Oda og Hans Svenningsens Fond, Demant Fonden, Ole Kirks Fond and Independent Research Fund Denmark and personal fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S, Astra Zeneca, Cook Medical, IBSA Nordic and Gedeon Richter. H.S.N is founder and chairman of the Maternity Foundation and co-developed the Safe Delivery App (non-profit). N.C.F. reports grants from Gedeon Richter, Merck A/S, Cryos International and financial support from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S and Gedeon Richter. N.C.F. is chairman in the steering committee for the guideline groups for The Danish Fertility Society (non-profit). P.H. reports honoraria from Merch A/S, IBSA Nordic and Gedeon Richter. A.L.M.E. reports grants and financial support from Merck A/S and Gedeon Richter. A.P. reports grants from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S and personal fees from Preglem S.A., Novo Nordic Foundation, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Gedeon Richter, Cryos International, Merch A/S, Theramex and Organon and the lend of embryoscope to the institution from Gedeon Richter. All other authors declare no conflict of interest. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02746562.

Pilegaard SP ，Schmidt L ，Stormlund S ，Koert E ，Bogstad JW ，Prætorius L ，Nielsen HS ，la Cour Freiesleben N ，Sopa N ，Klajnbard A ，Humaidan P ，Bergh C ，Englund ALM ，Løssl K ，Pinborg A ... -  《-》

Endometrial scratching in women with one failed IVF/ICSI cycle-outcomes of a randomised controlled trial (SCRaTCH).

Does endometrial scratching in women with one failed IVF/ICSI treatment affect the chance of a live birth of the subsequent fresh IVF/ICSI cycle? In this study, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch group, with a likely certainty range between -0.7% and +9.9%. Since the first suggestion that endometrial scratching might improve embryo implantation during IVF/ICSI, many clinical trials have been conducted. However, due to limitations in sample size and study quality, it remains unclear whether endometrial scratching improves IVF/ICSI outcomes. The SCRaTCH trial was a non-blinded randomised controlled trial in women with one unsuccessful IVF/ICSI cycle and assessed whether a single endometrial scratch using an endometrial biopsy catheter would lead to a higher live birth rate after the subsequent IVF/ICSI treatment compared to no scratch. The study took place in 8 academic and 24 general hospitals. Participants were randomised between January 2016 and July 2018 by a web-based randomisation programme. Secondary outcomes included cumulative 12-month ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth rate. Women with one previous failed IVF/ICSI treatment and planning a second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment were eligible. In total, 933 participants out of 1065 eligibles were included (participation rate 88%). After the fresh transfer, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch compared to control group (110/465 versus 88/461, respectively, risk ratio (RR) 1.24 [95% CI 0.96-1.59]). These data are consistent with a true difference of between -0.7% and +9.9% (95% CI), indicating that while the largest proportion of the 95% CI is positive, scratching could have no or even a small negative effect. Biochemical pregnancy loss and miscarriage rate did not differ between the two groups: in the scratch group 27/153 biochemical pregnancy losses and 14/126 miscarriages occurred, while this was 19/130 and 17/111 for the control group (RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.71-2.07) and RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.38-1.40), respectively). After 12 months of follow-up, 5.1% more live births were observed in the scratch group (202/467 versus 178/466), of which the true difference most likely lies between -1.2% and +11.4% (95% CI). This study was not blinded. Knowledge of allocation may have been an incentive for participants allocated to the scratch group to continue treatment in situations where they may otherwise have cancelled or stopped. In addition, this study was powered to detect a difference in live birth rate of 9%. The results of this study are an incentive for further assessment of the efficacy and clinical implications of endometrial scratching. If a true effect exists, it may be smaller than previously anticipated or may be limited to specific groups of women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Studying this will require larger sample sizes, which will be provided by the ongoing international individual participant data-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42017079120). At present, endometrial scratching should not be performed outside of clinical trials. This study was funded by ZonMW, the Dutch organisation for funding healthcare research. J.S.E. Laven reports grants and personal fees from AnshLabs (Webster, Tx, USA), Ferring (Hoofddorp, The Netherlands) and Ministry of Health (CIBG, The Hague, The Netherlands) outside the submitted work. A.E.P. Cantineau reports 'other' from Ferring BV, personal fees from Up to date Hyperthecosis, 'other' from Theramex BV, outside the submitted work. E.R. Groenewoud reports grants from Titus Health Care during the conduct of the study. A.M. van Heusden reports personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees from Ferring, personal fees from Goodlife, outside the submitted work. F.J.M. Broekmans reports personal fees as Member of the external advisory board for Ferring BV, The Netherlands, personal fees as Member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, The Netherlands, personal fees as Member of the external advisory for Gedeon Richter, Belgium, personal fees from Educational activities for Ferring BV, The Netherlands, grants from Research support grant Merck Serono, grants from Research support grant Ferring, personal fees from Advisory and consultancy work Roche, outside the submitted work. C.B. Lambalk reports grants from Ferring, grants from Merck, grants from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. Registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NL5193/NTR 5342). 31 July 2015. 26 January 2016.

van Hoogenhuijze NE ，Mol F ，Laven JSE ，Groenewoud ER ，Traas MAF ，Janssen CAH ，Teklenburg G ，de Bruin JP ，van Oppenraaij RHF ，Maas JWM ，Moll E ，Fleischer K ，van Hooff MHA ，de Koning CH ，Cantineau AEP ，Lambalk CB ，Verberg M ，van Heusden AM ，Manger AP ，van Rumste MME ，van der Voet LF ，Pieterse QD ，Visser J ，Brinkhuis EA ，den Hartog JE ，Glas MW ，Klijn NF ，van der Meer S ，Bandell ML ，Boxmeer JC ，van Disseldorp J ，Smeenk J ，van Wely M ，Eijkemans MJC ，Torrance HL ，Broekmans FJM ... -  《-》

Transfer of thawed frozen embryo versus fresh embryo to improve the healthy baby rate in women undergoing IVF: the E-Freeze RCT.

Maheshwari A ，Bari V ，Bell JL ，Bhattacharya S ，Bhide P ，Bowler U ，Brison D ，Child T ，Chong HY ，Cheong Y ，Cole C ，Coomarasamy A ，Cutting R ，Goodgame F ，Hardy P ，Hamoda H ，Juszczak E ，Khalaf Y ，King A ，Kurinczuk JJ ，Lavery S ，Lewis-Jones C ，Linsell L ，Macklon N ，Mathur R ，Murray D ，Pundir J ，Raine-Fenning N ，Rajkohwa M ，Robinson L ，Scotland G ，Stanbury K ，Troup S ... -  《-》

The BISTIM study: a randomized controlled trial comparing dual ovarian stimulation (duostim) with two conventional ovarian stimulations in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF.

Is the total number of oocytes retrieved with dual ovarian stimulation in the same cycle (duostim) higher than with two consecutive antagonist cycles in poor responders? Based on the number of total and mature oocytes retrieved in women with poor ovarian response (POR), there is no benefit of duostim versus two consecutive antagonist cycles. Recent studies have shown the ability to obtain oocytes with equivalent quality from the follicular and the luteal phase, and a higher number of oocytes within one cycle when using duostim. If during follicular stimulation smaller follicles are sensitized and recruited, this may increase the number of follicles selected in the consecutive luteal phase stimulation, as shown in non-randomized controlled trials (RCT). This could be particularly relevant for women with POR. This is a multicentre, open-labelled RCT, performed in four IVF centres from September 2018 to March 2021. The primary outcome was the number of oocytes retrieved over the two cycles. The primary objective was to demonstrate in women with POR that two ovarian stimulations within the same cycle (first in the follicular phase, followed by a second in the luteal phase) led to the retrieval of 1.5 (2) more oocytes than the cumulative number of oocytes from two consecutive conventional stimulations with an antagonist protocol. In a superiority hypothesis, with power 0.8 alpha-risk 0.05 and a 35% cancellation rate, 44 patients were needed in each group. Patients were randomized by computer allocation. Eighty-eight women with POR, defined using adjusted Bologna criteria (antral follicle count ≤5 and/or anti-Müllerian hormone ≤1.2 ng/ml) were randomized, 44 in the duostim group and 44 in the conventional (control) group. HMG 300 IU/day with flexible antagonist protocol was used for ovarian stimulation, except in luteal phase stimulation of the duostim group. In the duostim group, oocytes were pooled and inseminated after the second retrieval, with a freeze-all protocol. Fresh transfers were performed in the control group, frozen embryo transfers were performed in both control and duostim groups in natural cycles. Data underwent intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. There was no difference between the groups regarding demographics, ovarian reserve markers, and stimulation parameters. The mean (SD) cumulative number of oocytes retrieved from two ovarian stimulations was not statistically different between the control and duostim groups, respectively, 4.6 (3.4) and 5.0 (3.4) [mean difference (MD) [95% CI] +0.4 [-1.1; 1.9], P = 0.56]. The mean cumulative numbersof mature oocytes and total embryos obtained were not significantly different between groups. The total number of embryos transferred by patient was significantly higher in the control group 1.5 (1.1) versus the duostim group 0.9 (1.1) (P = 0.03). After two cumulative cycles, 78% of women in the control group and 53.8% in the duostim group had at least one embryo transfer (P = 0.02). There was no statistical difference in the mean number of total and mature oocytes retrieved per cycle comparing Cycle 1 versus Cycle 2, both in control and duostim groups. The time to the second oocyte retrieval was significantly longer in controls, at 2.8 (1.3) months compared to 0.3 (0.5) months in the duostim group (P < 0.001). The implantation rate was similar between groups. The cumulative live birth rate was not statistically different, comparing controls versus the duostim group, 34.1% versus 17.9%, respectively (P = 0.08). The time to transfer resulting in an ongoing pregnancy did not differ in controls 1.7 (1.5) months versus the duostim group, 3.0 (1.6) (P = 0.08). No serious adverse events were reported. The RCT was impacted by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and the halt in IVF activities for 10 weeks. Delays were recalculated to exclude this period; however, one woman in the duostim group could not have the luteal stimulation. We also faced unexpected good ovarian responses and pregnancies after the first oocyte retrieval in both groups, with a higher incidence in the control group. However, our hypothesis was based on 1.5 more oocytes in the luteal than the follicular phase in the duostim group, and the number of patients to treat was reached in this group (N = 28). This study was only powered for cumulative number of oocytes retrieved. This is the first RCT comparing the outcome of two consecutive cycles, either in the same menstrual cycle or in two consecutive menstrual cycles. In routine practice, the benefit of duostim in patients with POR regarding fresh embryo transfer is not confirmed in this RCT: first, because this study demonstrates no improvement in the number of oocytes retrieved in the luteal phase after follicular phase stimulation, in contrast to previous non-randomized studies, and second, because the freeze-all strategy avoids a pregnancy with fresh embryo transfer after the first cycle. However, duostim appears to be safe for women. In duostim, the two consecutive processes of freezing/thawing are mandatory and increase the risk of wastage of oocytes/embryos. The only benefit of duostim is to shorten the time to a second retrieval by 2 weeks if accumulation of oocytes/embryos is needed. This is an investigator-initiated study supported by a research Grant from IBSA Pharma. N.M. declares grants paid to their institution from MSD (Organon France); consulting fees from MSD (Organon France), Ferring, and Merck KGaA; honoraria from Merck KGaA, General Electrics, Genevrier (IBSA Pharma), and Theramex; support for travel and meetings from Theramex, Merck KGaG, and Gedeon Richter; and equipment paid to their institution from Goodlife Pharma. I.A. declares honoraria from GISKIT and support for travel and meetings from GISKIT. G.P.-B. declares Consulting fees from Ferring and Merck KGaA; honoraria from Theramex, Gedeon Richter, and Ferring; payment for expert testimony from Ferring, Merck KGaA, and Gedeon Richter; and support for travel and meetings from Ferring, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter. N.C. declares grants from IBSA pharma, Merck KGaA, Ferring, and Gedeon Richter; support for travel and meetings from IBSA pharma, Merck KGaG, MSD (Organon France), Gedeon Richter, and Theramex; and participation on advisory board from Merck KGaA. E.D. declares support for travel and meetings from IBSA pharma, Merck KGaG, MSD (Organon France), Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Theramex, and General Electrics. C.P.-V. declares support for travel and meetings from IBSA Pharma, Merck KGaA, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, and Theramex. M.Pi. declares support for travel and meetings from Ferring, Gedeon Richetr, and Merck KGaA. M.Pa. declares honoraria from Merck KGaA, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter; support for travel and meetings from Merck KGaA, IBSA Pharma, Theramex, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, and MSD (Organon France). H.B.-G. declares honoraria from Merck KGaA, and Gedeon Richter and support for travel and meetings from Ferring, Merck KGaA, IBSA Pharma, MSD (Organon France), Theramex, and Gedeon Richter. S.G. and M.B. have nothing to declare. Registration number EudraCT: 2017-003223-30. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03803228. EudraCT: 28 July 2017. ClinicalTrials.gov: 14 January 2019. 3 September 2018.

Massin N ，Abdennebi I ，Porcu-Buisson G ，Chevalier N ，Descat E ，Piétin-Vialle C ，Goro S ，Brussieux M ，Pinto M ，Pasquier M ，Bry-Gauillard H ... -  《-》