Dataset Information

Clinical effectiveness of elective single versus double embryo transfer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of elective single embryo transfer versus double embryo transfer on the outcomes of live birth, multiple live birth, miscarriage, preterm birth, term singleton birth, and low birth weight after fresh embryo transfer, and on the outcomes of cumulative live birth and multiple live birth after fresh and frozen embryo transfers.

Design

One stage meta-analysis of individual patient data.

Data sources

A systematic review of English and non-English articles from Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (up to 2008). Additional studies were identified by contact with clinical experts and searches of bibliographies of all relevant primary articles. Search terms included embryo transfer, randomised controlled trial, controlled clinical trial, single embryo transfer, and double embryo transfer. Review methods Comparisons of the clinical effectiveness of cleavage stage (day 2 or 3) elective single versus double embryo transfer after fresh or frozen in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatments were included. Trials were included if the intervention differed only in terms of the intended number of embryos to be transferred. Trials that involved only blastocyst (day five) transfers were excluded.

Results

Individual patient data were received for every patient recruited to all eight eligible trials (n=1367). A total of 683 and 684 women randomised to the single and double embryo transfer arms, respectively, were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics in the two groups were comparable. The overall live birth rate in a fresh IVF cycle was lower after single (181/683, 27%) than double embryo transfer (285/683, 42%) (adjusted odds ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.63), as was the multiple birth rate (3/181 (2%) v 84/285 (29%)) (0.04, 0.01 to 0.12). An additional frozen single embryo transfer, however, resulted in a cumulative live birth rate not significantly lower than the rate after one fresh double embryo transfer (132/350 (38%) v 149/353 (42%) (0.85, 0.62 to 1.15), with a minimal cumulative risk of multiple birth (1/132 (1%) v 47/149 (32%)). The odds of a term singleton birth (that is, over 37 weeks) after elective single embryo transfer was almost five times higher than the odds after double embryo transfer (4.93, 2.98 to 8.18).

Conclusions

Elective single embryo transfer results in a higher chance of delivering a term singleton live birth compared with double embryo transfer. Although this strategy yields a lower pregnancy rate than a double embryo transfer in a fresh IVF cycle, this difference is almost completely overcome by an additional frozen single embryo transfer cycle. The multiple pregnancy rate after elective single embryo transfer is comparable with that observed in spontaneous pregnancies.

SUBMITTER: McLernon DJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3006495 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo date, evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of two consecutive cycles of single embryo transfer (2SETs) compared with one cycle of double embryo transfer (DET) has been inadequate, particularly considering infertile women with different prognostic factors. This study aimed to comprehensively summarize the evidence by comparing 2SETs with DET.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases, ClinicalTrails.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched up to March 22, 2022. Peer-reviewed, English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OS) comparing the outcomes of 2SETs with DET in infertile women with their own oocytes and embryos were included. Two authors independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and bias assessment. The Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model was used for pooling RCTs, and a Bayesian design-adjusted model was conducted to synthesize the results from both RCTs and OS.Main resultsTwelve studies were finally included. Compared with the DET, 2SETs were associated with a similar cumulative live birth rate (LBR; 48.24% vs. 48.91%; OR, 0.97; 95% credible interval (CrI), 0.89-1.13, τ2 = 0.1796; four RCTs and six observational studies; 197,968 women) and a notable lower cumulative multiple birth rate (MBR; 0.87% vs. 17.72%; OR, 0.05; 95% CrI, 0.02-0.10, τ2 = 0.1036; four RCTs and five observational studies; 197,804 women). Subgroup analyses revealed a significant increase in cumulative LBR (OR, 1.33; 95% CrI, 1.29-1.38, τ2 = 0) after two consecutive cycles of single blastocyst transfer compared with one cycle of double blastocyst transfer. Moreover, a lower risk of cesarean section, antepartum hemorrhage, preterm birth, low birth weight, and neonatal intensive care unit admission but a higher gestational age at birth and birth weight were found in the 2SETs group.ConclusionCompared to the DET strategy, 2SETs result in a similar LBR while simultaneously reducing the MBR and improving maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes. The 2SETs strategy appears to be especially beneficial for women aged ≤35 years and for blastocyst transfers.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Face-to-face brief interventions for problem drinking are effective, but they have found limited implementation in routine care and the community. Internet-based interventions could overcome this treatment gap. We investigated effectiveness and moderators of treatment outcomes in internet-based interventions for adult problem drinking (iAIs). METHODS AND FINDINGS:Systematic searches were performed in medical and psychological databases to 31 December 2016. A one-stage individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) was conducted with a linear mixed model complete-case approach, using baseline and first follow-up data. The primary outcome measure was mean weekly alcohol consumption in standard units (SUs, 10 grams of ethanol). Secondary outcome was treatment response (TR), defined as less than 14/21 SUs for women/men weekly. Putative participant, intervention, and study moderators were included. Robustness was verified in three sensitivity analyses: a two-stage IPDMA, a one-stage IPDMA using multiple imputation, and a missing-not-at-random (MNAR) analysis. We obtained baseline data for 14,198 adult participants (19 randomised controlled trials [RCTs], mean age 40.7 [SD = 13.2], 47.6% women). Their baseline mean weekly alcohol consumption was 38.1 SUs (SD = 26.9). Most were regular problem drinkers (80.1%, SUs 44.7, SD = 26.4) and 19.9% (SUs 11.9, SD = 4.1) were binge-only drinkers. About one third were heavy drinkers, meaning that women/men consumed, respectively, more than 35/50 SUs of alcohol at baseline (34.2%, SUs 65.9, SD = 27.1). Post-intervention data were available for 8,095 participants. Compared with controls, iAI participants showed a greater mean weekly decrease at follow-up of 5.02 SUs (95% CI -7.57 to -2.48, p < 0.001) and a higher rate of TR (odds ratio [OR] 2.20, 95% CI 1.63-2.95, p < 0.001, number needed to treat [NNT] = 4.15, 95% CI 3.06-6.62). Persons above age 55 showed higher TR than their younger counterparts (OR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.21-2.27, p = 0.002). Drinking profiles were not significantly associated with treatment outcomes. Human-supported interventions were superior to fully automated ones on both outcome measures (comparative reduction: -6.78 SUs, 95% CI -12.11 to -1.45, p = 0.013; TR: OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.22-4.08, p = 0.009). Participants treated in iAIs based on personalised normative feedback (PNF) alone were significantly less likely to sustain low-risk drinking at follow-up than those in iAIs based on integrated therapeutic principles (OR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.29-0.93, p = 0.029). The use of waitlist control in RCTs was associated with significantly better treatment outcomes than the use of other types of control (comparative reduction: -9.27 SUs, 95% CI -13.97 to -4.57, p < 0.001; TR: OR = 3.74, 95% CI 2.13-6.53, p < 0.001). The overall quality of the RCTs was high; a major limitation included high study dropout (43%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of our primary analyses. CONCLUSION:To our knowledge, this is the first IPDMA on internet-based interventions that has shown them to be effective in curbing various patterns of adult problem drinking in both community and healthcare settings. Waitlist control may be conducive to inflation of treatment outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundNeoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for early breast cancer can make breast-conserving surgery more feasible and might be more likely to eradicate micrometastatic disease than might the same chemotherapy given after surgery. We investigated the long-term benefits and risks of NACT and the influence of tumour characteristics on outcome with a collaborative meta-analysis of individual patient data from relevant randomised trials.MethodsWe obtained information about prerandomisation tumour characteristics, clinical tumour response, surgery, recurrence, and mortality for 4756 women in ten randomised trials in early breast cancer that began before 2005 and compared NACT with the same chemotherapy given postoperatively. Primary outcomes were tumour response, extent of local therapy, local and distant recurrence, breast cancer death, and overall mortality. Analyses by intention-to-treat used standard regression (for response and frequency of breast-conserving therapy) and log-rank methods (for recurrence and mortality).FindingsPatients entered the trials from 1983 to 2002 and median follow-up was 9 years (IQR 5-14), with the last follow-up in 2013. Most chemotherapy was anthracycline based (3838 [81%] of 4756 women). More than two thirds (1349 [69%] of 1947) of women allocated NACT had a complete or partial clinical response. Patients allocated NACT had an increased frequency of breast-conserving therapy (1504 [65%] of 2320 treated with NACT vs 1135 [49%] of 2318 treated with adjuvant chemotherapy). NACT was associated with more frequent local recurrence than was adjuvant chemotherapy: the 15 year local recurrence was 21·4% for NACT versus 15·9% for adjuvant chemotherapy (5·5% increase [95% CI 2·4-8·6]; rate ratio 1·37 [95% CI 1·17-1·61]; p=0·0001). No significant difference between NACT and adjuvant chemotherapy was noted for distant recurrence (15 year risk 38·2% for NACT vs 38·0% for adjuvant chemotherapy; rate ratio 1·02 [95% CI 0·92-1·14]; p=0·66), breast cancer mortality (34·4% vs 33·7%; 1·06 [0·95-1·18]; p=0·31), or death from any cause (40·9% vs 41·2%; 1·04 [0·94-1·15]; p=0·45).InterpretationTumours downsized by NACT might have higher local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy than might tumours of the same dimensions in women who have not received NACT. Strategies to mitigate the increased local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy in tumours downsized by NACT should be considered-eg, careful tumour localisation, detailed pathological assessment, and appropriate radiotherapy.FundingCancer Research UK, British Heart Foundation, UK Medical Research Council, and UK Department of Health.

Project description:To compare the characteristics, quality and treatment effects of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) by individual patient data (IPD) availability, in trials eligible for 18 IPD meta-analyses (MA).Trial characteristics, risk of bias (RoB) and hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival were extracted from IPD-MA publications and/or RCTs publications. Data for the RoB assessment were extracted for a subset of 73 RCTs. Two investigators blinded to whether IPD was available or not evaluated the RoB for these trials. Treatment effects were compared using ratios of global HRs (RHRs) of IPD-unavailable trials and IPD-available trials. RHR were pooled using a fixed-effect model.We examined the IPD availability for each trial eligible for each IPD-MA; when the IPD was not available for a trial, we used information from published sources.We selected all published IPD-MAs conducted at Gustave Roussy and the RCTs eligible for each.349 RCTs (73?018 patients) from 18 MAs were eligible: 60 RCTs (5890 patients) had unavailable IPD and 289 RCTs (67?128 patients) had available IPD. The main reason for IPD unavailability was data loss by investigators. IPD-unavailable trials were smaller (p<0.001), more often monocentric (p<0.001) and non-international (p=0.0004) than IPD-available trials. Geographical areas differed (p=0.054) between IPD-unavailable IPD-available trials. RoB was higher in IPD-unavailable RCTs for random sequence generation (p=0.007) and allocation concealment (p=0.006). The HR and 95% confidence interval (CI) for overall survival were extractable from publications in 23/60 IPD-unavailable trials included in 10 different MAs. Treatment effects were significantly greater for IPD-unavailable trials compared with IPD-available trials (RHR=0.86 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.98)).IPD-unavailable RCTs were significantly different from IPD-available RCTs in terms of trial characteristics and were at greater RoB. IPD-unavailable RCTs had a significantly greater treatment effect.