Dataset Information

A randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of the endometrial scratch procedure prior to first-time IVF, with or without ICSI.

ABSTRACT:

Study question

What is the clinical-effectiveness and safety of the endometrial scratch (ES) procedure compared to no ES, prior to usual first time in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment?

Summary answer

ES was safe but did not improve pregnancy outcomes when performed in the mid-luteal phase prior to the first IVF cycle, with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

What is known already

ES is an 'add-on' treatment that is available to women undergoing a first cycle of IVF, with or without ICSI, despite a lack of evidence to support its use.

Study design, size, duration

This pragmatic, superiority, open-label, multi-centre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial involving 1048 women assessed the clinical effectiveness and safety of the ES procedure prior to first time IVF, with or without ICSI, between July 2016 and October 2019.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

Participants aged 18-37 years undergoing their first cycle of IVF, with or without ICSI, were recruited from 16 UK fertility clinics and randomised (1:1) by a web-based system with restricted access rights that concealed allocation. Stratified block randomisation was used to allocate participants to TAU or ES in the mid-luteal phase followed by usual IVF with or without ICSI treatment. The primary outcome was live birth after completing 24 weeks gestation within 10.5 months of egg collection.

Main results and the role of chance

In total, 1048 women randomised to TAU (n = 525) and ES (n = 523) were available for intention to treat analysis. In the ES group, 453 (86.6%) received the ES procedure. IVF, with or without ICSI, was received in 494 (94.1%) and 497 (95.0%) of ES and TAU participants respectively. Live birth rate was 37.1% (195/525) in the TAU and 38.6% (202/523) in the ES: an unadjusted absolute difference of 1.5% (95% CI -4.4% to 7.4%, P = 0.621). There were no statistical differences in secondary outcomes. Adverse events were comparable across groups.

Limitations, reasons for caution

A sham ES procedure was not undertaken in the control group, however, we do not believe this would have influenced the results as objective fertility outcomes were used.

Wider implications of the findings

This is the largest trial that is adequately powered to assess the impact of ES on women undergoing their first cycle of IVF. ES was safe, but did not significantly improve pregnancy outcomes when performed in the mid-luteal phase prior to the first IVF or ICSI cycle. We recommend that ES is not undertaken in this population.

Study funding/competing interest(s)

Funded by the National Institute of Health Research. Stephen Walters is an National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator (2018 to present) and was a member of the following during the project: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Clinical Trials and Evaluation Committee (2011-2017), NIHR HTA Commissioning Strategy Group (2012 to 2017); NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research Committee (2020 to present); NIHR Pre doctoral Fellowship Committee (2019 to present). Dr. Martins da Silva reports grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; and is Associate editor of Human Reproduction and Editorial Board member of Reproduction and Fertility. Dr. Bhide reports grants from Bart's Charity and grants and non-financial support from Pharmasure Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN number: ISRCTN23800982.

Trial registration date

31 May 2016.

Date of first patient’s enrolment

04 July 2016.

SUBMITTER: Metwally M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8213451 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionEndometrial trauma commonly known as endometrial scratch (ES) has been shown to improve pregnancy rates in women with a history of repeated implantation failure undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF), with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). However, the procedure has not yet been fully explored in women having IVF/ICSI for the first time. This study aims to examine the effect of performing an ES in the mid-luteal phase prior to a first-time IVF/ICSI cycle on the chances of achieving a clinical pregnancy and live birth. If ES can influence this success rate, there would be a significant cost saving to the National Health Service through decreasing the number of IVF/ICSI cycles necessary to achieve a pregnancy, increase the practice of single embryo transfer and consequently have a large impact on risks and costs associated with multiple pregnancies.Methods and analysisThis 30-month, UK, multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial includes a 9-month internal pilot and health economic analysis recruiting 1044 women from 16 fertility units. It will follow up participants to identify if IVF/ICSI has been successful and live birth has occurred up to 6 weeks post partum. Primary analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis. A substudy of endometrial samples obtained during the ES will assess the role of immune factors in embryo implantation. Main trial recruitment commenced on January 2017 and is ongoing.Participants randomised to the intervention group will receive the ES procedure in the mid-luteal phase of the preceding cycle prior to first-time IVF/ICSI treatment versus usual IVF/ICSI treatment in the control group, with 1:1 randomisation. The primary outcome is live birth rate after completed 24 weeks gestation.Ethics and disseminationSouth Central-Berkshire Research Ethics Committee approved the protocol. Findings will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and abstracts to relevant national and international conferences.Trial registration numberISRCTN23800982; Pre-results.

Project description:Study questions:Does ICSI result in a higher live birth rate as compared with conventional IVF in couples with non-male factor infertility? What is known already:ICSI is primarily indicated for severe male factor infertility. While the use of ICSI for couples with non-male factor infertility has been increasing worldwide, this is not supported by data from randomised controlled trials. Evidence from non-randomised studies suggest no benefit from ICSI compared with conventional IVF in non-male factor infertility, if not a harm. Study design size duration:This randomised, open-label, multi-centre trial aims to compare the effectiveness of one ICSI cycle and one conventional IVF cycle in infertile couples with non-male factor infertility. A total of 1064 couples will be randomly allocated to an ICSI group and a conventional IVF group. The estimated duration of the study is 30 months. Participants/materials setting methods:Eligible couples are those whose husbands' total sperm count and motility are normal, have undergone ?2 previous IVF/ICSI attempts, use antagonist protocol for ovarian stimulation, agree to have ?2 embryos transferred and are not participating in another IVF study at the same time. Women undergoing IVM cycles, using frozen semen or having a poor fertilisation (?25%) in previous cycle will not be eligible. Couples will be randomised to undergo ICSI or conventional IVF (1:1) with ongoing pregnancy resulting in live birth after the first embryo transfer of the started treatment cycle as the primary endpoint. All analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Effect sizes will be summarised as relative risk (RR), with precision evaluated by 95% CIs. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS:All authors declare having no conflict of interests with regards to this trial. This work was supported by a grant from MSD [MISP #57508]. Trial registration number:NCT03428919. Trial registration date:8 February 2018. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT:16 March 2018.

Project description:IntroductionOver the last decades, the use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has increased, even among patients without male factor infertility. The increase has happened even though there is no evidence to support that ICSI results in higher live birth rates compared with conventional in vitro fertilisation (IVF) in cases with nonmale factor infertility. The lack of robust evidence on an advantage of using ICSI over conventional IVF in these patients is problematic since ICSI is more invasive, complex and requires additional resources, time and effort. Therefore, the primary objective of the IVF versus ICSI (INVICSI) study is to determine whether ICSI is superior to standard IVF in patients without severe male factor infertility. The primary outcome measure is first live birth from fresh and frozen-thawed transfers after one stimulated cycle. Secondary outcomes include fertilisation rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, birth weight and congenital anomalies.Methods and analysisThis is a two-armed, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. In total, 824 couples/women with infertility without severe male factor will be recruited and allocated randomly into two groups (IVF or ICSI) in a 1:1 ratio. Participants will be randomised in variable block sizes and stratified by trial site and age. The main inclusion criteria are (1) no prior IVF/ICSI treatment, (2) male partner sperm with an expected count of minimum 2 million progressive motile spermatozoa following density gradient purification on the day of oocyte pick up and (3) age of the woman between 18 and 42 years.Ethics and disseminationThe study will be performed in accordance with the ethical principles in the Helsinki Declaration. The study is approved by the Scientific Ethical Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark. Study findings will be presented, irrespectively of results at international conferences and submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT04128904. Pre-results.

Project description:PURPOSE:To explore the effects of conservative surgery for endometriomas on ovarian responsiveness during assisted reproductive technology (ART) and provide reproductive and gynecological doctors with a more reliable reference program for the treatment of endometriomas. METHODS:A literature search was performed by searching the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Science Direct databases. Studies with inter- and intra-patient comparisons of ovarian responses and oocyte quality between operated and unoperated ovaries and that met the inclusion criteria were retrieved, and the data from the outcome measures were extracted and pooled for this meta-analysis. RESULTS:Twenty-one published studies (2649 ART cycles) were included. The total amount of gonadotropin (Gn) used (inverse variance (IV):0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI): [0.13, 1.82], P = 0.0007) was significantly increased in the women with endometriomas who had a history of cystectomy. The estrogen (E) level on the day of hCG administration (IV: -0.29; 95% CI: [-0.41, -0.17], P<0.00001), the number of mature or dominant follicles (IV: -1.17; 95% CI: [-1.51, -0.82], P<0.00001) and the total number of oocytes retrieved (IV: -1.78; 95% CI: [-2.38, -1.17], P<0.00001) were significantly decreased in the women with endometriomas who had a history of cystectomy. The duration of stimulation (IV: 0.02; 95% CI: [-0.09, 0.13], P = 0.77), the total number of formed embryos (IV: -0.06; 95% CI: [-0.17, 0.04], P = 0.25), the pregnancy rate(IV:0.98;95%CI[0.82,1.18], P = 0.83) and the live birth rate(IV:0.93;95%CI[0.70,1.23], P = 0.61)were not statistically different between the two groups. Similar intra-patient results were found in the number of mature or dominant follicles (IV: -0.88; 95% CI: [-1.25, -0.52], P<0.00001) and the total number of oocytes retrieved (IV: -3.48; 95% CI: [-4.77, -2.19], P<0.00001). CONCLUSION:ART might be a better therapeutic method for ovarian endometrioma-related infertility than cystectomy.

Project description:Study questionDoes IVF with or without ICSI (IVF/ICSI) treatment impact the development of embryonic brain structures?Summary answerOur results show associations between IVF/ICSI treatment, smoking and slightly increased sizes of early human embryonic brain structures.What is known alreadyThe number of IVF/ICSI procedures is increasing worldwide and is associated with higher risks of obstetric and perinatal complications in pregnancies.Study design, size, durationOne hundred seventy-five women with a singleton pregnancy were included in the Rotterdam Periconceptional Cohort (Predict study).Participants/materials, setting, methodsSelf-reported questionnaires, verified by a research assistant at enrollment, provided information on periconceptional maternal characteristics and mode of conception. Three-dimensional ultrasound (3D-US) examinations were performed at 9 and 11 weeks of gestational age (GA). Diencephalon total diameter (DTD), mesencephalon total diameter (MTD) and telencephalon thickness on the left and right site (TTL/TTR) were measured offline in standardized planes using 4D View software. Linear regression models with adjustment for GA, maternal age, body mass index, moment of initiation of folic acid supplement use and smoking were used to study associations between mode of conception and embryonic brain measurements at 9 and 11 weeks of GA.Main results and role of chanceA total of 276 3D-US scans of 166 participants, of which 50 conceived through IVF/ICSI, were included for embryonic brain measurements. Success rates of the DTD and MTD measurements were between 67% and 73% and of the TTL/TTR between 52% and 57%. In the fully adjusted model, we found that at 11 weeks of GA, the MTD (ß = 0.264, 95% CI = 0.101; 0.427, P < 0.01) and TTR (ß = 0.075, 95% CI = 0.001; 0.149, P < 0.05) sizes were larger in IVF/ICSI pregnancies. In addition, smoking also resulted in larger TTL measurements at 11 weeks of GA (ß = 0.095, 95% CI= 0.005; 0.186, P < 0.05).Limitations, reasons for cautionThe implications of these small deviations on brain functioning need further investigation.Wider implications of the findingsEnlargement of attention for prenatal brain development and postnatal neurodevelopmental outcome after IVF/ICSI treatment.Study funding/competing interestsThis study was funded by the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Erasmus MC, and Sophia research foundation for Medical Research, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (SSWO grant number 644). No competing interests are declared.Trial registration numberN/A.