Transfer of thawed frozen embryo versus fresh embryo to improve the healthy baby rate in women undergoing IVF: the E-Freeze RCT.
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
EMBRYO TRANSFER
FERTILISATION IN VITRO
FREEZING
FROZEN EMBRYOS
HEALTHY BABY
LIVE BIRTH
OVARIAN HYPERSTIMULATION SYNDROME
PREGNANCY
RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Journal
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)
ISSN: 2046-4924
Titre abrégé: Health Technol Assess
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9706284
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2022
05 2022
Historique:
entrez:
23
5
2022
pubmed:
24
5
2022
medline:
25
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Freezing all embryos, followed by thawing and transferring them into the uterine cavity at a later stage (freeze-all), instead of fresh-embryo transfer may lead to improved pregnancy rates and fewer complications during in vitro fertilisation and pregnancies resulting from it. We aimed to evaluate if a policy of freeze-all results in a higher healthy baby rate than the current policy of transferring fresh embryos. This was a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, non-blinded, randomised controlled trial. Eighteen in vitro fertilisation clinics across the UK participated from February 2016 to April 2019. Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of in vitro fertilisation treatment in which the female partner was aged < 42 years. If at least three good-quality embryos were present on day 3 of embryo development, couples were randomly allocated to either freeze-all (intervention) or fresh-embryo transfer (control). The primary outcome was a healthy baby, defined as a live, singleton baby born at term, with an appropriate weight for their gestation. Secondary outcomes included ovarian hyperstimulation, live birth and clinical pregnancy rates, complications of pregnancy and childbirth, health economic outcome, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory scores. A total of 1578 couples were consented and 619 couples were randomised. Most non-randomisations were because of the non-availability of at least three good-quality embryos ( We were unable to reach the original planned sample size of 1086 and the rate of non-adherence to the allocated intervention was much higher than expected. When efficacy, safety and costs are considered, freeze-all is not better than fresh-embryo transfer. This trial is registered as ISRCTN61225414. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in During in vitro fertilisation, eggs and sperm are mixed in a laboratory to create embryos. An embryo is placed in the womb 2–5 days later (fresh-embryo transfer) and the remaining embryos are frozen for future use. Initial research suggested that freezing all embryos followed by thawing and replacing them a few weeks later could improve treatment safety and success. Although these data were promising, the data came from small studies and were not enough to change practice and policy. We conducted a large, multicentre, clinical trial to evaluate the two strategies: fresh-embryo transfer compared with later transfer of frozen embryos. We also compared the costs of both strategies during in vitro fertilisation treatment, pregnancy and delivery. This study was conducted across 18 clinics in the UK from 2016 to 2019, and 619 couples participated. Couples were allocated to one of two strategies: immediate fresh-embryo transfer or freezing of all embryos followed later by transfer of frozen embryo. The study’s aim was to find out which type of embryo transfer gave participants a higher chance of having a healthy baby. We found that freezing all embryos followed by frozen-embryo transfer did not lead to a higher chance of having a healthy baby. There were no differences between strategies in the number of live births, the miscarriage rate or the number of pregnancy complications. Fresh-embryo transfer was less costly from both a health-care and a patient perspective. A routine strategy of freezing all embryos is not justified given that there was no increase in success rates but there were extra costs and delays to embryo transfer.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Freezing all embryos, followed by thawing and transferring them into the uterine cavity at a later stage (freeze-all), instead of fresh-embryo transfer may lead to improved pregnancy rates and fewer complications during in vitro fertilisation and pregnancies resulting from it.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to evaluate if a policy of freeze-all results in a higher healthy baby rate than the current policy of transferring fresh embryos.
DESIGN
This was a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, non-blinded, randomised controlled trial.
SETTING
Eighteen in vitro fertilisation clinics across the UK participated from February 2016 to April 2019.
PARTICIPANTS
Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of in vitro fertilisation treatment in which the female partner was aged < 42 years.
INTERVENTIONS
If at least three good-quality embryos were present on day 3 of embryo development, couples were randomly allocated to either freeze-all (intervention) or fresh-embryo transfer (control).
OUTCOMES
The primary outcome was a healthy baby, defined as a live, singleton baby born at term, with an appropriate weight for their gestation. Secondary outcomes included ovarian hyperstimulation, live birth and clinical pregnancy rates, complications of pregnancy and childbirth, health economic outcome, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory scores.
RESULTS
A total of 1578 couples were consented and 619 couples were randomised. Most non-randomisations were because of the non-availability of at least three good-quality embryos (
LIMITATIONS
We were unable to reach the original planned sample size of 1086 and the rate of non-adherence to the allocated intervention was much higher than expected.
CONCLUSION
When efficacy, safety and costs are considered, freeze-all is not better than fresh-embryo transfer.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This trial is registered as ISRCTN61225414.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in
During in vitro fertilisation, eggs and sperm are mixed in a laboratory to create embryos. An embryo is placed in the womb 2–5 days later (fresh-embryo transfer) and the remaining embryos are frozen for future use. Initial research suggested that freezing all embryos followed by thawing and replacing them a few weeks later could improve treatment safety and success. Although these data were promising, the data came from small studies and were not enough to change practice and policy. We conducted a large, multicentre, clinical trial to evaluate the two strategies: fresh-embryo transfer compared with later transfer of frozen embryos. We also compared the costs of both strategies during in vitro fertilisation treatment, pregnancy and delivery. This study was conducted across 18 clinics in the UK from 2016 to 2019, and 619 couples participated. Couples were allocated to one of two strategies: immediate fresh-embryo transfer or freezing of all embryos followed later by transfer of frozen embryo. The study’s aim was to find out which type of embryo transfer gave participants a higher chance of having a healthy baby. We found that freezing all embryos followed by frozen-embryo transfer did not lead to a higher chance of having a healthy baby. There were no differences between strategies in the number of live births, the miscarriage rate or the number of pregnancy complications. Fresh-embryo transfer was less costly from both a health-care and a patient perspective. A routine strategy of freezing all embryos is not justified given that there was no increase in success rates but there were extra costs and delays to embryo transfer.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
During in vitro fertilisation, eggs and sperm are mixed in a laboratory to create embryos. An embryo is placed in the womb 2–5 days later (fresh-embryo transfer) and the remaining embryos are frozen for future use. Initial research suggested that freezing all embryos followed by thawing and replacing them a few weeks later could improve treatment safety and success. Although these data were promising, the data came from small studies and were not enough to change practice and policy. We conducted a large, multicentre, clinical trial to evaluate the two strategies: fresh-embryo transfer compared with later transfer of frozen embryos. We also compared the costs of both strategies during in vitro fertilisation treatment, pregnancy and delivery. This study was conducted across 18 clinics in the UK from 2016 to 2019, and 619 couples participated. Couples were allocated to one of two strategies: immediate fresh-embryo transfer or freezing of all embryos followed later by transfer of frozen embryo. The study’s aim was to find out which type of embryo transfer gave participants a higher chance of having a healthy baby. We found that freezing all embryos followed by frozen-embryo transfer did not lead to a higher chance of having a healthy baby. There were no differences between strategies in the number of live births, the miscarriage rate or the number of pregnancy complications. Fresh-embryo transfer was less costly from both a health-care and a patient perspective. A routine strategy of freezing all embryos is not justified given that there was no increase in success rates but there were extra costs and delays to embryo transfer.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35603917
doi: 10.3310/AEFU1104
pmc: PMC9376799
doi:
Banques de données
ISRCTN
['ISRCTN61225414']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1-142Subventions
Organisme : Chief Scientist Office
ID : HERU1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Chief Scientist Office
ID : HSRU1
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 11;378(2):126-136
pubmed: 29320646
Hum Reprod. 2008 Feb;23(2):447-50
pubmed: 18033808
Hum Reprod. 2022 Mar 01;37(3):476-487
pubmed: 34999830
Hum Reprod. 2016 Mar;31(3):572-81
pubmed: 26783243
Fertil Steril. 2011 Aug;96(2):344-8
pubmed: 21737072
Hum Reprod Update. 2012 Sep-Oct;18(5):485-503
pubmed: 22611174
Hum Reprod. 2018 Oct 1;33(10):1907-1914
pubmed: 30239784
Int J Reprod Biomed. 2018 Jan;16(1):9-18
pubmed: 29675483
Stat Med. 1998 Feb 28;17(4):407-29
pubmed: 9496720
BMJ. 2018 May 22;361:k2204
pubmed: 29789345
Fertil Steril. 2011 Aug;96(2):516-8
pubmed: 21737071
BMJ. 2010 Feb 05;340:c221
pubmed: 20139215
Hum Reprod Open. 2019 Mar 05;2019(2):hoz004
pubmed: 30895269
Hum Reprod. 2008 Mar;23(3):538-42
pubmed: 18308834
CMAJ. 2006 Aug 15;175(4):347
pubmed: 16908892
Reprod Biomed Online. 2020 Sep;41(3):402-415
pubmed: 32723696
BMJ. 2020 Aug 5;370:m2519
pubmed: 32759285
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 11;378(2):137-147
pubmed: 29320655
JBRA Assist Reprod. 2015 Aug 01;19(3):125-30
pubmed: 27203090
Reprod Health. 2019 Jun 13;16(1):81
pubmed: 31196113
Br J Psychiatry. 2003 Oct;183:323-31
pubmed: 14519610
Hum Reprod. 2019 Apr 1;34(4):679-688
pubmed: 30811549
Hypertension. 2020 Feb;75(2):549-560
pubmed: 31838910
Fertil Steril. 2012 Aug;98(2):368-77.e1-9
pubmed: 22698643
Hum Reprod. 2021 Mar 18;36(4):998-1006
pubmed: 33734369
Fertil Steril. 2013 Jan;99(1):156-162
pubmed: 23040524
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2019 Sep;104(5):F486-F492
pubmed: 30464006
BMC Med. 2019 Nov 13;17(1):202
pubmed: 31718643
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010 Jul;27(7):357-63
pubmed: 20373015
Fertil Steril. 2019 Dec;112(6):1071-1079.e7
pubmed: 31551155
Hum Reprod Update. 2018 Jan 1;24(1):35-58
pubmed: 29155965
Hum Fertil (Camb). 2008 Sep;11(3):131-46
pubmed: 18766953
Stat Med. 2005 Apr 15;24(7):993-1007
pubmed: 15570623
Lancet. 2019 Mar 30;393(10178):1310-1318
pubmed: 30827784
N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 11;375(6):523-33
pubmed: 27509101
Hum Reprod. 2021 Oct 18;36(11):2891-2903
pubmed: 34550368
Hum Reprod Update. 2019 Jan 1;25(1):2-14
pubmed: 30388233
Hum Reprod. 2019 Mar 1;34(3):491-505
pubmed: 30689865
Trials. 2020 Jun 30;21(1):596
pubmed: 32605633
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1985 Dec 14;291(6510):1693-7
pubmed: 3935248
N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 24;380(4):325-334
pubmed: 30673547