Confidential: For Review Only - bmj.com · overview, published in 2015, including 59 systematic...
Transcript of Confidential: For Review Only - bmj.com · overview, published in 2015, including 59 systematic...
Confidential: For Review O
nly
Analysis of the evidence for interventions additional to IVF
treatment in UK fertility centres.
Journal: BMJ
Manuscript ID BMJ.2016.036242.R1
Article Type: Analysis
BMJ Journal: BMJ
Date Submitted by the Author: 17-Nov-2016
Complete List of Authors: Heneghan, Carl; Oxford University, Primary Health Care Spencer, Elizabeth; University of Oxford, Primary Care Health Sciences Bobrovitz, Niklas ; University of Oxford, Primary Care Health Sciences Collins, Dylan; University of Oxford, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences
Gbinigie, Oghenekome; University of Oxford, Primary Care Health Sciences Nunan, David; University of Oxford, Primary Care Health Sciences Onakpoya, Igho; University of Oxford, Primary Care Health Sciences O'Sullivan, Jack; University of Oxford, Centre for Evidence-based medicine, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences Pluddemann, Annette ; University of Oxford , Nuffield Dept. of Primary Care Health Sciences, Rollinson, Alice ; University of Oxford, Primary Care Health Sciences Tompson, Alice ; University of Oxford, Primary Care Health Sciences Goldacre, Ben; University of Oxford, Primary Care Health Sciences Mahtani, Kamal; University of Oxford, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences
Keywords: fertilty, evidence-based, IVF
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
Confidential: For Review O
nly
1
Analysis of the evidence for interventions additional to IVF treatment in UK fertility centres.
Heneghan C, Spencer EA, Bobrovitz N, Collins DRJ, Nunan D, Plüddemann A, Gbinigie OA,
Onakpoya I, O’Sullivan J, Rollinson A, Tompson A, Goldacre B, Mahtani KR
Corresponding author
Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine,
Nuffield Department Primary Care Health Sciences,
University of Oxford
Word count 3645
References 18 (plus 1 to BMJ Open submission)
Tables 1
Box 1
Analysis
Infertility is a significant problem, affecting about one in seven couples, many of whom seek
medical help in order to have a child. 1 Assisted reproduction treatments, as all medical
interventions, should be informed by reliable evidence. Many new fertility interventions and
products have been developed over the last decade; however, there are concerns that the use of
some new treatments additional to standard in vitro fertilisation (IVF) might not be evidence-
based, and some clinics may be offering additional services, which carry extra costs, that are not
based on the most up to date relevant research. 2
IVF is expensive: a single cycle can cost £5,000, thus placing considerable financial burden on
patients. Those who do not meet criteria for NHS funding can use private clinics; therefore the
majority of IVF (59%) is through private practice.3 A range of additional investigations and
treatments are offered at UK fertility treatment centres beyond standard IVF that may incur extra
costs, [ref bmjopen-2016-013940.R1] which can range from as little as £50 for a single screening
blood test to as much as £8,000 for egg freezing packages (see Box 1).
Page 1 of 27
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review O
nly
2
The independent regulator that oversees fertility treatment and research in the UK is the Human
Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). 4 Over 200 clinics offering NHS or private services
are registered with the HFEA. The HFEA recommend that women/couples discuss the evidence
with their clinician, and consider their own “research” before making a final decision. We regard
this as difficult, if not impossible, for non-specialists to do, and that even many clinicians might
not be fully aware of the current evidence.
Given concerns over the evidence base for fertility treatments, the implications for patients
undergoing these treatments, and the resources needed to fund them, we set out to look at the
evidence by answering the HFEA “research questions you may want to ask,” taken from their
guidance for couples thinking about having fertility treatments. These questions are: 1) Is this
treatment recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)? If not,
why? 2) Has this treatment been subjected to ‘randomised controlled clinical trials’ which show
that it is effective and is there a ‘Cochrane review’ available? 3) Are there any adverse effects or
risks (known or potential) of the treatment? 2
What did we do?
We obtained from HFEA a list of all UK centres providing fertility treatments and examined their
websites. From these sites we compiled a list of interventions offered in addition to standard IVF
Box 1 Example of costs for interventions additional to standard IVF.
Individual screening blood tests – start at £50
Embryoglue – up to £160
Intralipid infusions – up to £250
Endometrial scratch – up to £325
Assisted hatching – up to £450
Blastocyst culture – up to £800
Time lapse imaging – up to £850 for the Eeva time-lapse incubator, up to £800 for the
Embryoscope
Intracytoplasmic morphological sperm injection (IMSI) – up to £1,855
Percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration/testicular sperm extraction: (PESE/ TESE) – up to
£1,600
Preimplantation genetic screening – £3,500
Egg freezing packages – up to £8,000
Page 2 of 27
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review O
nly
3
that are claimed to improve fertility outcomes. [ref bmjopen-2016-013940.R1] We excluded
interventions aimed at patients with a pre-existing disease such as diabetes; diagnosed conditions
such as polycystic ovarian syndrome; or neurological conditions such as spinal cord injury; we
excluded interventions related to donation of sperm or eggs; and we excluded complementary
therapies such as homeopathy and nutrition. This gave a list of 38 fertility interventions additional
to standard IVF, offered by UK fertility clinics.
For these 38 additional fertility interventions, we searched for evidence as HFEA suggests, and
focused on the key outcome of whether they improve live birth rates. (Table 1) We checked each
intervention with the current NICE guideline CG156 (Question 1). Nine researchers (NB, DC, OG,
KM, DN, IO, AP, ES, JOS) independently searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) and the Cochrane library
for systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in April 2016. (Question 2). When
we could not find any review of RCT evidence, we looked for the next highest level of available
evidence (e.g. observational study) and categorised the evidence found using the Oxford CEBM
levels of evidence. 5 We also searched the Cochrane reviews and NICE guidance CG156 for
information on harms up to Sep 2016. (Question 3) We extracted data on the intervention, the
summary effect for live birth rate, and where available the quality of evidence reported in the
review based on the GRADE working group unless otherwise stated. 6
What did we find?
1) Is this treatment recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care
Excellence (NICE)? If not, why?
Of the 38 interventions investigated, NICE provides clear recommendations for 13 (34%). Of these,
11 are recommended in specific populations and 2 interventions are not (hysteroscopy, assisted
hatching). There was no clear guidance for 19 interventions, and 6 interventions were
recommended for research. (see Figure 1 and Table 1)
NICE guidance is generally clear about the populations to which the 13 recommendations apply.
For example, sperm cryopreservation should be offered to men and adolescent boys who are
preparing for medical treatment for cancer that is likely to make them infertile. Similarly, oocyte or
embryo cryopreservation should be offered to those women preparing for medical treatment for
cancer that is likely to make them infertile, and the routine measurement of thyroid function
should not be offered to the general population but should be confined to women with
symptoms of thyroid disease. NICE guidance also clearly states recommendations on
Page 3 of 27
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review O
nly
4
interventions that should not be offered: assisted hatching and hysteroscopy are not
recommended because they have not been shown to improve pregnancy rates.
However, for half of the interventions that are additional to standard IVF treatments, and currently
offered at UK fertility clinics, there is no mention in CG156 as to whether they can be
recommended or not.
2) Has this treatment been subjected to ‘randomised controlled clinical trials’ which
show that it is effective and is there a ‘Cochrane review’ available?
For 27 of the 38 fertility interventions (71%) we found a relevant systematic review: 18 of these
were Cochrane reviews and 9 were non-Cochrane. (Figure 1) We also found one Cochrane
overview, published in 2015, including 59 systematic reviews examining the effectiveness of
assisted reproductive technologies.7 These reviews reported that five of these interventions (5/38,
13.2%) improved live birth outcomes; for 13 interventions, the evidence was insufficient to make a
summary estimate and for seven there was evidence that the intervention did not improve live
birth rates. For one intervention - preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) - older methods of
PGS worsened outcomes, whereas there was some evidence of benefit for PGS using more
recently developed techniques.
Table 1 shows the five interventions for which we found evidence of improvements in live birth
rates: blastocyst culture, endometrial scratching, adherence compounds, oral antioxidants and
intrauterine insemination (IUI) in a natural cycle. However, for all of these interventions, the
supporting studies had methodological problems that raise uncertainty about whether these
improvements in live birth rates are actually true results.
A Cochrane systematic review 8 of blastocyst culture including 13 RCTs (n=1,630 participants)
concluded that live birth rates were higher in the blastocyst group compared with culture to day
2 or 3 group: OR 1.48 (95% CI 1.20 to 1.82). Due to high dropout rates and poor randomisation
method descriptions for many trials the evidence was judged low quality. Removal of the low
quality studies meant differences in live birth rates were no longer statistically significant, OR 1.38
(95% CI 0.96 to 1.99). Variable embryo transfer policies between groups, and differences in the
number of embryos available for freezing, further limited the robustness of the conclusions.
For endometrial injury (incorporating endometrial scratching) a Cochrane review 9 reported a
significant increase in live birth rates compared with no injury, RR 1.42 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.85; 9
Page 4 of 27
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review O
nly
5
RCTs, n =1,496 participants), for injury between day 7 of cycle prior to embryo transfer and day 7
of the cycle of embryo transfer (there was evidence that endometrial injury on the day of embryo
transfer was harmful). Due to low participant numbers, and limitations in the methods (in 5
studies both groups possibly received some degree of unintentional endometrial injury, and 3
studies were not published in full) the quality of the evidence was moderate. Removal of the low
quality studies, however, made no difference to the effect estimate. The review authors
highlighted the lack of information on harms: at present it is not known whether the intervention
affects the risk of miscarriage, multiple pregnancies, or vaginal bleeding, or other outcomes that
may be important to women undergoing the procedure. However, it was reported that as
expected, the procedure does cause some pain. We identified one ongoing UK multicentre
randomised trial (ISRCTN23800982): starting in July 2016 the trial aims to recruit 1,044 women
aged under 37 undergoing IVF for the first time; the protocol includes collection of data on harms
including miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy rates. 10
A Cochrane systematic review of adherence compounds including hyaluronic acid (marketed as
Embryoglue) reported an effect on live birth rates, OR 1.41 (95% CI, 1.17 to 1.69; 6 RCTs, n =
1,950 participants). 11 However, the comparison was between high and no hyaluronic acid or low
hyaluronic acid; in the three studies (n=324 participants) that only assessed high versus no
hyaluronic acid there was no significant effect, OR 1.35 (95% 0.86 to 2.12). Moreover, in some of
the studies, multiple pregnancy rates were increased due to the practice of transferring more
embryos per woman in the intervention groups.
A Cochrane review of antioxidants including 4 small trials with few events (only 44 live births in
total) reported a significant effect on live birth rates (OR 4.21, 95% CI 2.08 to 8.51, n= 277 men).
12 However, one study had inadequate methods (the numbers of participants initially randomised
to each group were not available) and a high unexplained dropout rate (26%) occurred; in
another, the principal investigator had a commercial agreement with the manufacturer. This
practice has been shown to systematically lead to the publication of more favourable results than
with sponsorship from other sources. 13
Finally, a Cochrane review of 14 trials (n=1,867 women) of intrauterine insemination (IUI) reported
an increase in live birth rate in the one trial (n = 396) that compared IUI in a natural cycle versus
timed intercourse or expectant management in a stimulated cycle, OR 1.95 (95% CI 1.10 to 3.44).
14 The introduction of another intervention component (natural vs. stimulated) meant this effect
was confounded; for three other comparisons of IUI in the same review there was no significant
effect on live birth rates observed (see table 1).
Page 5 of 27
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review O
nly
6
A 2006 Cochrane review of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) included 9 trials, and
concluded PGS significantly lowered live birth rate.15 PGS is a technique for screening embryos for
chromosomal numerical abnormalities and initially it used cleavage stage biopsy and fluorescence
in situ hybridization (FISH). This older version of PGS is now often referred to as version 1. PGS
version 2 uses newer techniques such as array comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH). We
therefore searched for more recent evidence to assess what is known on PGS version 2 (PGS-V2).
Firstly, a 2009 non-Cochrane review of seven trials showed PGS V1 led to lower rates of live
births, RR=0.76 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.91); an absolute decrease in the number of live births of 147 per
1000 women. 16 A 2015 non-Cochrane systematic review 17 of 4 RCTs of PGS V2 targeted
generally at younger women reported that in one trial delivery rates per cycle were higher in the
intervention group compared to the control group; however, in the pooled analysis including
identified cohort studies, there was no significant effect. NHS England’s 2013 Clinical
Commissioning Policy reports that in the “absence of evidence of its clinical and cost
effectiveness, there is no intention to support the introduction of PGS into NHS clinical practice.”
18
For eleven interventions we were unable to find systematic review evidence. For Intralipid infusion
and sperm freezing we found one RCT each, and these did not report improvements in live birth
rates. For ovarian tissue freezing; endometrial receptivity array; early embryo viability assessment;
AneVivo; PGD; autoimmunity to the HCG receptor we found only one observational study per
intervention. For three interventions (segmented IVF, dummy embryo transfer and quad therapy)
we were unable to find any evidence beyond expert opinion or mechanism of action.
3) Are there any adverse effects or risks (known or potential) of the treatment?
NICE guidance CG156 was not helpful: for only two interventions (intracytoplasmic sperm injection
(ICSI) and ovulation induction & cycle monitoring) was there any comment on harms. For IVF with
or without ICSI, NICE guidance states that women should be informed that the absolute risks of
long-term adverse outcomes are low, but that a small increased risk of ovarian tumours cannot be
excluded (Web table 2. Harms reporting). For ovulation induction and cycle monitoring the
guidance states the lowest effective dose and duration of use of ovulation induction or ovarian
stimulation agents should be used - an indirect comment on harms.
The Cochrane reviews gave limited information on harms. In many of the reviews the included
trials either provided no information, inadequate information or inconsistently reported
Page 6 of 27
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review O
nly
7
information on adverse events and only a few reported any meaningful information. For example,
the review on assisted hatching reported that miscarriage rates were similar in both groups and
multiple pregnancy rates were significantly increased in the assisted hatching group. However,
there was insufficient data on ectopic pregnancy, congenital or chromosomal abnormalities,
blastocyst formation or embryo damage. 19 Harms that are important to patients, such as
miscarriage rates, should be central to all trials and reviews of fertility interventions; yet they were
often so poorly reported in the original trials that meaningful conclusions cannot be drawn. For
example, in a review of aspirin, miscarriage rates were reported in only five of 13 trials; multiple
pregnancy rates in four and ectopic pregnancy rates in only three trials. [Web table 2. Harms
reporting]
What could be done differently
People seeking fertility treatment need good quality evidence to make informed choices. The
current approach by HFEA leaves patients and clinicians to seek evidence either for themselves, or
from staff in private clinics selling fertility services to them. We do not believe this approach is
realistic, nor does it reflect the resources available to patients. Patients may be desperate, and
therefore vulnerable. They are unlikely to have specialist skills in seeking and critically appraising
clinical evidence.
Our related publication reports how fertility interventions are offered without supporting evidence
to back up claims of effect [ref bmjopen-2016-013940.R1]. We previously recommended that
fertility centres should keep up to date with the evidence and reflect this in the information on
their websites. [ref bmjopen-2016-013940.R1]
NICE provides some recommendations in specific populations, but it does not cover the range of
interventions currently on offer. NICE together with HFEA should provide guidance on what is
offered, and provide recommendations for or against each of the available interventions. There is
an incoherent framework as to which treatments should be offered in which populations, the
potential for indication creep is therefore significant: expanding treatment use from people who
have clearly benefitted, to those for whom the evidence is much more shaky or non-existent.
NICE should also consider adopting the GRADE system for making recommendations, which
allows for strong (offer to everyone) or weak (offer to some individuals) recommendations, with or
without certain conditions. 20 Furthermore, the key patient-relevant outcome for assisted
reproductive health should be live birth; however, guidance often refers to pregnancy rates to
form recommendations, which is inadequate for a number of reasons, not least because about 5%
of pregnancies are lost between the 1st trimester and birth. 21 Adoption of the IMPRINT
modifications to the CONSORT checklist, which aim to improve the reporting of infertility
Page 7 of 27
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review O
nly
8
treatments, should be mandatory for clinical trials if they are to prove meaningful. 22 Guidance
also needs continually updating if it is to be relevant and meaningful, particularly because of the
growing number of available tests, techniques and treatments. Furthermore, clinics awareness and
uptake of guidance needs improving: a recent survey of 46 UK clinics licensed to provide IUI,
found that whilst the majority of clinics were aware of NICE guidance only ten clinics reduced the
number of IUI cycles or restricted its use according to NICE recommendations. 23
Cochrane systematic review evidence covers less than half of the available treatments. To find
information we had to look at non-Cochrane reviews or lower quality evidence, some of which is
not freely available to the public. The reporting of harms was very poor and therefore for many
treatments it is impossible to be informed about adverse effects. Furthermore, there are no
maintained relevant information resources appropriate for use by non-clinicians. Initiatives such as
PubMed Health and Cochrane's Plain Language Summaries are welcome but they can only be
fully useful if they cover the range of treatments being offered, are based on reviews that are
updated regularly, and go beyond published papers to overcome the reporting bias that affects
much of the published research in the fertility field.
What can we conclude?
The evidence for these additional interventions is both poor, and potential patients may find it
challenging to access the evidence. Of the 38 interventions we reviewed, there are 11 for which
NICE guidance recommends use in targeted populations. Our appraisal of the evidence shows
only one intervention, endometrial scratching, for which the review evidence robustly supports an
increase in live birth rate, yet even this evidence is only moderate quality, and the observed
benefit is only in women with more than two previous embryo transfers. A UK multicentre trial is
investigating the use of endometrial injury in women undergoing IVF for the first time, which
should provide relevant information for a broader patient population. 9
It is possible that we did not find some higher quality evidence, but our current analysis reflects
what we could find, and whilst the Cochrane reviews are accessible, some of the evidence we
found is not freely available. Asking patients to do their own research, as the HFEA does, is
inappropriate and for many interventions not possible. For complex issues such as PGS we
consider the HFEA’s advice, that “you should talk to your GP to go through the options available”,
unreasonable, as there is likely to be insufficient knowledge available to correctly reflect the
potential benefits and harms of such interventions. 2
There is an urgent need for randomized controlled trials for many interventions that are currently
being offered. We recommend that treatments with uncertain effects (benefits and harms) are
Page 8 of 27
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review O
nly
9
only licensed for use in the context of meaningful research. There is also a lack of evidence on
the use of multiple interventions: the benefit and harms of multiple, simultaneous interventions is
not known, although this is likely to incur even greater cost.
Fertility care requires treatments based on the best available evidence. Existing evidence is scarce
and where available, largely of low to moderate quality, and is not necessarily being made
available to facilitate decision making. We consider that the HFEA and NICE should provide a
systematic and periodically updated overview of the evidence to better inform those seeking
advice on the benefits and harms of fertility treatments.
Funding
This project received no specific funding.
Competing interests
All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at
http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: CH has received grant funding from the
WHO, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and the NIHR School of Primary Care and
on occasion he receives expenses for teaching EBM and CEBM jointly runs the EvidenceLive
Conference with the BMJ. BG has received research funding from the Laura and John Arnold
Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, the NIHR, the Health Foundation, and the WHO; he also receives
personal income from speaking and writing for lay audiences on the misuse of science. KM has
received funding from the NIHR and the RCGP for independent research projects. AT, NB, DN, DC,
ES, OG, IO and AP have nothing to declare. All authors declare that they have no financial
relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the
previous three years [or describe if any], no other relationships or activities that could appear to
have influenced the submitted work [or describe if any].
Disclaimer
The views expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of any of the
affiliated institutions mentioned in the manuscript such as the NDPCHS, the NHS, the NIHR, or the
Department of Health.
Contribution statement:
CH devised the study and all authors reviewed the methods. KM and AR managed the data
extraction. AT, NB, DN, DC, ES, OG, IO and AP contributed to the searches for evidence and the
data extraction. CH, ES, BG and KM discussed and analysed the issues arising and all authors
commented on and approved the final draft,
Licence for Publication
Page 9 of 27
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review O
nly
10
The Corresponding Author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on
behalf of all authors, an exclusive licence (or non exclusive for government employees) on a
worldwide basis to the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd to permit this article (if accepted) to be
published in BMJ and any other BMJPGL products and sublicences such use and exploit all
subsidiary rights, as set out in our licence (http://group.bmj.com/products/journals/instructions-
for-authors/licence-forms).
References
1Fertility problems: assessment and treatment. NICE Clinical guideline [CG156]
https://www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/CG156 (Accessed 26th Oct 2016)
2 Getting Started: your guide to fertility treatment.
http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/GSG_amended_September_2016_full_version.pdf (Accessed 26th Oct
2016)
3 Fertility treatment 2014: trends and figures (page 12).
http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/HFEA_Fertility_treatment_Trends_and_figures_2014.pdf (Accessed
1/10/2016)
4 http://www.hfea.gov.uk/
5 Howick J, Chalmers I, Glasziou P, Greenhalgh T, et al; OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group.
The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence 2011 30th May 2012.
http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653
6 http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_12/12_2_1_the_grade_approach.htm
7 Farquhar C, Rishworth JR, Brown J, Nelen WL, Marjoribanks J. Assisted reproductive technology:
an overview of Cochrane Reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 15;(7):CD010537. doi:
10.1002/14651858.CD010537.pub4.
8. Glujovsky D et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo
transfer in assisted reproductive technology 2016 Jul 11;7:CD002118. doi:
10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub5.
9 Nastri CO, Lensen SF, Gibreel A, Raine-Fenning N, Ferriani RA, Bhattacharya S, Martins WP.
Endometrial injury in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD009517. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009517.pub3.
10 Endometrial scratch trial:
http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN23800982?q=&filters=conditionCategory:Pregnancy%20and%20Child
birth&sort=&offset=8&totalResults=656&page=1&pageSize=10&searchType=basic-search
11 Bontekoe S, et al. Adherence compounds in embryo transfer media for assisted reproductive
technologies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014. CD DOI: 10.1002/
14651858.CD007421.pub3.
Page 10 of 27
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review O
nly
11
12 Showell MG et al. Antioxidants for male subfertility. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
2014. CD007411. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD007411.pub3.
13 Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L.Industry sponsorship and research
outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Dec 12;12:MR000033. doi:
10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2. Review.
14 van Rumste MM, Evers JL, Farquhar CM.Intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection versus conventional
techniques for oocyte insemination during in vitro fertilisation in patients with non-male
subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(2):CD001301. Review.
15 Twisk M Mastenbroek S, van Wely M, Heineman MJ, Van der Veen F, Repping S..
Preimplantation genetic screening for abnormal number of chromosomes (aneuploidies) in in vitro
fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jan
25;(1):CD005291. last assessed as up-to-date 14 July 2010.
16 Checa MA, Alonso-Coello P, Solà I, Robles A, Carreras R, Balasch J. IVF/ICSI with or without
preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy in couples without genetic disorders: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009 May;26(5):273-83. doi:
10.1007/s10815-009-9328-4. Epub 2009 Jul 24. Review.
17 Chen M, Wei S, Hu J, Quan S. Can Comprehensive Chromosome Screening Technology
Improve IVF/ICSI Outcomes? A Meta-Analysis. PLoS One. 2015 Oct 15;10(10):e0140779. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0140779. eCollection 2015.
18 https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/e01-p-a.pdf
19 Carney SK, Das S, Blake D, Farquhar C, Seif MM, Nelson L. Assisted hatching on assisted
conception (in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Cochrane
Database Syst Rev. 2012 Dec 12;12:CD001894. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001894.pub5. Review.
20 Guyatt Gordon H, Oxman Andrew D, Vist Gunn E, Kunz Regina, Falck-Ytter Yngve, Alonso-
Coello Pablo et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of
recommendations BMJ 2008; 336 :924
21 Clarke JF, van Rumste, MM, Farquhar CM, Johnson NP Mol BWM. Herbison P. Measuring
outcomes in fertility trials - can we rely on clinical pregnancy rates? Fertil Steril. 2010
Oct;94(5):1647-51. Epub 2010 Jan 13.PMID: 20056216.
22 Legro RS, Wu X, Scientific C, Barnhart KT, Farquhar C, Fauser BC, Mol B. Improving the
reporting of clinical trials of infertility treatments (IMPRINT): modifying the CONSORT statement.
Hum Reprod 2014;29:2075–2082.
23 Kim D, Child T, Farquhar C. Intrauterine insemination: a UK survey on the adherence to NICE
clinical guidelines by fertility clinics. BMJ Open 2015;5:e007588 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007588
Page 11 of 27
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
Table 1. Summary of IVF interventions (N=38) evidence and NICE guidance in relation to live births
Intervention Comparator Summary
effect for live
birth rate
NNT Number of
RCTs
Number of
patients in
trials
Quality of
evidence 1
Level of
evidence
*Cochrane
review
NICE comment in CG156 (and recommendation number)
Ovarian reserve test/AMH and
antral follicle count2
- No result - - - Low 1
1.3 Investigation of fertility problems and management strategies
1.3.3 Ovarian reserve testing
1.3.3.1. Use a woman's age as an initial predictor of her overall chance of
success through natural conception (see figure 1) or with in vitro fertilisation
(IVF) (see figure 2). [new 2013]
1.3.3.2. Use one of the following measures to predict the likely ovarian
response to gonadotrophin stimulation in IVF:
- total antral follicle count of less than or equal to 4 for a low
response[3] and greater than 16 for a high response
- anti-Müllerian hormone of less than or equal to 5.4 pmol/l for a low
response and greater than or equal to 25.0 pmol/l for a high
response
- follicle-stimulating hormone greater than 8.9 IU/l for a low
response and less than 4 IU/l for a high response. [new 2013]
Hysteroscopy 3 No intervention No result - - - Very Low 1*
1.3.8.4. Women should not be offered hysteroscopy on its own as part of the
initial investigation unless clinically indicated because the effectiveness of
surgical treatment of uterine abnormalities on improving pregnancy rates has
not been established. [2004]
Thyroid antibodies No result - - - Low 4 1
1.3.6.1. Women with possible fertility problems are no more likely than the
general population to have thyroid disease and the routine measurement of
thyroid function should not be offered. Estimation of thyroid function should
be confined to women with symptoms of thyroid disease. [2004]
Intrauterine insemination (IUI) in
natural cycle
timed intercourse
(TI) or expectant
management in
natural cycle
OR 1.60 (0.92 to
2.78) - 1 334 Moderate 1*
1.9 Intrauterine insemination 1.9.1.1. Consider unstimulated intrauterine insemination as a treatment option
in the following groups as an alternative to vaginal sexual intercourse:
1 Quality of evidence from the systematic reviews is based on the GRADE working group unless otherwise stated.
2 Systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy show that ovarian reserve tests have only “modest-to-poor predictive properties and are therefore far from suitable for relevant clinical use.” 3 In women with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities. Judged to be very low quality due to high risk of selective outcome reporting and unclear whether there is other bias caused by imbalance in the baseline characteristics. 4 Systematic review of 12 cohorts studies (6 prospective, 6 retrospective).
Page 12 of 27
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
TI or expectant
management in
stimulated cycle
OR 1.95 (95% CI
1.10 to 3.44) 5
11 1 342 Moderate
- people who are unable to, or would find it very difficult to, have
vaginal intercourse because of a clinically diagnosed physical
disability or psychosexual problem who are using partner or donor
sperm
- people with conditions that require specific consideration in
relation to methods of conception (for example, after sperm
washing where the man is HIV positive)
- people in same-sex relationships. [new 2013]
1.9.1.2. For people in recommendation 1.9.1.1 who have not conceived after 6
cycles of donor or partner insemination, despite evidence of normal ovulation,
tubal patency and semen analysis, offer a further 6 cycles of unstimulated
intrauterine insemination before IVF is considered. [new 2013]
1.9.1.3. For people with unexplained infertility, mild endometriosis or 'mild
male factor infertility', who are having regular unprotected sexual intercourse:
- do not routinely offer intrauterine insemination, either with or
without ovarian stimulation (exceptional circumstances include, for
example, when people have social, cultural or religious objections
to IVF)
Intrauterine insemination (IUI)
in stimulated cycle
TI or expectant
management in
stimulated cycle
OR 1.59 (95% CI
0.88 to 2.88) - 2 208 Moderate
TI or expectant
management in a
natural cycle
OR 0.82 (95% CI
0.45 to 1.49) - 1 253 Moderate
Frozen embryo transfer (FET) fresh transfer No result - 3 633 cycles Low 1
1.11 Access criteria for IVF
1.11.1.2. Inform people that normally a full cycle of IVF treatment, with or
without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), should comprise 1 episode of
ovarian stimulation and the transfer of any resultant fresh and frozen
embryo(s). [new 2013]
Surgical sperm retrieval Use of ejaculated
sperm No result - - - Low
6 1* 1.12 Procedures used during IVF treatment
1.12.5.4. Surgical sperm recovery before ICSI may be performed using several
different techniques depending on the pathology and wishes of the man. In all
cases, facilities for cryopreservation of spermatozoa should be available.
[2004]
SpermSlow™
Physiologic intracytoplasmic
sperm injection
(PICSI)
RR 1.16 (95% CI
0.65 to 2.05) - 1 99 Low 1*
Assisted hatching No assisted
hatching
OR 1.03 (95% CI
0.85 to 1.26) - 9 1,921 Moderate 1*
1.12.5.5. Assisted hatching is not recommended because it has not been
shown to improve pregnancy rates. [2004]
Blastocyst culture Culture to days 2
to 3
OR 1.48 (95% CI
1.20 to 1.82)7
12 13 1,630 Low 1*
1.12.6. Where a top-quality blastocyst is available use single embryo transfer.
1.12.6.4 Evaluate embryo quality, at both cleavage and blastocyst stages,
according to the Association of Clinical Embryologists (ACE) and UK National
External Quality Assessment Service (UK NEQAS) for Reproductive Science
Embryo and Blastocyst Grading schematic (see figure 3). [new 2013]
Egg/embryo freezing fresh cycles No result - 0 0 - 1
1.12.6.10. Offer cryopreservation to store any remaining good-quality embryos
after embryo transfer. [new 2013] 1.16.1.10. Offer oocyte or embryo
cryopreservation as appropriate to women of reproductive age (including
adolescent girls) who are preparing for medical treatment for cancer that is
likely to make them infertile if:
5 Small sample size and wide confidence interval; none of the studies reported blinding and overall meta-analysis from 14 RCTs showed no conclusive evidence of a difference in live birth rates.
6 Only two trials involving 98 men were included in the Cochrane review.
7 Removal of the low quality studies meant differences in live birth rates were no longer significant.
Page 13 of 27
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
- they are well enough to undergo ovarian stimulation and egg
collection and
- this will not worsen their condition and
- enough time is available before the start of their cancer treatment.
[new 2013]
Intracytoplasmic sperm injection
(ICSI)
Standard exposure
of egg with sperm
in vitro
No result - 0 0 Low 1*
1.13 Intracytoplasmic sperm injection
1.13.1. The recognised indications for treatment by ICSI include:
● Severe deficits in semen quality
● Obstructive azoospermia
● Non-obstructive azoospermia.
● In addition, treatment by ICSI should be considered for couples in
whom a previous IVF treatment cycle has resulted in failed or very
poor fertilisation.
Recommendations for research
5 Long-term effects of IVF with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection
in children:
What are the long-term (over 20 years) effects of IVF with or without ICSI in
children in the UK?
Sperm DNA Test No result - - - Low 8 1
1.13.2.3. Where a specific genetic defect associated with male infertility is
known or suspected couples should be offered appropriate genetic counselling
and testing. [2004]
1.13.2.4. Where the indication for ICSI is a severe deficit of semen quality or
non-obstructive azoospermia, the man's karyotype should be established.
[2004]
1.13.2.6. Testing for Y chromosome microdeletions should not be regarded as
a routine investigation before ICSI. However, it is likely that a significant
proportion of male infertility results from abnormalities of genes on the Y
chromosome involved in the regulation of spermatogenesis, and couples
should be informed of this. [2004]
Vitrification of eggs and
embryos/EVES technique
Standard slow
freezing technique No result - - - Low 1*
1.16 People with cancer who wish to preserve fertility
1.16.1.11. In cryopreservation of oocytes and embryos, use vitrification instead
of controlled-rate freezing if the necessary equipment and expertise is
available. [new 2013]
Sperm freezing Fresh Sperm No Result - - - - 2
1.16.1.7. When using cryopreservation to preserve fertility in people diagnosed
with cancer, use sperm, embryos or oocytes. [new 2013]
1.16.1.8. Offer sperm cryopreservation to men and adolescent boys who are
preparing for medical treatment for cancer that is likely to make them infertile.
[new 2013]
1.16.1.9. Use freezing in liquid nitrogen vapour as the preferred
cryopreservation technique for sperm. [new 2013]
Ovulation induction & cycle
monitoring Control - - - - Low 1*
1.17 Long-term safety of assisted reproductive technologies for
women with infertility and their children
1.17.1.1. Give people who are considering ovulation induction or ovarian
stimulation up-to-date information about the long-term health outcomes of
8 We found a systematic review of 16 cohort studies but no RCTs were included.
Page 14 of 27
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
these treatments. [new 2013]
1.17.1.2. Inform women who are offered ovulation induction or ovarian
stimulation that:
- no direct association has been found between these treatments
and invasive cancer and
- no association has been found in the short- to medium-term
between these treatments and adverse outcomes (including cancer)
in children born from ovulation induction and
- information about long-term health outcomes in women and
children is still awaited.[new 2013]
1.17.1.3. Limit the use of ovulation induction or ovarian stimulation agents to
the lowest effective dose and duration of use. [new 2013]
Modified natural cycle IVF
(Gentle/Light IVF) 9
Standard IVF OR 0.68 (95% CI
0.46 to 1.01) - 2 425 Moderate 1
- not mentioned directly although there is a comment:
- 1.17.1.3. Limit the use of ovulation induction or ovarian stimulation
agents to the lowest effective dose and duration of use. [new 2013]
Time lapse embryo imaging
(including Primo vision and
Embryoscope trade names)
Conventional
embryo incubation
OR 1.10 (95% CI
0.45 to 2.73) - 1 76 Moderate 1* Not mentioned
Intracytoplasmic morphologically
selected sperm injection (IMSI)
Regular
intracytoplasmic
sperm injection
(ICSI)
RR 1.14 (95% CI
0.79 to 1.64) - 1 168 Low 1* Not mentioned
Endometrial scratching No endometrial
scratch
RR 1.42 (95% CI
1.08 to 1.85) 12 9 1,496 Moderate
10 1* Not mentioned
Adherence compounds
(EmbryoGlue®)
No, or low,
adherence
compound in
embryo transfer
medium
RR 1.41 (95% CI
1.17 to 1.69) 13 6 1,950 Moderate 1* Not mentioned
Endometrial Receptivity Array
(ERA) - No result - - - - 4 Not mentioned
Early Embryo Viability Assessment
(Eeva™)
Traditional
morphology
assessment
No result - - - - 4 Not mentioned
Ovarian tissue freezing No result - - - - 4 Not mentioned
Artificial Oocyte Activation (AOA) No result Low 1 Not mentioned
AneVivoTM
No result - - - - 4 Not mentioned
Segmented IVF 11
No result - - - - 5 Not mentioned
Oral antioxidant treatment Oral antioxidants vs
placebo
OR 4.21 (95% CI
2.08 to 8.51)12
8 4 277 Low 1* Not mentioned
9 We did find a Cochrane review on natural IVF (Allersma et al) which included two trials of modified natural cycle IVF which reported live birth rates.
10 Ongoing pregnancy, defined as a clinical pregnancy of >12 weeks gestation, was used as surrogate for live birth in cases where studies did not report live birth but reported ongoing pregnancy.
11 Egg collection and embryo transfer occur in two separate cycles
12 Only 4 small RCTs were included, there were few events (only 44 live births in total), and in one study there was inadequate methods (the numbers of participants initially randomised to each group were not available,) and large (26%)
unexplained dropouts occurred (Suleiman 1996) and in one study the PI has a commercial agreement with the manufacturer, which is not clear in the review (Tremellan 2007)
Page 15 of 27
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
Dummy/mock embryo transfer No result - - - - 5 Not mentioned
Preimplantation genetic screening
(PGS V1) 13
IVF/ICSI without
PGS.
RR=0.76 ( 95% CI
0.64 to 0.91) 14
NNH=7 1 139 Low 1* Not mentioned
array comparative genomic
hybridisation (array CGH) 15
(PGS
V2)
IVF/ICSI without
array CGH No Result
16 17
- - - Low 18
1 Not mentioned
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis
(PGD)19
No result - - - Low 3 Not mentioned
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis
for aneuploidy screening (PGD-A) 20
Selection without
PGD-A No result
21 - - - Low 1 Not mentioned
Cytokine testing (Th1, Th2) and
treatment
Glucocorticoid vs
placebo/no
intervention
OR 1.21 (95% CI
0.67 to 2.19) - 3 424 Moderate 1* Recommendations for research
22
Autoimmunity to the HCG receptor Control (not
specified) No result - - - - 3 Recommendations for research
22
Intralipid infusion Intravenous
immunoglobulin23
No result - - - - 2 Recommendations for research
22
Embryogen No result - - - Median 24
1 Recommendations for research 22
Quad therapy 25
No result - - - - 5 Recommendations for research 22
Aspirin
Low dose aspirin vs
placebo/no
intervention
RR 0.91 (95% CI
0.72 to 1.15) - 3 1,053 Moderate 1* Recommendations for research
22
13
Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis: HFEA: “It is now widely accepted that PGS by FISH does not improve pregnancy outcomes and that it’s premature introduction was a mistake.” http://www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/SCAAC_Preimplantation_genetic_screening_-_ACTIVE.pdf 14
In a 2009 review of 10 RCTS (1,512 women, moderate quality evidence) meta-analyses of seven trials showed PGS led to lower rates of live births, RR=0.76 ( 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91) and its use does not appear to be justified. 15
A newer approaches to PGS comprising array CGH - Four methods are currently in use: comparative genomic hybridisation (aCGH), single nucleotide polymorphism array (SNP-array), quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), and
next - generation sequencing (NGS). 16 Criteria for the 3 included RCTs were not targeted to women with high rates of embryonic aneuploidy. 17
In one RCT the delivery rates per cycle were higher in the CCS group (61/72 (85%) treatment cycles led to delivery compared to 56/83 (67.5%). But in pooled analysis with the included cohort studies there was no significant effect. 18
Single centres, small sample size and one study was a pilot 19
Testing for a specific genetic condition (e.g. cystic fibrosis). 20
Women with advancing age have increased rates of chromosomally abnormal eggs - aneuploidy. 21
PGD-A is PGS screening for aneuploidy used particularly in women of advanced maternal age, recurrent miscarriage and implantation failure: Three RCTs report benefit in young and good prognosis patients for clinical pregnancy.
However, there are no RCTs in women of advanced maternal age, recurrent miscarriage and implantation failure. 22
Recommendations for research 3 Adjuvant luteal phase support treatments in IVF Further research is needed to assess the efficacy of adjuvant luteal phase support treatments such as low-dose aspirin, heparin, prednisolone,
immunoglobulins and/or fat emulsions 23
The review is in recurrent miscarriage patients, not undergoing IVF. We also found a case control studies in IVF patients, which shows no effect. We also found one completed RCT on clinicaltrials.gov (Clinical Trial Registration Number:
NCT01540591), which reported no study results were posted. We found a conference abstract with incomplete data and reporting biases that prevented inclusion
(http://www.fertstert.org/pb/assets/raw/Health%20Advance/journals/fns/suppl.pdf) 24
Quality evaluated using the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) and the nine-item Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Scale. 25
Low dose Prednisolone, a form of heparin and progesterone. If the treatment results in pregnancy then aspirin too.
Page 16 of 27
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
Intervention Does NICE report harms?
If yes, what does NICE state about harms? Cochrane review (where available) Were harms examined in the Cochrane review?
From the Cochrane review, what was the evidence on harms? Adequacy of harms reporting in the trials
Ovarian reserve test/AMH and antral follicle count
no
Hysteroscopy no Bosteels J, Kasius J, Weyers S, Broekmans FJ, Mol BWJ, D'Hooghe TM.Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD009461. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009461.pub3.yes: miscarriage and hysteroscopy complications
Hysteroscopy complications: no data. Miscarriage: no data. No study reported data on adverse procedure-related events.
Inadequate. No evidence available from the trials.
Cytokine testing (Th1, Th2) and treatment
no Boomsma CM et al. Peri-implantation glucocorticoid administration for assisted reproductive technology cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012. :CD005996. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005996.pub3.yes: multiple pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, incidence of ectopic pregnancies, incidence of side effects from steroids,infection rate following oocyte retrieval, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, incidence of fetal abnormalities.
There were no significant differences in adverse events (multiple pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate), but these were poorly and inconsistently reported: only three trials reported the incidence of side effects from glucocorticoids and no cases were documented
Inadequate and poor reporting in the trials.
Autoimmunity to the HCG receptor
no
Intralipid infusion no
Embryogen no
Quad therapy no
Thyroid antibodies no
Aspirin no Aspirin for in vitro fertilisation Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004832.pub3Harms and adverse events not categorically reported as such, but the following outcomes were reported: miscarriage rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, hypertensive complications, vaginal bleeding, intrauterine growth restriction in singletons and blood loss at delivery, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome
Multiple pregnancy rate was presented in 4/13 studies; miscarriage rate was presented in 5/13 studies; ectopic pregnancy rate 3/13 studies; 1/13 studies hypertensive complications, vaginal bleeding, intrauterine growth restriction in singletons and blood loss at delivery; 1/13 studies ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. No significant differences between aspirin and control groups found.
Inadequate reporting of adverse events. Few included studies (from 8 to 38% of the studies for different adverse events) reported adverse events.
Intrauterine insemination (IUI) in natural cycle
no Veltman-Verhulst SM et al.Intra-uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Feb 19;2:CD001838. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001838.pub5.yes: multiple pregnancy rate, OHSS, miscarriage rate, ectopic pregnancy rate
Many trials reported AEs poorly, sometimes are totals rather than within intervention group. Multiple pregnancy rates: no evidence of difference between groups. No evidence on ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Very limited evidence (1 trial, n=100) that there was no difference in ectopic pregnancy rates.
Poor and inadequate reporting of harms in the included trials.
Page 17 of 27
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
Intrauterine insemination (IUI) in stimulated cycle
no Veltman-Verhulst SM et al.Intra-uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Feb 19;2:CD001838. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001838.pub5.as above (same review) as above (same review)
Frozen Embryo Transfer (FET)
no
Surgical sperm retrieval no Van Peperstraten et al.Techniques for surgical retrieval of sperm prior to intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for azoospermia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Apr 16;(2):CD002807. Doi 10.1002/14651858.CD002807.pub3yes, investigated adverse effects associated with sperm-retrieval technique (e.g.haematoma, infection, severe bruising, pain), also miscarriage rate, fetal abnormalities
Only 2 trials including 98 participants were included. In one trial no SAEs were reported. In the other trial no adverse effects needing medical intervention were reported, and a non-significant difference in rates of small haematoma was reported. The other adverse events (miscarriage rates, fetal abnormalities etc) were not reported by the studies.
Inadequate reporting of adverse events in the included trials.
SpermSlow™ no
Assisted hatching no Carney SK, Das S, Blake D, Farquhar C, Seif MM, Nelson L. Assisted hatching on assisted conception (in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Dec 12;12:CD001894. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001894.pub5yes: multiple pregnancy rate per woman, miscarriage, monozygotic twinning, ectopic pregnancy rates, congenital or chromosomal abnormalities, failure to transfer any embryos per woman, embryo damage.
Miscarriage rates per woman were similar in both groups (14 RCTs; OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.54, P = 0.90, moderate quality evidence). Multiple pregnancy rates per woman were significantly increased in women who were randomised to AH compared with women in the control groups (14 RCTs, 3447 women; OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.70, P = 0.004, low quality evidence). There was insufficient data on ectopic pregnancy, congenital or chromosomal abnormalities, blastocyst formation or embryo damage.
Moderately adequate reporting of adverse events in the included trials.
Blastocyst culture no Glujovsky D et al. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012. CD002118. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub4.yes: multiple pregnancy rate, high order multiple pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, failure to transfer embryos rate.
There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of multiple pregnancy (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.33; 19 RCTs,3019 women, I2= 30%, low quality evidence), or miscarriage (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50; 18 RCTs, 2917 women, I2= 0%, lowquality evidence). These data are incomplete as under 70% of studies reported these outcomes. Rates of failure to transfer any embryos were higher in the blasto-cyst transfer group (OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.76 to 3.55; 17 studies,2577 women, I2= 36%, moderate quality evidence).The evidence was of low quality for most outcomes.
Moderately adequate reporting of adverse events in the included trials.
Egg/embryo freezing no
Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)
yes 1.17.2.2 Inform women that while the absolute risks of long-term adverse outcomes of IVF treatment, with or without ICSI, are low, a small increased risk of borderline ovarian tumours cannot be excluded. [new 2013] 1.17.2.3 Inform people who are considering IVF treatment that the absolute risks of long-term adverse outcomes in children born as result of IVF are low. [new 2013]
van Rumste MM, Evers JL, Farquhar CM.Intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection versus conventional techniques for oocyte insemination during in vitro fertilisation in patients with non-male subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(2):CD001301. Review.Yes: adverse events, miscarriage rate ( but the included study (1 RCT) did not)
There were no data on miscarriage rates from the one identified randomised clinical trial, nor on other adverse events that may be of concern such as congenital malformations...Further research should report live birth rates and adverse events.
Inadequate reporting of adverse events in the included trial.
Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS V1)
no
array comparative genomichybridisation (array CGH)(PGS V2)
no
Page 18 of 27
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD)
no
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening (PGD-A)
no
Sperm DNA Test/ SpermComet
no
Vitrification of human eggs and embryos/EVES technique
no
Sperm freezing no
Ovulation induction & cycle monitoring
yes 1.17.1.2 Inform women who are offered ovulation induction or ovarian stimulation that:no direct association has been found between these treatments and invasive cancerandno association has been found in the short- to medium-term between these treatmentsand adverse outcomes (including cancer) in children born from ovulation induction andinformation about long-term health outcomes in women and children is still awaited.[new 2013]1.17.1.3 Limit the use of ovulation induction or ovarian stimulation agents to the lowesteffective dose and duration of use. [new 2013]
Kwan I, Bhattacharya S, Kang A, Woolner A. Monitoring of stimulated cycles in assisted reproduction (IVF and ICSI). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Aug 24; 8:CD005289. Epub 2014 Aug 24.yes: adverse outcomes: rate of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) per woman; number of cancelled cycles per woman
There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the reported cases of OHSS (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.48 to 2.20; six studies; N = 781; I² = 0%; low quality evidence). The cycle cancellation rate was similar in the two arms of two studies (0/34 versus 1/31, 1/25 versus 1/25; OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.07 to 4.39; N = 115; I² =0%; low quality evidence.
Moderately adequate reporting of adverse events in the included trials. The Cochrane review did not look at some adverse events that may be important.
Modified natural cycle IVF (Gentle/Light IVF)
no
Time lapse embryo imaging (including Primo vision and Embryoscope trade names)
no
Intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI)
no Teixeira DM et al. Regular (ICSI) versus ultra-high magnification (IMSI) sperm selection for assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jul 25;7:CD010167. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010167.pub2.yes: miscarriage per clinical pregnancy; congenital abnormalities per live birth
We found no significant difference in miscarriage rate between IMSI and ICSI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.14, 6RCTs, 552 clinical pregnancies, I2= 17%, very-low-quality evidence). None of the included studies reported congenital abnormalities.
Moderately adequate reporting of adverse events in the included trials. The Cochrane review did not look at some adverse events that may be important.
Page 19 of 27
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
Endometrial scratching no Nastri CO, et al. Endometrial injury in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015. CD009517. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009517.pub3yes: miscarriage rates per clinical pregnancy; multiple gestation per clinical pregnancy; Pain reported during the intervention and any mock intervention, as measured by any validated qualitative or quantitative scale; Abnormal bleeding during or after the intervention or the mock intervention.
There was no evidence of an effect on miscarriage, however the evidence is of low-quality: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.53; P value 0.06; eight RCTs; 500 clinical pregnancies; I² = 10%; low-quality evidence. Endometrial injury was associated with increased pain, however the evidence was of very low quality. One study reported pain on a VA scale: MD 4.60, 95% CI 3.98 to 5.22; P value < 0.00001; one RCT; 158 women. Two studies reported the number of pain complaintsafter the procedure; one recorded no events in eith er group, and the other repor ted that endometrial injury increased pain complaints:OR 8.65, 95% CI 2.49 to 30.10; P value 0.0007; one RCT; 101 women.
Moderately adequate reporting of adverse events in the trials: From 21 to 71% of the trials reported on the AEs.
Adherence compounds (EmbryoGlue®)
no Heineman MJ, et al.Adherence compounds in embryo transfer media for assisted reproductive technologies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014. CD DOI: 10.1002/ 14651858.CD007421.pub3.yes: Adverse events such as ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, fetal or congenital defects and pelvic inflammation or other adverse events per randomly assigned couple
The multiple pregnancy rate (O R1.86, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.31; five RCTs, N = 1951, I2= 0%, moderate-quality evidence) was significantly increased in the high HAgroup, but no significant differences in adverse event rates were found (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.12; four RCTs, N = 1525, I2=0%, moderate-quality evidence
Inadequate reporting of adverse events by the trials: 6/17 (35%) of the studies reported adverse events.
Endometrial Receptivity Array (ERA)
no
Early Embryo Viability Assessment (Eeva™)
no
Ovarian tissue freezing no
Artificial Oocyte Activation (AOA)
no
AneVivoTM no
Segmented IVF no
Oxidative stress levels in semen (ROS test) and oral antioxidant treatment:
no Showell MG et al. Antioxidants for male subfertility. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014. CD007411. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD007411.pub3. yes: adverse events as reported by the trials
Adverse events were poorly reported and we could not make conclusions on any harmful effects. More high quality, larger placebo-controlled trials reporting on these outcomes and adverse events are needed to draw definite conclusions.
Inadequate and poor reporting of adverse events in the trials.
Dummy/mock embryo transfer
no
Page 20 of 27
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review O
nly
1
References for summary of IVF interventions (n =39) evidence and NICE guidance in relation to live births.
Adherence Compounds:
• Heineman MJ, et al. Adherence compounds in embryo transfer media for assisted reproductive technologies. Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews 2014. CD DOI: 10.1002/ 14651858.CD007421.pub3.
Anevivo:
• See application to HFEA for a novel device (Anecova AneVivo), in which published paper is cited.
www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/SCAAC_NPA.pdf refers to Blockeel, C., Mock, P., Verheyen, G., Bouche, N., Le Goff, P., Heyman,
Y., Simón, C. (2009). An in vivo culture system for human embryos using an encapsulation technology: A pilot study.
Human Reproduction, 24(4), 790–796. doi:10.1093/humrep/dep005 www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/SCAAC_NPA.pdf
Artificial Oocyte activation:
• Sfontouris et al.. Artificial oocyte activation to improve reproductive outcomes in women with previous fertilization
failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. Hum Reprod. 2015 Aug;30(8):1831-41. doi:
10.1093/humrep/dev136
Aspirin:
• Siristatidis CS, et al. Aspirin for in vitro fertilisation Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016. DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD004832.pub4
Assisted Hatching:
• Carney SK, Das S, Blake D, Farquhar C, Seif MM, Nelson L. Assisted hatching on assisted conception (in vitro fertilisation
(IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Dec 12;12:CD001894. doi:
10.1002/14651858.CD001894.pub5. Review.
Autoimmunity to the HCG receptor:
• Zou SH, Yang ZZ, Zhang P, Song DP, Li B, Wu RY, Cong X. Autoimmune disorders affect the in vitro fertilization outcome in
infertile women. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2008 Apr;14(4):343-6. Wang L, Huang P, Huang X. Analysis on the treatment of
1,020 patients with immunologic infertility.
Blastocyst Culture:
• Glujovsky D et al. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev. 2016. CD002118. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002118.pub5.
Cytokine testing (Th1, Th2) and treatment:
● Thum MY, et al. The relationship of systemic TNF-alpha and IFN-gamma with IVF treatment outcome and peripheral
blood NK cells. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2007 Mar;57(3):210-7.
● Kuon RJ, et al. Immune profiling in patients with recurrent miscarriage. J Reprod Immunol. 2015 Apr;108:136-41.
● Salmassi A et al. Circulating level of macrophage colony-stimulating factor can be predictive for human in vitro
fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril. 2010 Jan;93(1):116-23.
● Boomsma CM et al. Peri-implantation glucocorticoid administration for assisted reproductive technology cycles. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev. 2012. :CD005996. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005996.pub3. (review not directly answering the
question of cytokine testing, but the effect of glucocorticoid treatment (which is proposed to improve the intrauterine
environment by normalising the cytokine expression profile)
Dummy/mock embryo transfer:
Early Embryo Viability Assessment (Eeva™):
• VerMilyea MD et al. Computer-automated time-lapse analysis results correlate with embryo implantation and clinical
pregnancy: a blinded, multi-centre study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014 Dec;29(6):729-36. doi:
10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.09.005. Epub 2014 Sep 21.
Egg/embryo Freezing:
Page 21 of 27
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review O
nly
2
• Wennerholm UB et al. Children born after cryopreservation of embryos or oocytes: a systematic review of outcome data.
Hum Reprod. 2009 Sep;24(9):2158-72. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dep125. Epub 2009 May 20
Embryogen:
• Siristatidis C et al. Granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor supplementation in culture media for subfertile
women undergoing assisted reproduction technologies: a systematic review. Int J Endocrinol. 2013;2013:704967. doi:
10.1155/2013/704967. Epub 2013 Feb 21
Endometrial Receptivity Array (ERA):
• Ruiz-Alonso M et al. The endometrial receptivity array for diagnosis and personalized embryo transfer as a treatment for
patients with repeated implantation failure. Fertil Steril. 2013 Sep;100(3):818-24. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.05.004.
Epub 2013 Jun 4.
Endometrial Scratching:
• Nastri CO, et al. Endometrial injury in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews 2015. CD009517. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009517.pub3.
Frozen Embryo Transfer (FET):
• Roque M, Lattes K, Serra S, Solà I, Geber S, Carreras R, Checa MA. Fresh embryo transfer versus frozen embryo transfer in
in vitro fertilization cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Fertil Steril. 2013 Jan;99(1):156-62. doi:
10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.09.003. Epub 2012 Oct 3. Review.
• Wong KM, van Wely M, Van der Veen F, Repping S, Mastenbroek S. Fresh versus frozen embryo transfers for assisted
reproduction (Protocol). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 7. Art. No.: CD011184. DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD011184.
Hysteroscopy:
● Bosteels J, Kasius J, Weyers S, Broekmans FJ, Mol BWJ, D'Hooghe TM. Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated
with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 2. Art. No.:
CD009461. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009461.pub3.
● Di Spiezio Sardo A, Di Carlo C, Minozzi S, Spinelli M, Pistotti V, Alviggi C, De Placido G, Nappi C, Bifulco G.Efficacy of
hysteroscopy in improving reproductive outcomes of infertile couples: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum
Reprod Update. 2016 Jun;22(4):479-96. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmw008. Epub 2016 Mar 23. Review.
ICSI:
● van Rumste MM, Evers JL, Farquhar CM.Intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection versus conventional techniques for oocyte
insemination during in vitro fertilisation in patients with non-male subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
2003;(2):CD001301. Review.
● Johnson LN, Sasson IE, Sammel MD, Dokras A. Does intracytoplasmic sperm injection improve the fertilization rate and
decrease the total fertilization failure rate in couples with well-defined unexplained infertility? A systematic review and
meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2013 Sep;100(3):704-11. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.038. Epub 2013 Jun 15. Review.
● RCT cited but not included in the above review: IVF-patients with nonmale factor "to ICSI" or "not to ICSI" that is the
question? Poehl M, Holagschwandtner M, Bichler K, Krischker U, Jürgen S, Feichtinger W. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2001
Apr;18(4):205-8. (live birth dated not repported.
IMSI:
• Teixeira DM et al. Regular (ICSI) versus ultra-high magnification (IMSI) sperm selection for assisted reproduction.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jul 25;7:CD010167. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010167.pub2.
Intralipid infusion:
● Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 1999 Apr;34(4):234-6.Meng L, et al. Effectiveness and potential mechanisms of intralipid in
treating unexplained recurrent spontaneous abortion. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015 Dec 15; (RCT)
● See also Check JH et al. Intravenous intralipid therapy is not beneficial in having a live delivery in women aged 40-42 years
with a previous history of miscarriage or failure to conceive despite embryo transfer undergoing in vitro fertilization-
embryo transfer. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2016;43(1):14-5. (matched control study)
Page 22 of 27
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review O
nly
3
● INTRALIPID FOR REPEATED IMPLANTATION FAILURE (RIF): A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL. W. El-khayata,b M. El
Sadek.a,b a Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt; b Middle East Fertility Centre, Giza, Egypt.
http://www.fertstert.org/pb/assets/raw/Health%20Advance/journals/fns/suppl.pdf
IUI:
• Veltman-Verhulst SM et al.Intra-uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Feb
19;2:CD001838. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001838.pub5.
Modified natural cycle IVF (Gentle/Light IVF)
• Allersma T, Farquhar C, Cantineau AE. Natural cycle in vitro fertilisation (IVF) for subfertile couples. Cochrane Database
Syst Rev. 2013 Aug 30;(8):CD010550. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010550.pub2. Review.
Ovarian reserve test/AMH & antral follicle count:
● Maheshwari A, Gibreel A, Bhattacharya S, Johnson NP. Dynamic tests of ovarian reserve: a systematic review of diagnostic
accuracy. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009 May;18(5):717-34. Review.
● Broekmans FJ, Kwee J, Hendriks DJ, Mol BW, Lambalk CB..A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF
outcomes. Hum Reprod Update. 2006 Nov-Dec;12(6):685-718. Epub 2006 Aug 4. Review.
Ovarian tissue freezing:
• Donnez J et al. Ovarian tissue freezing: current status. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jun;27(3):222-30. doi:
10.1097/GCO.0000000000000171. Review.
Ovulation induction & cycle monitoring:
● Kwan I, Bhattacharya S, Kang A, Woolner A. Monitoring of stimulated cycles in assisted reproduction (IVF and ICSI).
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014, Issue 8. Art. No.: CD005289. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005289.pub3.
● Martins WP, Vieira CV, Teixeira DM, Barbosa MA, Dassunção LA, Nastri CO. Ultrasound for monitoring controlled ovarian
stimulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Jan;
43(1):25-33.
Oral antioxidant treatment:
• Showell MG et al. Antioxidants for male subfertility. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014. CD007411.
DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD007411.pub3.
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis PGD:
● Verpoest W, et al. Cumulative reproductive outcome after preimplantation genetic diagnosis: a report on 1498 couples.
Hum Reprod. 2009 Nov;24(11):2951-9. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dep272. Epub 2009 Aug 3.
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis PGD-A:
● Lee E, Illingworth P, Wilton L, Chambers GM. The clinical effectiveness of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for
aneuploidy in all 24 chromosomes (PGD-A): systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2015 Feb;30(2):473-83. doi:
10.1093/humrep/deu303. Epub 2014 Nov 28. Review.
Preimplantation Genetic Screening (v1): (FISH)
● Twisk M et al. Preimplantation genetic screening for abnormal number of chromosomes (aneuploidies) in in vitro
fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jan 25;(1):CD005291. Review.
● Mastenbroek S, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med. 2007 Jul 5;357(1):9-17.
Epub 2007 Jul 4.
● Checa MA, Alonso-Coello P, Solà I, Robles A, Carreras R, Balasch J. IVF/ICSI with or without preimplantation genetic
screening for aneuploidy in couples without genetic disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod
Genet. 2009 May;26(5):273-83. doi: 10.1007/s10815-009-9328-4. Epub 2009 Jul 24. Review.
Page 23 of 27
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review O
nly
4
● S. Mastenbroek et al. Preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs Hum. Reprod.
Update (2011) 17 (4): 454-466 first published online April 29, 2011 doi:10.1093/humupd/dmr003
In this RCT PGS was carried out using fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) for chromosomes 13, 18, 21, X and Y. Implantation rates
obtained in the PGS and control groups were 30 and 32% respectively and not significantly different (P>0.05).
Preimplantation Genetic Screening (v2): comprehensive chromosome screening
● Dahdouh, E.M., Balayla, J. & García Velasco, J.A., 2014. Impact of blastocyst biopsy and comprehensive chromosome
screening technology on preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 30(3), pp.281–289.
● Chen M, Wei S, Hu J, Quan S. Can Comprehensive Chromosome Screening Technology Improve IVF/ICSI Outcomes? A
Meta-Analysis. PLoS One. 2015 Oct 15;10(10):e0140779. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140779. eCollection 2015.
● Orvieto R. Preimplantation genetic screening- the required RCT that has not yet been carried out. Reprod Biol Endocrinol.
2016 Jun 24;14(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s12958-016-0171-z.
● Moayeri M, Saeidi H, Modarresi MH, Hashemi M. The Effect of Preimplantation Genetic Screening on Implantation Rate in
Women over 35 Years of Age. Cell J. 2016 Spring;18(1):13-20. Epub 2016 Apr 4.
Quad therapy:
Segmented IVF:
Sperm DNA Test/ SpermComet:
• L. Robinson et al. Coomarasamy The effect of sperm DNA fragmentation on miscarriage rates: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. Hum Reprod, 27 (10) (2012), pp. 2908–2917
Sperm Freezing:
• Subak LL, Adamson GD, Boltz NL.Therapeutic donor insemination: a prospective randomized trial of fresh versus frozen
sperm. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Jun;166(6 Pt 1):1597-604; discussion 1604-6.
Surgical sperm retrieval:
● Van Peperstraten et al. Techniques for surgical retrieval of sperm prior to intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for
azoospermia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Apr 16;(2):CD002807. Doi 10.1002/14651858.CD002807.pub3. Review.
● Abhyankar N, et al. Use of testicular versus ejaculated sperm for intracytoplasmic sperm injection among men with
cryptozoospermia: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2016 Feb 28. pii: S0015-0282(16)00097-2. doi:
10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.02.013
SpermSlow™:
• (SpermSlow is a semi viscous medium containing Hyaluronan for slowing down the movement and used in the selection
of an individual sperm)
● McDowell S et al. Advanced sperm selection techniques for assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews 2014. CD010461. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010461.pub2.
● See also: J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013 Nov;30(11):1471-5. doi: 10.1007/s10815-013-0108-9. Epub 2013 Oct 2.
● See also. Majumdar G et al. A prospective randomized study to evaluate the effect of hyaluronic acid sperm selection on
the intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcome of patients with unexplained infertility having normal semen parameters. J
Assist Reprod Genet. 2013 Nov;30(11):1471-5. doi: 10.1007/s10815-013-0108-9. Epub 2013 Oct 2.
Thyroid antibodies:
● Busnelli A, Paffoni A, Fedele L, Somigliana E. The impact of thyroid autoimmunity on IVF/ICSI outcome: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2016 Jun 20. Review.
● Toulis KA, Goulis DG, Venetis CA, Kolibianakis EM, Negro R, Tarlatzis BC, Papadimas I.Risk of spontaneous miscarriage in
euthyroid women with thyroid autoimmunity undergoing IVF: a meta-analysis. Eur J Endocrinol. 2010 Apr;162(4):643-52.
doi: 10.1530/EJE-09-0850. Epub 2009 Dec 2. Review.
● Chen L, Hu R. Thyroid autoimmunity and miscarriage: a meta-analysis. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2011 Apr;74(4):513-9. doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2265.2010.03974.x.
Page 24 of 27
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review O
nly
5
Time lapse embryo imaging:
• Armstrong S et al. Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev. 2015 Feb 27;2:CD011320. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011320.pub2.
Vitrification of human eggs and embryos:
• Glujovsky D, Riestra B, Sueldo C, Fiszbajn G, Repping S, Nodar F, Papier S, Ciapponi A. Vitrification versus slow freezing for
women undergoing oocyte cryopreservation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Sep 5;(9):CD010047. doi:
10.1002/14651858.CD010047.pub2
Page 25 of 27
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
●
●
●
●
●●
Page 26 of 27
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review O
nlyBox 1 Example of costs.
Individual screening blood tests – start at £50
Embryoglue – up to £160
Intralipid infusions – up to £250
Endometrial scratch – up to £325
Assisted hatching – up to £450
Blastocyst culture – up to £800
Time lapse imaging – up to £850 for the Eeva time-lapse incubator, up to £800 for the Embryoscope
Intracytoplasmic morphological sperm injection (IMSI) – up to £1,855
Intrauterine Insemination - Costs vary, but usually range from around £500 to £1,000 for each cycle of
treatment
Percutaneous epididymal sperm aspiration/testicular sperm extraction: (PESE/ TESE) – up to £1,600
Preimplantation genetic screening – £3,500
Egg freezing packages – up to £8,000
Page 27 of 27
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960