A randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial of modified natural versus artificial cycle for cryo-thawed embryo transfer.

STUDY QUESTION Are live birth rates (LBRs) after artificial cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer (AC-FET) non-inferior to LBRs after modified natural cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer (mNC-FET)? SUMMARY ANSWER AC-FET is non-inferior to mNC-FET with regard to LBRs, clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates (OPRs) but AC-FET does result in higher cancellation rates. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN Pooling prior retrospective studies of AC-FET and mNC-FET results in comparable pregnancy and LBRs. However, these results have not yet been confirmed by a prospective randomized trial. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION In this non-inferiority prospective randomized controlled trial (acronym 'ANTARCTICA' trial), conducted from February 2009 to April 2014, 1032 patients were included of which 959 were available for analysis. The primary outcome of the study was live birth. Secondary outcomes were clinical and ongoing pregnancy, cycle cancellation and endometrium thickness. A cost-efficiency analysis was performed. PARTICIPANT/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS This study was conducted in both secondary and tertiary fertility centres in the Netherlands. Patients included in this study had to be 18-40 years old, had to have a regular menstruation cycle between 26 and 35 days and frozen-thawed embryos to be transferred had to derive from one of the first three IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment cycles. Patients with a uterine anomaly, a contraindication for one of the prescribed medications in this study or patients undergoing a donor gamete procedure were excluded from participation. Patients were randomized based on a 1:1 allocation to either one cycle of mNC-FET or AC-FET. All embryos were cryopreserved using a slow-freeze technique. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE LBR after mNC-FET was 11.5% (57/495) versus 8.8% in AC-FET (41/464) resulting in an absolute difference in LBR of -0.027 in favour of mNC-FET (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.065-0.012; P = 0.171). Clinical pregnancy occurred in 94/495 (19.0%) patients in mNC-FET versus 75/464 (16.0%) patients in AC-FET (odds ratio (OR) 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.1, P = 0.25). 57/495 (11.5%) mNC-FET resulted in ongoing pregnancy versus 45/464 (9.6%) AC-FET (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-1.1, P = 0.15). χ(2) test confirmed the lack of superiority. Significantly more cycles were cancelled in AC-FET (124/464 versus 101/495, OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.9, P = 0.02). The costs of each of the endometrial preparation methods were comparable (€617.50 per cycle in NC-FET versus €625.73 per cycle in AC-FET, P = 0.54). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The minimum of 1150 patients required for adequate statistical power was not achieved. Moreover, LBRs were lower than anticipated in the sample size calculation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS LBRs after AC-FET were not inferior to those achieved by mNC-FET. No significant differences in clinical and OPR were observed. The costs of both treatment approaches were comparable. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS An educational grant was received during the conduct of this study. Merck Sharpe Dohme had no influence on the design, execution and analyses of this study. E.R.G. received an education grant by Merck Sharpe Dohme (MSD) during the conduct of the present study. B.J.C. reports grants from MSD during the conduct of the study. A.H. reports grants from MSD and Ferring BV the Netherlands and personal fees from MSD. Grants from ZonMW, the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development. J.S.E.L. reports grants from Ferring, MSD, Organon, Merck Serono and Schering-Plough during the conduct of the study. F.J.M.B. receives monetary compensation as member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, consultancy work for Gedeon Richter, educational activities for Ferring BV, research cooperation with Ansh Labs and a strategic cooperation with Roche on automated anti Mullerian hormone assay development. N.S.M. reports receiving monetary compensations for external advisory and speaking work for Ferring BV, MSD, Anecova and Merck Serono during the conduct of the study. All reported competing interests are outside the submitted work. No other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Netherlands trial register, number NTR 1586. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 13 January 2009. FIRST PATIENT INCLUDED 20 April 2009.

[1]  M. Hill,et al.  A GnRH agonist and exogenous hormone stimulation protocol has a higher live-birth rate than a natural endogenous hormone protocol for frozen-thawed blastocyst-stage embryo transfer cycles: an analysis of 1391 cycles. , 2010, Fertility and sterility.

[2]  S. Bhattacharya,et al.  Elective frozen replacement cycles for all: ready for prime time? , 2013, Human reproduction.

[3]  C. Farquhar,et al.  Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. , 2016, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[4]  N. Leong,et al.  Factors affecting success in an embryo cryopreservation programme. , 1999, Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore.

[5]  W. Yeung,et al.  Effect of preovulatory progesterone elevation and duration of progesterone elevation on the pregnancy rate of frozen-thawed embryo transfer in natural cycles. , 2014, Fertility and sterility.

[6]  K. Peeraer,et al.  Vitrification of cleavage stage day 3 embryos results in higher live birth rates than conventional slow freezing: a RCT. , 2015, Human reproduction.

[7]  B. Kollen,et al.  What is the optimal means of preparing the endometrium in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles? A systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2013, Human reproduction update.

[8]  T. Gelbaya,et al.  Cycle regimens for frozen-thawed embryo transfer. , 2017, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[9]  W. Yeung,et al.  Luteal phase support does not improve the clinical pregnancy rate of natural cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer: a retrospective analysis. , 2013, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[10]  S. Bhattacharya,et al.  Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from the transfer of frozen thawed versus fresh embryos generated through in vitro fertilization treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2012, Fertility and sterility.

[11]  A. Laenen,et al.  Frozen-thawed embryo transfer in a natural or mildly hormonally stimulated cycle in women with regular ovulatory cycles: a RCT. , 2015, Human reproduction.

[12]  Lisa Cowan,et al.  The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. , 2011, Human reproduction.

[13]  Sanjay Kaul,et al.  Good Enough: A Primer on the Analysis and Interpretation of Noninferiority Trials , 2006, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[14]  M. Soules,et al.  The Usefulness of a Urinary LH Kit for Ovulation Prediction During Menstrual Cycles of Normal Women , 1996, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[15]  A. Coomarasamy,et al.  The relationship between endometrial thickness and outcome of medicated frozen embryo replacement cycles. , 2008, Fertility and sterility.

[16]  B. Kollen,et al.  Spontaneous LH surges prior to HCG administration in unstimulated-cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer do not influence pregnancy rates. , 2012, Reproductive biomedicine online.

[17]  J. Skurnick,et al.  Characteristics of the urinary luteinizing hormone surge in young ovulatory women. , 2007, Fertility and sterility.

[18]  E. Sullivan,et al.  Clinical outcomes following cryopreservation of blastocysts by vitrification or slow freezing: a population-based cohort study. , 2014, Human reproduction.

[19]  N. Macklon,et al.  Cryo-thawed embryo transfer: natural versus artificial cycle. A non-inferiority trial.(ANTARCTICA trial) , 2012, BMC Women's Health.

[20]  P. Devroey,et al.  Vaginal progesterone supplementation has no effect on ongoing pregnancy rate in hCG-induced natural frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. , 2010, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[21]  A. Drogendijk,et al.  Two pregnancies following transfer of intact frozen-thawed embryos. , 1984, Fertility and sterility.

[22]  P. Devroey,et al.  Multiple birth resulting from ovarian stimulation for subfertility treatment , 2005, The Lancet.

[23]  D. Gook,et al.  A critical appraisal of cryopreservation (slow cooling versus vitrification) of human oocytes and embryos. , 2012, Human reproduction update.

[24]  P. Brinsden,et al.  Replacement of frozen-thawed embryos in artificial and natural cycles: a prospective semi-randomized study. , 1991, Human reproduction.

[25]  Alan Trounson,et al.  Human pregnancy following cryopreservation, thawing and transfer of an eight-cell embryo , 1983, Nature.

[26]  S. Mastenbroek,et al.  Cryopreservation of human embryos and its contribution to in vitro fertilization success rates. , 2014, Fertility and sterility.

[27]  N. Laufer,et al.  Transfer of frozen-thawed embryos in artificially prepared cycles with and without prior gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist suppression: a prospective randomized study. , 1998, Human reproduction.

[28]  A. Stavreus-Evers,et al.  Luteal phase progesterone increases live birth rate after frozen embryo transfer. , 2011, Fertility and sterility.

[29]  A. Yanaihara,et al.  Clinical outcomes of two different endometrial preparation methods for cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfer in patients with a normal menstrual cycle , 2007, Reproductive medicine and biology.

[30]  Hai Zhu,et al.  Slow freezing should not be totally substituted by vitrification when applied to day 3 embryo cryopreservation: an analysis of 5613 frozen cycles , 2015, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics.