ALWAYS ICSI? A SWOT analysis

Beyond Earth's bounds: navigating the frontiers of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) in space

As interest in deep space travel grows exponentially, understanding human adaptation in becoming an interplanetary species is crucial. This includes the prospect of reproduction. This review summarizes recent updates and innovations in assisted reproductive technologies (ART) on Earth, while also discussing current challenges and areas for improvement in adapting ART studies to the space environment. We discuss the critical components of ART - gamete handling and preparation, fertilization, embryo culture, and cryopreservation - from the daily practice perspective of clinical embryologists and reproductive endocrinologists and lay out the complicated path ahead.In vitro embryo development in low Earth orbit and beyond remains questionable due to synergetic effects of microgravity and radiation-induced damage observed in simulated and actual in-space mammalian studies. Cryopreservation and long-term storage of frozen samples face substantial obstacles - temperature limitations, lack of trained personnel, and absence of adapted cosmic engineering options. We touch on recent innovations, which may offer potential solutions, such as microfluidic devices and automated systems. Lastly, we stress the necessity for intensive studies and the importance of an interdisciplinary approach to address numerous practical challenges in advancing reproductive medicine in space, with possible implications for both space exploration and terrestrial fertility treatments.

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus conventional in-vitro fertilisation for couples with infertility with non-severe male factor: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Introduced in 1992, intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) was initially indicated for severe male infertility; however, its use has since been expanded to non-severe male infertility. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ICSI versus conventional in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) in couples with infertility with non-severe male factor.

METHODS

We conducted an investigator-initiated, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial in ten reproductive medicine centres across China. Couples with infertility with non-severe male factor without a history of poor fertilisation were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo either ICSI or conventional IVF. The primary outcome was live birth after first embryo transfer. We performed the primary analysis in the intention-to-treat population using log-binomial regression models for categorical outcomes or linear regression models for continuous outcomes, adjusting for centre. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03298633, and is completed.

FINDINGS

Between April 4, 2018, and Nov 15, 2021, 3879 couples were screened, of whom 2387 (61·5%) couples were randomly assigned (1184 [49·6%] to the ICSI group and 1203 [50·4%] to the conventional IVF group). After excluding couples who were ineligible, randomised twice, or withdrew consent, 1154 (97·5%) in the ICSI group and 1175 (97·7%) in the conventional IVF group were included in the primary analysis. Live birth after first embryo transfer occurred in 390 (33·8%) couples in the ICSI group and in 430 (36·6%) couples in the conventional IVF group (adjusted risk ratio [RR] 0·92 [95% CI 0·83-1·03]; p=0·16). Two (0·2%) neonatal deaths were reported in the ICSI group and one (0·1%) in the conventional IVF group.

INTERPRETATION

In couples with infertility with non-severe male factor, ICSI did not improve live birth rate compared with conventional IVF. Given that ICSI is an invasive procedure associated with additional costs and potential increased risks to offspring health, routine use is not recommended in this population.

FUNDING

National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Key Research and Development Program, Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission, and Peking University Third Hospital.

Economics of Fertility Care

Family building is a human right. The high cost and lack of insurance coverage associated with fertility treatments in the United States have made treatment inaccessible for many patients. The universal uptake of "add-on" services has further contributed to high out-of-pocket costs. Expansion in access to infertility care has occurred in several states through implementation of insurance mandates, and more employers are offering fertility benefits to attract and retain employees. An understanding of the economic issues shaping fertility should inform future policies aimed at promoting evidence-based practices and improving access to care in the United States.

Good practice recommendations on add-ons in reproductive medicine†

STUDY QUESTION

Which add-ons are safe and effective to be used in ART treatment?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Forty-two recommendations were formulated on the use of add-ons in the diagnosis of fertility problems, the IVF laboratory and clinical management of IVF treatment.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The innovative nature of ART combined with the extremely high motivation of the patients has opened the door to the wide application of what has become known as 'add-ons' in reproductive medicine. These supplementary options are available to patients in addition to standard fertility procedures, typically incurring an additional cost. A diverse array of supplementary options is made available, encompassing tests, drugs, equipment, complementary or alternative therapies, laboratory procedures, and surgical interventions. These options share the common aim of stating to enhance pregnancy or live birth rates, mitigate the risk of miscarriage, or expedite the time to achieving pregnancy.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

ESHRE aimed to develop clinically relevant and evidence-based recommendations focusing on the safety and efficacy of add-ons currently used in fertility procedures in order to improve the quality of care for patients with infertility.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

ESHRE appointed a European multidisciplinary working group consisting of practising clinicians, embryologists, and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of infertility. Patient representatives were included in the working group. To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, recommendations were based on the professional experience and consensus of the working group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 46 independent international reviewers. A total of 272 comments were received and incorporated where relevant.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The multidisciplinary working group formulated 42 recommendations in three sections; diagnosis and diagnostic tests, laboratory tests and interventions, and clinical management.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Of the 42 recommendations, none could be based on high-quality evidence and only four could be based on moderate-quality evidence, implicating that 95% of the recommendations are supported only by low-quality randomized controlled trials, observational data, professional experience, or consensus of the development group.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

These guidelines offer valuable direction for healthcare professionals who are responsible for the care of patients undergoing ART treatment for infertility. Their purpose is to promote safe and effective ART treatment, enabling patients to make informed decisions based on realistic expectations. The guidelines aim to ensure that patients are fully informed about the various treatment options available to them and the likelihood of any additional treatment or test to improve the chance of achieving a live birth.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

All costs relating to the development process were covered from ESHRE funds. There was no external funding of the development process or manuscript production. K.L. reports speakers fees from Merck and was part of a research study by Vitrolife (unpaid). T.E. reports consulting fees from Gynemed, speakers fees from Gynemed and is part of the scientific advisory board of Hamilton Thorne. N.P.P. reports grants from Merck Serono, Ferring Pharmaceutical, Theramex, Gedeon Richter, Organon, Roche, IBSA and Besins Healthcare, speakers fees from Merck Serono, Ferring Pharmaceutical, Theramex, Gedeon Richter, Organon, Roche, IBSA and Besins Healthcare. S.R.H. declares being managing director of Fertility Europe, a not-for-profit organization receiving financial support from ESHRE. I.S. is a scientific advisor for and has stock options from Alife Health, is co-founder of IVFvision LTD (unpaid) and received speakers' fee from the 2023 ART Young Leader Prestige workshop in China. A.P. reports grants from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck A/S, consulting fees from Preglem, Novo Nordisk, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Gedeon Richter, Cryos and Merck A/S, speakers fees from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S, Theramex and Organon, travel fees from Gedeon Richter. The other authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

DISCLAIMER

This Good Practice Recommendations (GPRs) document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and are based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation.ESHRE GPRs should be used for information and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care or bedeemedinclusive of all proper methods of care, or be exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results.Theydo not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, or variations based on locality and facility type.Furthermore, ESHRE GPRs do not constitute or imply the endorsement, or favouring, of any of the included technologies by ESHRE.

Why we need stem-cell derived gametes

In-vitro gametogenesis (IVG) is almost exclusively discussed as a potential solution for people who have no (functional) gametes. However, IVG could also be seen as an alternative to standard IVF. Instead of submitting women to ovarian stimulation and invasive oocyte retrieval, the creation of oocytes from stem cells should be the first treatment option (assuming it to be reasonably safe and effective). The primary reason for the application of this method would not be for these women to become genetic parents but to alleviate the physical and psychological burden of standard IVF treatment on them.

Comparison of clinical and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy outcomes between in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in sibling mature oocytes from high-risk patients: A retrospective study

AIM

To evaluate the influence of insemination methods on clinical outcomes by assessing preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) outcomes in embryos obtained using in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in sibling mature oocytes from high-risk patients.

METHODS

This retrospective study involved 108 couples with nonmale or mild male factor infertility who underwent split insemination cycles from January 2018 to December 2021. PGT-A was performed using trophectoderm biopsy, array comparative genome hybridization, or next-generation sequencing with 24-chromosome screening.

RESULTS

Mature oocytes were divided into IVF (n = 660) and ICSI (n = 1028) groups. The normal fertilization incidence was similar between the groups (81.1% vs. 84.6%). The total number of blastocysts biopsied was significantly higher in the IVF group than in the ICSI group (59.3% vs. 52.6%; p = 0.018). However, euploidy (34.4% vs. 31.9%) and aneuploidy (63.4% vs. 66.2%) rates per biopsy and clinical pregnancy rates (60.0% vs. 58.8%) were similar between the groups. Implantation (45.6% vs. 50.8%) and live birth or ongoing pregnancy (52.0% vs 58.8%) rates were slightly higher in the ICSI group than in the IVF group and miscarriage rate per transfer was slightly higher in the IVF group than in the ICSI group (12.0% vs 5.9%); however no significant difference was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

IVF and ICSI using sibling mature oocytes had similar clinical outcomes, and euploidy and aneuploidy rates in couples with nonmale and mild male factor infertility. These results suggest that IVF is a useful option, along with ICSI, as an insemination method in PGT-A cycles, especially in high-risk patients.

The use of ICSI in ART: evidence for practice

This article reviews the evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). It provides evidence-based clinical and laboratory guidelines and recommendations for use of ICSI within an assisted reproductive technology (ART) service. The guidelines address the evidence for the use of ICSI rather than conventional IVF (cIVF); the use of ART techniques supplementary to ICSI; and risks associated with ICSI. This article is not intended to be the only approved standard of practice or to dictate an exclusive course of treatment. Other plans of management may be appropriate, taking into account the needs and medical history of the patient, available resources, and institutional or clinical practice limitations.

Comparison of clinical outcomes between conventional in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in poor responders with only single oocyte retrieved

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical outcomes between conventional insemination (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in poor responders with only a single oocyte retrieved.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective case-control study. Couples who were treated with assisted reproductive technology (ART) with a single oocyte retrieved in Mackay Memorial Hospital from 1996 to 2016 were recruited. All data were categorized into three groups, according to their fertilization method and semen quality: group A, conventional insemination with non-male factor (IVF-NMF, n = 115), group B, ICSI with male factor (ICSI-MF, n = 30), and group C, ICSI with non-male factor (ICSI-NMF, n = 49).

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference was observed between IVF and ICSI groups in pregnancy outcomes, including the chemical or clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, and live birth rate. Similar fertilization rates per oocyte obtained were observed in IVF and ICSI patients, but significantly lower per mature oocyte in the ICSI group (IVF: 91.5%, ICSI-MF: 75.0%, ICSI-NMF: 77.8%). Although there is no statistical significance, the lower live birth rate is observed in group C than others (A:11.5%, B:25%, C:5%, p = 0.187).

CONCLUSION

In this study, pregnancy outcomes of conventional in vitro fertilization and ICSI in poor responders with only a single oocyte retrieved were similar. However, the fertilization rate of matured oocytes in ICSI groups is significantly lower than that in the IVF group, indicating that ICSI procedures might cause oocyte damage. Therefore, the choice of fertilization method should be based on semen quality. A randomized controlled trial should be performed to confirm our findings.

The role of thrombophilias in reproduction: A swot analysis

Thrombophilia is a group of inherited or acquired coagulation disorders that have been associated with reproductive failure. However, there are still no clear recommendations on whether its inclusion in the initial study of the infertile couple or patients with recurrent implantation failure is necessary. In this discussion paper, based on a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis, the different aspects of the repercussions of thrombophilia screening and treatment in reproduction are evaluated. To avoid possible subjectivity in the analysis and results of this study, researchers followed Oxford criteria for the evaluation of evidence. The results from the evaluation of the reviewed bibliography seem to indicate that, pending new evidence, it would be advisable not to include thrombophilia screening in the initial baseline study of the infertile couple. There is no evidence to support a clear association between thrombophilia and implantation failure or infertility. Thrombophilia testing in this setting may increase cost, with minimal potential benefit and lead to inappropriate use of anticoagulants with possible deleterious adverse effects. Future well-designed studies are needed to assess the possible benefit of anticoagulant therapy in infertile thrombophilic patients with implantation failure.

Duration of infertility and assisted reproductive outcomes in non-male factor infertility: can use of ICSI turn the tide?

Background

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is increasingly used among in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles without male factor infertility. For couples with prolonged infertility duration, the preferred insemination method may vary across laboratories and clinics. We analyzed whether ICSI is effective for non-male factor infertility with long infertility duration.

Methods

Seventeen thousand four hundred seventy-seven IVF/ICSI cycles from women with non-male factor infertility were included, of these 4177 women with infertility duration ≥ 5 years were in the final analysis. Primary outcome was the live birth rate after first embryo transfer. Secondary outcomes were rates of clinical pregnancy and fertilization.

Results

A nonlinear relationship was observed between infertility duration and IVF fertilization rate, which decreased with infertility years up to the turning point (4.8 years). 4177 women with infertility ≥ 5 years were categorized by IVF (n = 3806) or ICSI (n = 371). Live birth rate after first embryo transfer was 43.02% in ICSI and 47.85% in IVF group (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 0.91; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.72–1.15). Fertilization rate per metaphaseII (aOR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.86–1.40) and clinical pregnancy rate (aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.71–1.13) were similar between the two groups. Sensitive analyses (women ≥ 35 years) did not show a benefit of ICSI over IVF.

Conclusions

Women with infertility exceeding 4.8 years had decreased incidence of IVF fertilization. The use of ICSI showed no significant improvement in fertilization and live birth rates for non-male factor couples with ≥ 5 years of infertility.

Simulating nature in sperm selection for assisted reproduction

Sperm selection in the female reproductive tract (FRT) is sophisticated. Only about 1,000 sperm out of millions in an ejaculate reach the fallopian tube and thus have a chance of fertilizing an oocyte. In assisted reproduction techniques, sperm are usually selected using their density or motility, characteristics that do not reflect their fertilization competence and, therefore, might result in failure to fertilize the oocyte. Although sperm processing in in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intrauterine insemination (IUI) bypasses many of the selection processes in the FRT, selection by the cumulus mass and the zona pellucida remain intact. By contrast, the direct injection of a sperm into an oocyte in intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) bypasses all natural selection barriers and, therefore, increases the risk of transferring paternal defects such as fragmented DNA and genomic abnormalities in sperm to the resulting child. Research into surrogate markers of fertilization potential and into simulating the natural sperm selection processes has progressed. However, methods of sperm isolation - such as hyaluronic acid-based selection and microfluidic isolation based on sperm tactic responses - use only one or two parameters and are not comparable with the multistep sperm selection processes naturally occurring within the FRT. Fertilization-competent sperm require a panel of molecules, including zona pellucida-binding proteins and ion channel proteins, that enable them to progress through the FRT to achieve fertilization. The optimal artificial sperm selection method will, therefore, probably need to use a multiparameter tool that incorporates the molecular signature of sperm with high fertilization potential, and their responses to external cues, within a microfluidic system that can replicate the physiological processes of the FRT in vitro.

More blastocysts are produced from fewer oocytes in ICSI compared to IVF - results from a sibling oocytes study and definition of a new key performance indicator

BACKGROUND

Which fertilization method, between ICSI and IVF in split insemination treatments, has the highest clinical efficiency in producing clinically usable blastocyst?

METHODS

211 infertile couples underwent split insemination treatments for a non-severe male factor. 1300 metaphase II (MII) oocytes were inseminated by conventional IVF and 1302 MII oocytes were micro-injected with the same partner's semen. Embryo development until blastocyst stage on day V and clinical outcomes were valuated trough conventional key performance indicators (KPI), and new KPIs such as blastocyst rate per used MII oocytes and the number of MII oocytes to produce one clinically usable blastocyst from ICSI and IVF procedures.

RESULTS

The results were  globally analyzed and according to ovarian stimulation protocol, infertility indication, and female age. The conventional KPI were online with the expected values from consensus references. From global results, 2.3 MII oocyte was needed to produce one clinically usable blastocyst after ICSI compared to 2.9 MII oocytes in IVF. On the same way, more blastocysts for clinical use were produced from fewer MII oocytes in ICSI compared to IVF in all sub-groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In split insemination treatments, the yield of clinically usable blastocysts was always superior in ICSI compared to IVF. The new KPI "number of needed oocytes to produce one clinically usable embryo" tests the clinical efficiency of the IVF laboratory.

International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ICMART): world report on assisted reproductive technologies, 2013

OBJECTIVE

To report the utilization, effectiveness, and safety of practices in assisted reproductive technology (ART) globally in 2013 and assess global trends over time.

DESIGN

Retrospective, cross-sectional survey on the utilization, effectiveness, and safety of ART procedures performed globally during 2013.

SETTING

Seventy-five countries and 2,639 ART clinics.

PATIENT(S)

Women and men undergoing ART procedures.

INTERVENTION(S)

All ART.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The ART cycles and outcomes on country-by-country, regional, and global levels. Aggregate country data were processed and analyzed based on methods developed by the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART).

RESULT(S)

A total of 1,858,500 ART cycles were conducted for the treatment year 2013 across 2,639 clinics in 75 participating countries with a global participation rate of 73.6%. Reported and estimated data suggest 1,160,474 embryo transfers (ETs) were performed resulting in >344,317 babies. From 2012 to 2013, the number of reported aspiration and frozen ET cycles increased by 3% and 16.4%, respectively. The proportion of women aged >40 years undergoing nondonor ART increased from 25.2% in 2012 to 26.3% in 2013. As a percentage of nondonor aspiration cycles, intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) was similar to results for 2012. The in vitro fertilization (IVF)/ICSI combined delivery rates per fresh aspiration and frozen ET cycles were 24.2% and 22.8%, respectively. In fresh nondonor cycles, single ET increased from 33.7% in 2012 to 36.5% in 2013, whereas the average number of transferred embryos was 1.81-again with wide country variation. The rate of twin deliveries after fresh nondonor transfers was 17.9%; the triplet rate was 0.7%. In frozen ET cycles performed in 2013, single ET was used in 57.6%, with an average of 1.49 embryos transferred and twin and triplet rates of 10.8% and 0.4%, respectively. The cumulative delivery rate per aspiration was 30.4%, similar to that in 2012. Perinatal mortality rate per 1,000 births was 22.2% after fresh IVF/ICSI and 16.8% after frozen ET. The data presented depended on the quality and completeness of the data submitted by individual countries. This report covers approximately two-thirds of world ART activity. Continued efforts to improve the quality and consistency of reporting ART data by registries are still needed.

CONCLUSION(S)

Reported ART cycles, effectiveness, and safety increased between 2012 and 2013 with adoption of a better method for estimating unreported cycles.

Impact of chronic endometritis in infertility: a SWOT analysis

Chronic endometritis is a pathology often associated with reproductive failure, but there are still no clear recommendations on whether its inclusion in the initial study of infertile couples is necessary. In this discussion paper, based on a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis, the different aspects of the repercussions of chronic endometritis in fertility are evaluated. To avoid possible subjectivity in the analysis and results of this study, the researchers followed the Oxford criteria for the evaluation of evidence. The results from the evaluation of the reviewed literature seem to indicate that, pending new evidence, it would be advisable not to include chronic endometritis in the initial baseline study before assisted reproduction in order not to delay other assisted reproduction treatments. However, it would be advisable in cases of repetitive implantation failure and pregnancy loss after having undergone IVF with viable embryos and before continuing with costly reproductive processes, since results could be improved. The development of randomized studies assessing the impact of antibiotic treatment as a possible therapeutic option in infertile women with chronic endometritis, as well as the possible impact on endometrial microbiota and receptivity/implantation, would allow for the establishment of more precise clinical guidelines in this regard.

ICSI Does Not Improve Live Birth Rates but Yields Higher Cancellation Rates Than Conventional IVF in Unexplained Infertility

Objectives: Unexplained infertility has been one of the indications for utilization of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). However, whether ICSI should be preferred to IVF for patients with unexplained infertility remains an open question. This study aims to determine if ICSI improves the clinical outcomes over conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) in couples with unexplained infertility.

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of 549 IVF and 241 ICSI cycles for patients with unexplained infertility at a fertility center of a university hospital from January 2016 and December 2018. The live birth rate and clinical pregnancy rate were compared between the two groups. Other outcome measures included the implantation rate, miscarriage rate, and fertilization rate.

Results: The live birth rate was 35.2% (172/488) in the IVF group and 33.3% (65/195) in ICSI group, P = 0.635. The two groups also had similar clinical pregnancy rates, implantation rates, and miscarriage rates. The fertilization rate of IVF group was significantly higher than that of ICSI group (53.8 vs. 45.7%, P = 0.000, respectively). Sixty-one and 46 patients did not transfer fresh embryos in IVF and ICSI cycles, respectively. Patients with IVF cycles had lower cancellation rates than those with ICSI (11.1 vs. 19.1%, P = 0.003, respectively).

Conclusion: ICSI does not improve live birth rates but yields higher cancellation rates than conventional IVF in the treatment of unexplained infertility.