Endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI: an individual participant data meta-analysis

Nienke E. van Hoogenhuijze*, Gemma Lahoz Casarramona, Sarah Lensen, Cindy Farquhar, Mohan S. Kamath, Aleyamma T. Kunjummen, Nick Raine-Fenning, Sine Berntsen, Anja Pinborg, Shari Mackens, Zeynep Ozturk Inal, Ernest H.Y. Ng, Jennifer S.M. Mak, Sachin A. Narvekar, Wellington P. Martins, Mia Steengaard Olesen, Helen L. Torrance, Ben W. Mol, Marinus J.C. Eijkemans, Rui WangFrank J.M. Broekmans

*Corresponding author af dette arbejde

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewpeer review

14 Citationer (Scopus)
8 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

BACKGROUND
In IVF/ICSI treatment, the process of embryo implantation is the success rate-limiting step. Endometrial scratching has been suggested to improve this process, but it is unclear if this procedure increases the chance of implantation and live birth (LB) and, if so, for whom, and how the scratch should be performed.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE
This individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) aims to answer the question of whether endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI influences the chance of a LB, and whether this effect is different in specific subgroups of women. After its incidental discovery in 2000, endometrial scratching has been suggested to improve embryo implantation. Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted, showing contradicting results. Conventional meta-analyses were limited by high within- and between-study heterogeneity, small study samples, and a high risk of bias for many of the trials. Also, the data integrity of several trials have been questioned. Thus, despite numerous RCTs and a multitude of conventional meta-analyses, no conclusion on the clinical effectiveness of endometrial scratching could be drawn. An IPD-MA approach is able to overcome many of these problems because it allows for increased uniformity of outcome definitions, can filter out studies with data integrity concerns, enables a more precise estimation of the true treatment effect thanks to adjustment for participant characteristics and not having to make the assumptions necessary in conventional meta-analyses, and because it allows for subgroup analysis.

SEARCH METHODS
A systematic literature search identified RCTs on endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Authors of eligible studies were invited to share original data for this IPD-MA. Studies were assessed for risk of bias (RoB) and integrity checks were performed. The primary outcome was LB, with a one-stage intention to treat (ITT) as the primary analysis. Secondary analyses included as treated (AT), and the subset of women that underwent an embryo transfer (AT+ET). Treatment-covariate interaction for specific participant characteristics was analyzed in AT+ET.

OUTCOMES
Out of 37 published and 15 unpublished RCTs (7690 participants), 15 RCTs (14 published, one unpublished) shared data. After data integrity checks, we included 13 RCTs (12 published, one unpublished) representing 4112 participants. RoB was evaluated as ‘low’ for 10/13 RCTs. The one-stage ITT analysis for scratch versus no scratch/sham showed an improvement of LB rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.29 [95% CI 1.02–1.64]). AT, AT+ET, and low-RoB-sensitivity analyses yielded similar results (OR 1.22 [95% CI 0.96–1.54]; OR 1.25 [95% CI 0.99–1.57]; OR 1.26 [95% CI 1.03–1.55], respectively). Treatment-covariate interaction analysis showed no evidence of interaction with age, number of previous failed embryo transfers, treatment type, or infertility cause.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS
This is the first meta-analysis based on IPD of more than 4000 participants, and it demonstrates that endometrial scratching may improve LB rates in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Subgroup analysis for age, number of previous failed embryo transfers, treatment type, and infertility cause could not identify subgroups in which endometrial scratching performed better or worse. The timing of endometrial scratching may play a role in its effectiveness. The use of endometrial scratching in clinical practice should be considered with caution, meaning that patients should be properly counseled on the level of evidence and the uncertainties.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftHuman Reproduction Update
Vol/bind29
Udgave nummer6
Sider (fra-til)721-740
Antal sider20
ISSN1355-4786
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2023

Bibliografisk note

Funding Information:
B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, and has received research funding, travel support, and consulting fees from Merck. E.H.Y.N. reports participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for HOPE, Vietnam and Beijing 3rd Hospital. J.S.M.M. reports participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for Beijing 3rd Hospital, and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board and Advisory Board for HOPE, Vietnam. F.J.M.B. has received speaking fee for a lecture from Besins healthcare, reports a grant from Merck, and participation on advisory boards for Merck and Ferring. R.W. is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre for Research Excellence in Women’s Health in Reproductive Life (App1171592) through a fellowship grant and an emerging leadership investigator grant (2009467). N.E.v.H. has received payment for presentations by Organon and Merck. A.P. has received payment for lectures, presentations, or educational events by Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S, Theramex, and Organon; reports participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Preglem; reports consultancy for Preglem, Novo Nordisk, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Gedeon Richter, Cryos, and Merck A/S; reports that her employing institution has received grants or travel grants by Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Merck A/S; reports that Gedeon Richter has lent her employing institution materials. None of the other authors have any interests to declare.

Funding Information:
No specific funding was sought for this project. The sponsor of this project is the University Medical Center Utrecht (UMC Utrecht), Utrecht, the Netherlands. The sponsor was not involved in the study design, data interpretation, or writing of the manuscript.

Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.

Citationsformater