Outcome Measurement for Assisted Reproductive Technology DAVID L. KEEFE, M.D. Tufts New England Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts Laboratory for Reproductive Medicine, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA Brown University, and Women & Infants Hospital, Providence, RI
33
Embed
Outcome Measurement for Assisted Reproductive Technology DAVID L. KEEFE, M.D. Tufts New England Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts Laboratory for Reproductive.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Outcome Measurement for Assisted Reproductive Technology
DAVID L. KEEFE, M.D.Tufts New England Medical Center, Boston, MassachusettsLaboratory for Reproductive Medicine, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MABrown University, and Women & Infants Hospital, Providence, RI
Overview of Presentation• Introduction to ART procedures
• Study population– How factor in study populations for ART studies– How should IVF/ICSI/Donor Egg be factored in?
• Study Design– Efficacy measures: Primary and secondary endpoints– How should success be defined?– Safety endpoint measures
• A look into the future of ART outcome measurement
Assisted Reproductive Technologies
• In Vitro Fertilization/Embryo Transfer (IVF-ET), w/ or w/o ICSI
Overview of Presentation• Introduction to ART procedures
• Study population– How factor in study populations for ART studies– How should IVF/ICSI/Donor Egg be factored in?
• Study Design– Efficacy measures: Primary and secondary endpoints– How should success be defined?– Safety endpoint measures
• A look into the future of ART outcome measurement
Differences in Study Populations be Factored Into ART Studies
• IVF/ICSI/Donor Egg patients differ in underlying disease
• Differ in rate of egg dysfunction IVF>ICSI>Egg donor
• Egg dysfunction (a.k.a. ovarian reserve, age, etc.) best predictor of outcome (can determine log-order differences in pregnancy rates among groups of patients)
• Studies should control for study population differences through inclusion/exclusion criteria, case-control or stratification
Overview of Presentation• Introduction to ART procedures
• Study population– How factor in study populations for ART studies– How should IVF/ICSI/Donor Egg be factored in?
• Study Design– Efficacy measures: Primary and secondary endpoints– How should success be defined?– Safety endpoint measures
• A look into the future of ART outcome measurement
• Surrogate biologic outcomes– Number of follicles– Peak E2– Number eggs aspirated– Fertilization rate– Embryo cleavage and morphology rates
Outcome Measures for ART-Deliveries/Initiated Cycles
• The gold standard
• Large power needed
• Expensive
• Difficult-to-measure, but important patient differences have greater impact than drug therapy on this outcome
Outcome Measures for ART-Surrogate Clinical Outcomes
• Close to gold standard• Less power needed• Clinically important outcome• May miss clinically-important differences,
e.g. miscarriage rates• Contaminated by clinic practices, e.g.
cancellation policies
Outcome Measures for ART-Surrogate Biologic Outcomes
• Far from gold standard• Much less power needed• May not reflect clinically important outcome,
e.g. young women with low response to COH still have excellent outcomes; subtle differences in drug potency on egg yield and E2 can be managed by altering dosing
How Should Success be Defined?
• Superiority to comparator (placebo;active control)
• Equivalence to active comparator• Non-inferiority to active comparator• Success should be defined not only
according to pregnancy rate or its surrogate, but also according to convenience and discomfort level
Success Should be Defined Based on Equivalence or Non-Inferiority to
Comparator
• Superiority to comparator (placebo;active control)- not necessary for new drug to prove useful for patient care
• Equivalence or Non-inferior drugs would:– Spur competition in market– Allow multiple options affecting
convenience/comfort, which differ according to patient preference, e.g. vaginal vs. IM route for progesterone therapy
• Affected by patient-specific factors (e.g. age, ovarian reserve)• Affected by (elusive ) clinician practices, e.g. number of
viable embryos transferred• Monozygotic twinning also should be considered, since is
related to COH, increased in ART and causes significant morbidity (twin-twin tx)
• Should imprinting abnormalities (Beckwith-Wiedemann, Angelmann Sydromes, PIH) be considered an ART risk (DeBaun et al, AJHG, 2001)?
Overview of Presentation• Introduction to ART procedures
• Study population– How factor in study populations for ART studies– How should IVF/ICSI/Donor Egg be factored in?
• Study Design– Efficacy measures: Primary and secondary endpoints– How should success be defined?– Safety endpoint measures
• A look into the future of ART outcome measurement
The Future of IVF Outcome Measurement
• Multicenter network to facilitate RCT’s
• Greater racial and ethnic diversity in clinical studies to ensure generalizability of data, as mandates increase access of working and middle class Americans to ART
• Improve biological surrogate outcomes
The Future of IVF Outcome Measurement-Improving Biological Surrogate Outcomes
• Aneuploidy ubiquitous and related to ART failure, through increased embryo apoptosis, implantation failure and miscarriage
• Thus, may provide a meaningful biologic surrogate outcome
• Safety problems with IVF stem from attempts to overcome egg aneuploidy through COH, e.g. OHSS and multiple gestations
• May be increased by COH (e.g. by short-cutting normal selection process, altering follicular environment)
• New technologies to dx aneuploidy e.g. CGH, SKY• May be able to dx predisposition to aneuploidy
Aneuploid Embryos Can Develop Normally Until Day 5 of Life!
Day 1
Day 5
Day 4Day 3
Day 2Development of Embryo with Trisomy 21, determined by PGD on day 3, with develoment to normal-appearing blastocyst
Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) Can Improve Implantation Rate
Identification of chromosomes X,Y,13,18,21,15,16,22