Effect of Timing by Endometrial Receptivity Testing vs Standard Timing of Frozen Embryo Transfer on Live Birth in Patients Undergoing In Vitro Fertilization

Abstract

Endometrial receptivity testing is purported to improve live birth following frozen embryo transfer by identifying the optimal embryo transfer time for an individual patient; however, data are conflicting. To compare live birth from single euploid frozen embryo transfer according to endometrial receptivity testing vs standardized timing. Double-blind, randomized clinical trial at 30 sites within a multicenter private fertility practice in the Eastern US. Enrollment was from May 2018 to September 2020; follow-up concluded in August 2021. Participants underwent in vitro fertilization, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, endometrial receptivity testing, and frozen embryo transfer. Those with euploid blastocyst(s) and an informative receptivity result were randomized. Exclusion criteria included recurrent pregnancy loss, recurrent implantation failure, surgically aspirated sperm, donor egg(s), and unmitigated anatomic uterine cavity defects. The intervention group (n = 381) underwent receptivity-timed frozen embryo transfer, with adjusted duration of progesterone exposure prior to transfer, if indicated by receptivity testing. The control group (n = 386) underwent transfer at standard timing, regardless of receptivity test results. The primary outcome was live birth. There were 3 secondary outcomes, including biochemical pregnancy and clinical pregnancy. Among 767 participants who were randomized (mean age, 35 years), 755 (98%) completed the trial. All randomized participants were analyzed. The primary outcome of live birth occurred in 58.5% of transfers (223 of 381) in the intervention group vs 61.9% of transfers (239 of 386) in the control group (difference, -3.4% [95% CI, -10.3% to 3.5%]; rate ratio [RR], 0.95 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.13]; P = .38). There were no significant differences in the intervention vs the control group for the prespecified secondary outcomes, including biochemical pregnancy rate (77.2% vs 79.5%, respectively; difference, -2.3% [95% CI, -8.2% to 3.5%]; RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.14]; P = .48) and clinical pregnancy rate (68.8% vs 72.8%, respectively; difference, -4.0% [95% CI, -10.4% to 2.4%]; RR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.80 to 1.12]; P = .25). There were no reported adverse events. Among patients for whom in vitro fertilization yielded a euploid blastocyst, the use of receptivity testing to guide the timing of frozen embryo transfer, compared with standard timing for transfer, did not significantly improve the rate of live birth. The findings do not support routine use of receptivity testing to guide the timing of embryo transfer during in vitro fertilization. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03558399.