无严重男性因素不育患者的IVF与ICSI:一项随机临床试验

IF 58.7 1区 医学 Q1 BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Sine Berntsen, Anne Zedeler, Bugge Nøhr, Morten Rønn Petersen, Marie Louise Grøndahl, Lars Franch Andersen, Kristine Løssl, Ellen Løkkegaard, Anne Lis Englund, Anette Vestergaard Gabrielsen, Lisbeth Prætorius, Ida Behrendt-Møller, Lea Langhoff Thuesen, Kilian Vomstein, Mette Petri Lauritsen, Aleksandra Ivanoska Trajcevski, Dea Frøding Skipper, David Westergaard, Anja Pinborg, Henriette Svarre Nielsen, Nina la Cour Freiesleben
{"title":"无严重男性因素不育患者的IVF与ICSI:一项随机临床试验","authors":"Sine Berntsen, Anne Zedeler, Bugge Nøhr, Morten Rønn Petersen, Marie Louise Grøndahl, Lars Franch Andersen, Kristine Løssl, Ellen Løkkegaard, Anne Lis Englund, Anette Vestergaard Gabrielsen, Lisbeth Prætorius, Ida Behrendt-Møller, Lea Langhoff Thuesen, Kilian Vomstein, Mette Petri Lauritsen, Aleksandra Ivanoska Trajcevski, Dea Frøding Skipper, David Westergaard, Anja Pinborg, Henriette Svarre Nielsen, Nina la Cour Freiesleben","doi":"10.1038/s41591-025-03621-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and conventional in vitro fertilization (c-IVF) are widely used fertilization techniques in assisted reproduction, but their relative effectiveness in patients without severe male factor infertility remains debated. While ICSI’s role in couples with severe male factor infertility is well established, its routine use in cases with normal or nonseverely decreased sperm quality is not evidence-based. Here we conducted the INVICSI study, an open-label, multicenter randomized controlled trial, to compare cumulative live birth rates (CLBR) as the primary outcome between ICSI and c-IVF in patients without severe male factor infertility. Between November 2019 and December 2022, 824 women undergoing their first IVF cycle were randomized to ICSI (<i>n</i> = 414) or c-IVF (<i>n</i> = 410) across six public fertility clinics in Denmark. The CLBR was 43.2% (179/414) in the ICSI group and 47.3% (193/408) in the c-IVF group, yielding a risk ratio of 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.79–1.06). These findings demonstrate that ICSI does not improve CLBR compared to c-IVF and support c-IVF as the preferred first-line treatment for patients with normal or nonseverely decreased sperm quality. ICSI should be reserved for severe male factor infertility. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04128904.</p>","PeriodicalId":19037,"journal":{"name":"Nature Medicine","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":58.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"IVF versus ICSI in patients without severe male factor infertility: a randomized clinical trial\",\"authors\":\"Sine Berntsen, Anne Zedeler, Bugge Nøhr, Morten Rønn Petersen, Marie Louise Grøndahl, Lars Franch Andersen, Kristine Løssl, Ellen Løkkegaard, Anne Lis Englund, Anette Vestergaard Gabrielsen, Lisbeth Prætorius, Ida Behrendt-Møller, Lea Langhoff Thuesen, Kilian Vomstein, Mette Petri Lauritsen, Aleksandra Ivanoska Trajcevski, Dea Frøding Skipper, David Westergaard, Anja Pinborg, Henriette Svarre Nielsen, Nina la Cour Freiesleben\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41591-025-03621-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and conventional in vitro fertilization (c-IVF) are widely used fertilization techniques in assisted reproduction, but their relative effectiveness in patients without severe male factor infertility remains debated. While ICSI’s role in couples with severe male factor infertility is well established, its routine use in cases with normal or nonseverely decreased sperm quality is not evidence-based. Here we conducted the INVICSI study, an open-label, multicenter randomized controlled trial, to compare cumulative live birth rates (CLBR) as the primary outcome between ICSI and c-IVF in patients without severe male factor infertility. Between November 2019 and December 2022, 824 women undergoing their first IVF cycle were randomized to ICSI (<i>n</i> = 414) or c-IVF (<i>n</i> = 410) across six public fertility clinics in Denmark. The CLBR was 43.2% (179/414) in the ICSI group and 47.3% (193/408) in the c-IVF group, yielding a risk ratio of 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.79–1.06). These findings demonstrate that ICSI does not improve CLBR compared to c-IVF and support c-IVF as the preferred first-line treatment for patients with normal or nonseverely decreased sperm quality. ICSI should be reserved for severe male factor infertility. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04128904.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19037,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nature Medicine\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":58.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nature Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-025-03621-x\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-025-03621-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

卵胞浆内单精子注射(ICSI)和常规体外受精(c-IVF)是辅助生殖中广泛使用的受精技术,但它们在非严重男性因素不育患者中的相对有效性仍存在争议。虽然ICSI在患有严重男性因素不育的夫妇中的作用是公认的,但它在精子质量正常或非严重下降的情况下的常规应用是没有证据的。在这里,我们进行了一项开放标签、多中心随机对照试验,比较ICSI和c-IVF作为无严重男性因素不育患者的累积活产率(CLBR)的主要结局。在2019年11月至2022年12月期间,在丹麦的6家公共生育诊所,824名接受第一次试管婴儿周期的女性被随机分配到ICSI (n = 414)或c-IVF (n = 410)。ICSI组CLBR为43.2% (179/414),c-IVF组为47.3%(193/408),风险比为0.91(95%可信区间为0.79-1.06)。这些研究结果表明,与c-IVF相比,ICSI不能改善CLBR,并支持c-IVF作为精子质量正常或非严重下降患者的首选一线治疗。ICSI应保留在严重的男性因素不育。ClinicalTrials.gov注册:NCT04128904。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

IVF versus ICSI in patients without severe male factor infertility: a randomized clinical trial

IVF versus ICSI in patients without severe male factor infertility: a randomized clinical trial

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and conventional in vitro fertilization (c-IVF) are widely used fertilization techniques in assisted reproduction, but their relative effectiveness in patients without severe male factor infertility remains debated. While ICSI’s role in couples with severe male factor infertility is well established, its routine use in cases with normal or nonseverely decreased sperm quality is not evidence-based. Here we conducted the INVICSI study, an open-label, multicenter randomized controlled trial, to compare cumulative live birth rates (CLBR) as the primary outcome between ICSI and c-IVF in patients without severe male factor infertility. Between November 2019 and December 2022, 824 women undergoing their first IVF cycle were randomized to ICSI (n = 414) or c-IVF (n = 410) across six public fertility clinics in Denmark. The CLBR was 43.2% (179/414) in the ICSI group and 47.3% (193/408) in the c-IVF group, yielding a risk ratio of 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.79–1.06). These findings demonstrate that ICSI does not improve CLBR compared to c-IVF and support c-IVF as the preferred first-line treatment for patients with normal or nonseverely decreased sperm quality. ICSI should be reserved for severe male factor infertility. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04128904.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nature Medicine
Nature Medicine 医学-生化与分子生物学
CiteScore
100.90
自引率
0.70%
发文量
525
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Nature Medicine is a monthly journal publishing original peer-reviewed research in all areas of medicine. The publication focuses on originality, timeliness, interdisciplinary interest, and the impact on improving human health. In addition to research articles, Nature Medicine also publishes commissioned content such as News, Reviews, and Perspectives. This content aims to provide context for the latest advances in translational and clinical research, reaching a wide audience of M.D. and Ph.D. readers. All editorial decisions for the journal are made by a team of full-time professional editors. Nature Medicine consider all types of clinical research, including: -Case-reports and small case series -Clinical trials, whether phase 1, 2, 3 or 4 -Observational studies -Meta-analyses -Biomarker studies -Public and global health studies Nature Medicine is also committed to facilitating communication between translational and clinical researchers. As such, we consider “hybrid” studies with preclinical and translational findings reported alongside data from clinical studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信