Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 11 de 11
Filter
1.
Journal of Investigative Medicine ; 70(2):743, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1704548

ABSTRACT

Purpose of Study It is understood that pregnant women are at higher risk for severe COVID-19 illness compared to nonpregnant people. Because of this, careful monitoring should be carried out. The purpose of this study was to identify the clinical characteristics, neonatal outcomes, and population demographics of COVID-positive pregnant women admitted to UMC Health Center in Lubbock, Texas. Methods Used We reviewed the charts of 35 pregnant patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to UMC Medical Center between April 12, 2020 and January 25, 2021. Results were reported with summative statistics such as mean and standard deviation along with percentages and counts for categorical values. Summary of Results The average patient age was 29 ± 4.8 years, and 71.43% of patients identified their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino origin. Average length of stay was 3.33 ± 3.56 days, and average number of weeks at delivery was 37.79 ± 2.27 weeks. No deaths were reported among the mothers, but there were three pregnancies that did not result in live birth. Notable findings were an increased rate of preterm birth (18.18%), an increased rate of NICU admission (16.67%), and an increased rate of gestational diabetes (13.89%) compared to national averages among pregnant women. Conclusions Many of our findings confirmed the existing literature concerning pregnancy outcomes among COVID-19 positive pregnant women, including relatively high preterm birth and NICU admission rates. The number of women who identified their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino was over-represented, which may be reflective of Lubbock's overall demographics or health inequities in West Texas. Furthermore, our gestational diabetes rate was higher than the national average, potentially reflective of Lubbock's high obesity rates. We recommend further research on the mechanisms of preterm birth in COVID-19 illness and ways to improve the health and healthcare equity of West Texas residents.

2.
Journal of Investigative Medicine ; 70(2):644-645, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1701075

ABSTRACT

Purpose of Study It is important to identify possible changes in fetal, neonatal, and maternal outcomes in relation to the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic using population-based data to inform strategies to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on adverse pregnancy outcomes. Objective To test the hypothesis that the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a higher rate of stillbirth and a lower rate of neonatal mortality. Methods Used Design: This population-based cohort study compares two epochs: calendar weeks 9-52 (defined as week one starting on the first Sunday of the year) of the years 2016 to 2019 (baseline period)) and 2020 (pandemic period). Setting: Data from the Alabama Department of Public Health, Center for Health Statistics database of Alabama state residents who delivered in Alabama. Participants: All pregnant women with stillbirths ≥20 weeks and live births ≥22 weeks gestational age. Primary Outcomes: The stillbirth and neonatal mortality rate. Summary of Results Data on 237,625 pregnant women were included;46,816 were from the pandemic and 190,809 were from the baseline period. On bivariate analysis, the stillbirth rate did not differ (8.1 vs. 8.9/1000 births, p-value=0.104), but the neonatal mortality rate was lower (2.8 vs. 4.5/1000 live births, p-value<0.001), and the maternal mortality rate was higher (102.5 vs. 62.4/100,000 births, p-value=0.003) during the COVID-19 pandemic period as compared to the baseline period. On logistic regression analysis adjusting for socio-demographic variables (maternal race, age, education, and prenatal care), the pandemic period was associated with a decrease in stillbirth (OR=0.76, 95%CI=0.64, 0.91, pvalue= 0.002) and neonatal mortality rate (OR=0.62, 95% CI=0.51-0.75, p-value<0.001) but an increase in maternal mortality rate (OR=1.64, 95% CI=1.17-2.30, P-value=0.003) as compared to the baseline period. Conclusions The current population-based study shows that the COVID-19 pandemic period was associated with no change in the stillbirth rate, a lower neonatal mortality rate, and a higher maternal mortality rate compared to the baseline period.

3.
Hum Reprod ; 37(4): 822-827, 2022 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1684692

ABSTRACT

STUDY QUESTION: How did the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affect live birth numbers in Europe? SUMMARY ANSWER: In 14 European countries with validated datasets on live birth numbers during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, excess mortality was inversely correlated with live birth numbers. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Since March 2020, in order to minimize spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and reducing strain on the health care systems, many national authorities have imposed containments and restricted both indoor and outdoor recreational activities. Historical events, such as electricity blackouts, have repeatedly been shown to exert incremental effects on birth numbers. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We evaluated the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and the containments on reproduction and birth numbers in 14 European countries with complete and validated datasets, until March 2021. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The national demographic offices of 20 European countries were requested to provide the monthly birth numbers from 2015 to March 2021. Among them, 14 countries provided those data. Taking into account seasonal variations, the live birth numbers were compared with excess mortality at two different time intervals during the pandemic. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: At 9 months after the initiation of containments in many European countries, 11 of 14 European countries (78.5%) experienced a decline in live birth numbers, ranging between -0.5% and -11.4%. The decline in live birth numbers was most pronounced in eight European countries with the highest degree of excess mortality. From January to March 2021, live birth numbers continued to decline in 5 of 8 European countries with high excess mortality, whereas live births started to recover in 8 of 14 countries (57.1%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The live birth numbers of some key European countries were not available. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The demographic changes linked to the COVID-19 pandemic may add to the overall socio-economic consequences, most particularly in those countries with pre-existing reduced reproduction rates. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study did not receive specific funding. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Birth Rate , Europe/epidemiology , Female , Fertilization in Vitro , Humans , Live Birth/epidemiology , Pandemics , Pregnancy
4.
Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health ; 57(8):1341, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1623528
5.
Cogent Medicine ; 8, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1617065

ABSTRACT

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the paradigm when it comes to infection control. However, there are still many doubts about pregnancy and the perinatal period in this context, even though many studies suggest the benignity of infection in this phase. The present study took place in a Level II Hospital with differentiated perinatal care and describes the newborns whose mothers were infected with COVID-19 during pregnancy. We aim to understand the mother-newborn pattern of transmission and clinical, analytical and serologic follow-up. Methods: Prospective observational study from 1/4/2020 to 31/5/2021, using the clinical files of every SARS-COV-2 PCR-positive mother and their newborns. Among others, we evaluated the state of infection of the newborn at 12 and 48h and after 14 days with SARS-Cov-2 PCR tests. In the first three months, serologic and clinical evaluation were performed. Results: Of the 1684 live births, 60 (3,6%) mothers were infected with SARS-COV-2 during pregnancy, 43% of which were diagnosed in the screening performed during/before labour. The median value of gestational age was 39 weeks, and the average weight was 3171g. 81,7% of the newborns remained with their mother in the hospital ward, and 85% were breastfed. 7 newborns (11,7%) needed NICU, one of which was born at 32 weeks because the mother needed ICU support due to COVID-19. Of the 26 newborns whose mothers were positive in labour, 15 were tested for SARS-Cov-2 PCR in the first 12 h, and 21 within 48h: all of them were negative.16 were tested after 14 days. Only one of them (6,2%) tested positive but remained asymptomatic. Serologic anti-spike and anti-nucleocapsid analyses were performed in 32 babies: 10 of them (31.3%) showed positive antibodies. In these cases, 80% of the mothers were positive in the 3rd trimester and 20% in the 2nd trimester. The clinical follow-up showed a positive outcome in all of them. Conclusions: This study supports others that show the benignity of perinatal SARS-COV-2 infection. There were no more significant rates of prematurity or NICU need. None of the newborns tested positive in SARS-Cov-2 PCR tests in the first 48h, supporting the rarity of the vertical infection, and only one has been affected by horizontal transmission.

6.
European Heart Journal ; 42(SUPPL 1):1843, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1554210

ABSTRACT

Background: Novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has been a world concern since December 2019. The knowledge about vertical transmission and fetal morbidity and mortality from maternal COVID-19 infection is limited.We detected an increase in the number of cases of term and near-term neonates with persistent pulmonary hypertension (PPHN) during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Methods and results: We collected data on all newborns with PPHN born between 2018 and 2020. We excluded premature infants (<34+0 weeks) and infants with other significant pathology or genetic syndromes. Compared to 5 cases of PPHN of 22930 live births in 2018, and 6 cases of PPHN of 22270 live births in 2019 (2-year average 0.02%, 95% CI 0.013%- 0.043%), there were 16 PPHN cases from 22323 live births in 2020 (0.07%, 95% CI 0.044%-0.12%), a 3 fold increase (p<0.01). We report 5 cases of term and near-term neonates born to mothers who had highly suspected (2) and PCR proven (3) COVID-19 infection during the third trimester of pregnancy, who presented with PPHN during COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. All had otherwise unexplained pulmonary hypertension, right ventricular hypertrophy (RVH) and dilatation. Two patients needed endotracheal intubation, one was supported by nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) without intubation, two needed O2 support by nasal cannula only ant two newborns (one of them was intubated) needed Nitric oxide (NO) as pulmonary vasodilator therapy. No patient required Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or died, and no prolonged residual cardiovascular or pulmonary morbidity was recorded during a median follow up of 4.8 months (range 4-6 months). Conclusions: The increase in the incidence of PPHN during the COVID- 19 pandemic, and the cases presented, suggest an intrauterine effect of maternal COVID-19 infection on the fetal pulmonary circulation. It is possible that the maternal infection affected the fetal pulmonary vascular resistance, or altered the normal decline in the resistance after birth. The right ventricular hypertrophy and dilatation with reduced function may be secondary to this hypothetical increased afterload or a direct effect of the infection. Further studies are warranted to elucidate the pathogenesis and clinical implications of this phenomenon.

7.
Hum Reprod Update ; 27(4): 623-642, 2021 06 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1455302

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In Europe, the number of frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles is steadily increasing, now accounting for more than 190 000 cycles per year. It is standard clinical practice to postpone FET for at least one menstrual cycle following a failed fresh transfer or after a freeze-all cycle. The purpose of this practice is to minimise the possible residual negative effect of ovarian stimulation on the resumption of a normal ovulatory cycle and receptivity of the endometrium. Although elective deferral of FET may unnecessarily delay time to pregnancy, immediate FET may be inefficient in a clinical setting, following an increased risk of irregular ovulatory cycles and the presence of functional cysts, increasing the risk of cycle cancellation. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: This review explores the impact of timing of FET in the first cycle (immediate FET) versus the second or subsequent cycle (postponed FET) following a failed fresh transfer or a freeze-all cycle on live birth rate (LBR). Secondary endpoints were implantation, pregnancy and clinical pregnancy rates (CPR) as well as miscarriage rate (MR). SEARCH METHODS: We searched PubMed (MEDLINE) and EMBASE databases for MeSH and Emtree terms, as well as text words related to timing of FET, up to March 2020, in English language. There were no limitations regarding year of publication or duration of follow-up. Inclusion criteria were subfertile women aged 18-46 years with any indication for treatment with IVF/ICSI. Studies on oocyte donation were excluded. All original studies were included, except for case reports, study protocols and abstracts only. Covidence, a Cochrane-tool, was used for sorting and screening of literature. Risk of bias was assessed using the Robins-I tool and the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. OUTCOMES: Out of 4124 search results, 15 studies were included in the review. Studies reporting adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for LBR, CPR and MR were included in meta-analyses. All studies (n = 15) were retrospective cohort studies involving a total of 6,304 immediate FET cycles and 13,851 postponed FET cycles including 8,019 matched controls. Twelve studies of very low to moderate quality reported no difference in LBR with immediate versus postponed FET. Two studies of moderate quality reported a statistically significant increase in LBR with immediate FET and one small study of very low quality reported better LBR with postponed FET. Trends in rates of secondary outcomes followed trends in LBR regarding timing of FET. The meta-analyses showed a significant advantage of immediate FET (n =2,076) compared to postponed FET (n =3,833), with a pooled aOR of 1.20 (95% CI 1.01-1.44) for LBR and a pooled aOR of 1.22 (95% CI 1.07-1.39) for CPR. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: The results of this review indicate a slightly higher LBR and CPR in immediate versus postponed FET. Thus, the standard clinical practice of postponing FET for at least one menstrual cycle following a failed fresh transfer or a freeze-all cycle may not be best clinical practice. However, as only retrospective cohort studies were assessed, the presence of selection bias is apparent, and the quality of evidence thus seems low. Randomised controlled trials including data on cancellation rates and reasons for cancellation are highly needed to provide high-grade evidence regarding clinical practice and patient counselling.


Subject(s)
Cryopreservation , Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic , Adolescent , Adult , Embryo Transfer/methods , Female , Fertilization in Vitro , Humans , Live Birth , Middle Aged , Ovulation Induction/methods , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Rate , Retrospective Studies , Young Adult
8.
Reprod Biomed Online ; 43(4): 663-669, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1275668

ABSTRACT

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does intrauterine administration of HCG before embryo transfer improve live birth rate during IVF cycles? DESIGN: A parallel, randomized controlled trial conducted between July 2018 and February 2020. Infertile women (n = 181) scheduled for fresh or vitrified-warmed embryo transfer after IVF carried out for any indication were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either HCG (500 IU in 0.1 ml of tissue culture media) or culture media (0.1 ml of tissue culture media) via intrauterine injection 4 min before embryo transfer. In both groups, an intrauterine insemination catheter was used for administering the medication. Primary outcome was live birth, with ongoing pregnancy and clinical pregnancy as secondary outcomes. Analysis was based on intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Baseline and cycle characteristics were comparable between the two groups. In the control group, one woman with a confirmed clinical pregnancy was lost to follow-up. Live birth rates were 24% (22/90) in the HCG group versus 19% (17/90) in the control group (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.27). Clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy rates were 34% versus 26% (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.04) and 24% versus 19% (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.27) in the HCG and the control groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Intrauterine injection of HCG before embryo transfer did not improve live birth rates in women undergoing IVF. As the study was designed to detect a 20% difference between groups, a smaller, clinically important difference could not be ruled out. Treatment outcomes were lower than expected in the control group.


Subject(s)
Chorionic Gonadotropin/administration & dosage , Embryo Transfer/statistics & numerical data , Reproductive Control Agents/administration & dosage , Adult , Birth Rate , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Pregnancy
9.
Hum Reprod ; 36(3): 666-675, 2021 02 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1096531

ABSTRACT

STUDY QUESTION: Can we use prediction modelling to estimate the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) related delay in starting IVF or ICSI in different groups of women? SUMMARY ANSWER: Yes, using a combination of three different models we can predict the impact of delaying access to treatment by 6 and 12 months on the probability of conception leading to live birth in women of different age groups with different categories of infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Increased age and duration of infertility can prejudice the chances of success following IVF, but couples with unexplained infertility have a chance of conceiving naturally without treatment whilst waiting for IVF. The worldwide suspension of IVF could lead to worse outcomes in couples awaiting treatment, but it is unclear to what extent this could affect individual couples based on age and cause of infertility. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A population-based cohort study based on national data from all licensed clinics in the UK obtained from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Register. Linked data from 9589 women who underwent their first IVF or ICSI treatment in 2017 and consented to the use of their data for research were used to predict livebirth. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Three prediction models were used to estimate the chances of livebirth associated with immediate treatment versus a delay of 6 and 12 months in couples about to embark on IVF or ICSI. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We estimated that a 6-month delay would reduce IVF livebirths by 0.4%, 2.4%, 5.6%, 9.5% and 11.8% in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years, respectively, while corresponding values associated with a delay of 12 months were 0.9%, 4.9%, 11.9%, 18.8% and 22.4%, respectively. In women with known causes of infertility, worst case (best case) predicted chances of livebirth after a delay of 6 months followed by one complete IVF cycle in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years varied between 31.6% (35.0%), 29.0% (31.6%), 23.1% (25.2%), 17.2% (19.4%) and 10.3% (12.3%) for tubal infertility and 34.3% (39.2%), 31.6% (35.3%) 25.2% (28.5%) 18.3% (21.3%) and 11.3% (14.1%) for male factor infertility. The corresponding values in those treated immediately were 31.7%, 29.8%, 24.5%, 19.0% and 11.7% for tubal factor and 34.4%, 32.4%, 26.7%, 20.2% and 12.8% in male factor infertility. In women with unexplained infertility the predicted chances of livebirth after a delay of 6 months followed by one complete IVF cycle were 41.0%, 36.6%, 29.4%, 22.4% and 15.1% in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years, respectively, compared to 34.9%, 32.5%, 26.9%, 20.7% and 13.2% in similar groups of women treated without any delay. The additional waiting period, which provided more time for spontaneous conception, was predicted to increase the relative number of babies born by 17.5%, 12.6%, 9.1%, 8.4% and 13.8%, in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years, respectively. A 12-month delay showed a similar pattern in all subgroups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Major sources of uncertainty include the use of prediction models generated in different populations and the need for a number of assumptions. Although the models are validated and the bases for the assumptions are robust, it is impossible to eliminate the possibility of imprecision in our predictions. Therefore, our predicted live birth rates need to be validated in prospective studies to confirm their accuracy. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: A delay in starting IVF reduces success rates in all couples. For the first time, we have shown that while this results in fewer babies in older women and those with a known cause of infertility, it has a less detrimental effect on couples with unexplained infertility, some of whom conceive naturally whilst waiting for treatment. Post-COVID 19, clinics planning a phased return to normal clinical services should prioritize older women and those with a known cause of infertility. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No external funding was received for this study. B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy work for ObsEva, Merck, Merck KGaA, Guerbet and iGenomics. S.B. is Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open. None of the other authors declare any conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Fertilization in Vitro , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Health Services Accessibility/organization & administration , Models, Organizational , Time-to-Treatment/organization & administration , Adult , Birth Rate , Cohort Studies , Datasets as Topic , Female , Humans , Live Birth/epidemiology , Male , Maternal Age , Pandemics , Pregnancy , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors , Time-to-Treatment/statistics & numerical data , United Kingdom/epidemiology
10.
Hum Reprod ; 36(3): 666-675, 2021 02 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-939567

ABSTRACT

STUDY QUESTION: Can we use prediction modelling to estimate the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) related delay in starting IVF or ICSI in different groups of women? SUMMARY ANSWER: Yes, using a combination of three different models we can predict the impact of delaying access to treatment by 6 and 12 months on the probability of conception leading to live birth in women of different age groups with different categories of infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Increased age and duration of infertility can prejudice the chances of success following IVF, but couples with unexplained infertility have a chance of conceiving naturally without treatment whilst waiting for IVF. The worldwide suspension of IVF could lead to worse outcomes in couples awaiting treatment, but it is unclear to what extent this could affect individual couples based on age and cause of infertility. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A population-based cohort study based on national data from all licensed clinics in the UK obtained from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Register. Linked data from 9589 women who underwent their first IVF or ICSI treatment in 2017 and consented to the use of their data for research were used to predict livebirth. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Three prediction models were used to estimate the chances of livebirth associated with immediate treatment versus a delay of 6 and 12 months in couples about to embark on IVF or ICSI. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We estimated that a 6-month delay would reduce IVF livebirths by 0.4%, 2.4%, 5.6%, 9.5% and 11.8% in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years, respectively, while corresponding values associated with a delay of 12 months were 0.9%, 4.9%, 11.9%, 18.8% and 22.4%, respectively. In women with known causes of infertility, worst case (best case) predicted chances of livebirth after a delay of 6 months followed by one complete IVF cycle in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years varied between 31.6% (35.0%), 29.0% (31.6%), 23.1% (25.2%), 17.2% (19.4%) and 10.3% (12.3%) for tubal infertility and 34.3% (39.2%), 31.6% (35.3%) 25.2% (28.5%) 18.3% (21.3%) and 11.3% (14.1%) for male factor infertility. The corresponding values in those treated immediately were 31.7%, 29.8%, 24.5%, 19.0% and 11.7% for tubal factor and 34.4%, 32.4%, 26.7%, 20.2% and 12.8% in male factor infertility. In women with unexplained infertility the predicted chances of livebirth after a delay of 6 months followed by one complete IVF cycle were 41.0%, 36.6%, 29.4%, 22.4% and 15.1% in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years, respectively, compared to 34.9%, 32.5%, 26.9%, 20.7% and 13.2% in similar groups of women treated without any delay. The additional waiting period, which provided more time for spontaneous conception, was predicted to increase the relative number of babies born by 17.5%, 12.6%, 9.1%, 8.4% and 13.8%, in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years, respectively. A 12-month delay showed a similar pattern in all subgroups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Major sources of uncertainty include the use of prediction models generated in different populations and the need for a number of assumptions. Although the models are validated and the bases for the assumptions are robust, it is impossible to eliminate the possibility of imprecision in our predictions. Therefore, our predicted live birth rates need to be validated in prospective studies to confirm their accuracy. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: A delay in starting IVF reduces success rates in all couples. For the first time, we have shown that while this results in fewer babies in older women and those with a known cause of infertility, it has a less detrimental effect on couples with unexplained infertility, some of whom conceive naturally whilst waiting for treatment. Post-COVID 19, clinics planning a phased return to normal clinical services should prioritize older women and those with a known cause of infertility. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No external funding was received for this study. B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy work for ObsEva, Merck, Merck KGaA, Guerbet and iGenomics. S.B. is Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open. None of the other authors declare any conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Fertilization in Vitro , Health Priorities/organization & administration , Health Services Accessibility/organization & administration , Models, Organizational , Time-to-Treatment/organization & administration , Adult , Birth Rate , Cohort Studies , Datasets as Topic , Female , Humans , Live Birth/epidemiology , Male , Maternal Age , Pandemics , Pregnancy , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors , Time-to-Treatment/statistics & numerical data , United Kingdom/epidemiology
11.
Reprod Biomed Online ; 41(3): 428-430, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-634481

ABSTRACT

RESEARCH QUESTION: Discontinuation of IVF cycles has been part of the radical transformation of healthcare provision to enable reallocation of staff and resources to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. This study sought to estimate the impact of cessation of treatment on individual prognosis and US population live birth rates. DESIGN: Data from 271,438 ovarian stimulation UK IVF cycles was used to model the effect of age as a continuous, yet non-linear, function on cumulative live birth rate. This model was recalibrated to cumulative live birth rates reported for the 135,673 stimulation cycles undertaken in the USA in 2016, with live birth follow-up to October 2018. The effect of a 1-month, 3-month and 6-month shutdown in IVF treatment was calculated as the effect of the equivalent increase in a woman's age, stratified by age group. RESULTS: The average reduction in cumulative live birth rate would be 0.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.3-0.3), 0.8% (95% CI 0.8-0.8) and 1.6% (95% CI 1.6-1.6) for 1-month, 3-month and 6-month shutdowns. This corresponds to a reduction of 369 (95% CI 360-378), 1098 (95% CI 1071-1123) and 2166 (95% CI 2116-2216) live births in the cohort, respectively. Th e greatest contribution to this reduction was from older mothers. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated that the discontinuation of fertility treatment for even 1 month in the USA could result in 369 fewer women having a live birth, due to the increase in patients' age during the shutdown. As a result of reductions in cumulative live birth rate, more cycles may be required to overcome infertility at individual and population levels.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Birth Rate , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Fertilization in Vitro/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Adult , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Live Birth/epidemiology , Maternal Age , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom/epidemiology , United States/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL