Telehealth provider experience in reproductive endocrinology and infertility clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

PURPOSE: To assess telehealth services offered by reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialists and to gauge provider experiences with incorporating telehealth into their practices. METHODS: A 16-question web-based survey on use of telehealth was distributed to Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) clinics and to Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility (SREI) members. Clinic demographic data, telehealth descriptive data, and provider satisfaction with use of telehealth were assessed. Results were collected via Survey Monkey. RESULTS: A total of 1160 individuals (330 SART clinic contacts and 830 SREI members) were reached via email with an 18.6% (216) survey response rate. All respondents indicated that they offer telehealth visits. Several telehealth platforms were used, with Zoom (62.7%) and telehealth through the clinic's electronic medical record platform (34.8%) being the most common. The majority of participants (87.0%) anticipate they will offer telehealth visits after the COVID-19 pandemic. Roughly two-thirds (64.4%) of respondents anticipate fewer telehealth visits after the pandemic because of logistics, cost, and patient/provider preference. Nearly all providers are either "very satisfied" (66.2%) or "somewhat satisfied" (31.0%) with telehealth overall. CONCLUSION: Telehealth enabled safe patient-provider interactions throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. While only one-third of survey respondents offered telehealth services before the pandemic, nearly all providers express satisfaction with telehealth and anticipate they will offer telehealth services henceforth.

Universal SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction screening and assisted reproductive technology in a coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic epicenter: screening and cycle outcomes from a New York City fertility center.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and efficacy of a universal screening program in patients undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation (COS). DESIGN: Single-center retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Academic fertility center in an epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic. PATIENT(S): All patients undergoing COS from June 17, 2019, to February 28, 2021. INTERVENTION(S): Universal COVID-19 screening starting June 17, 2020, with SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction testing within 5 days of oocyte retrieval, patient-reported symptom screening, and temperature monitoring. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE(S): The primary outcome was the number of positive COVID-19 cases in patients undergoing COS cycles. The secondary outcomes were cycle outcomes compared with before COVID-19 COS cycles, adverse outcomes in COVID-canceled cycles, and center-specific COVID-19 detection rates compared with New York City cases. RESULT(S): From June 17, 2020, to February 28, 2021, 1,696 COS cycles were initiated with only seven positive COVID-19 cases for an overall positivity rate of 0.4%. When compared with before COVID cycles from June 17, 2019, to February 28, 2020, the volume of COS cycles were higher, while the overall cycle cancelation rate was lower during COVID-19. Cycle outcomes including oocyte yield and blast utilization rates were unchanged from pre-COVID cycles. Cases of COVID-19, while very low, occurred more frequently during surges in New York City rates. CONCLUSION(S): Assisted reproductive technology can be performed during the COVID-19 pandemic utilizing frequent universal screening and safe practices with low SARS-CoV-2 positivity, low cycle cancelation rates, and positive patient outcomes.

We are here for you: infertility clinic communication during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: To study how SART-member fertility clinics communicated via clinic websites during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic following publication of ASRM COVID-19 Task Force recommendations. METHODS: SART-member fertility clinic websites were systematically surveyed for the presence of an REI-specific COVID-19 message (REI-CM) and analyzed for their adherence to ASRM guidance. RESULTS: Of the 381 active clinic websites, 249 (65.3%) had REI-specific COVID messaging. The presence of REI-CM was more common in private than in academic practices (73% vs 38%, p < 0.001) and with increasing practice volume: 38% of clinics with < 200 annual cycles vs 91% of clinics with > 1000 cycles (p < 0.001). Adherence to ASRM guidance was more common in academic than in private practices (54% vs 31%, p = 0.02). Additionally, 9% of REI-CM (n = 23) announced continued treatment regardless of a patient's clinical urgency. This messaging was more common in groups doing > 1000 cycles a year (18%, p = 0.009). Clinics treating all-comers were less likely to cite ASRM than other clinics (41% vs 62%, p = 0.045). However, 75% (n = 14) cited COVID-19 guidance from WHO, CDC, and state and local governments. CONCLUSIONS: Clinic response to ASRM recommendations during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic was heterogeneous. Although academic practices were more likely to follow ASRM guidance, there was a lower extent of patient-facing messaging among academic practices than private clinics. In event of further escalations of this and future pandemics, clinics can learn from experiences to provide clear messaging to patients.

Early experience with universal SARS-CoV-2 testing in a New York-based reproductive endocrinology practice.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic peak around March 2020 led to temporary closures of most fertility clinics. Many clinics reopened but required universal SARS-CoV-2 screening. However, the rate of positive results and the necessity for such testing is unknown. We report here on early results from asingle-center academic NewYork fertility practice utilizing universal SARS-CoV-2 screening. This mixed prospective retrospective cohort included 164 patients who underwent at least one SARS-CoV-2 screening test for fertility treatment between May and July2020. Patients completed 1 to 3 nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 tests per cycle and remained symptom-free to continue fertility treatments. SARS-CoV-2 test results, past results, history of Covid-19 infection, and patient/cycle characteristics were recorded and tabulated through October2020. Outcomes included positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA tests, rate of prior Covid-19 infections, and clinical courses of patients testing positive. Patients underwent 263 cycles entailing 460 total SARS-CoV-2 screening tests. Fifteen patients reported astrong prior clinical history of Covid-19. Six patients experienced apositive SARS-CoV-2 test (2.3% of all cycles). Among 77 cycles (n = 58 patients) entailing one SARS-CoV-2 test, 2 cases (2.6%) were noted. Among 173 cycles (n = 121 patients) entailing two SARS-CoV-2 tests, 4 cycles (2.3%) were noted. Zero (0%) of 13 cycles (n = 13 patients) entailing 3 SARS-CoV-2 tests were positive. All patients were cleared to resume treatment within one month. Overall, anew asymptomatic infection was identified in 2 cycles (0.8%), while 4 of the 6 positive SARS-CoV-2 tests were among patients with aprior history of Covid-19. 3 of 4 also had adocumented prior positive RNA test. Our data suggest that universal SARS-CoV-2 screening among fertility patients is feasible, with an approximately 2% positive rate per cycle among the patients of this study. Most positive patients had aprior remote infection, but their infectiousness while being screened remains unclear.Abbreviations: REI: reproductive endocrinology and infertility; IUI: intrauterine insemination; IVF: in vitro fertilization; sono: sonography; cryo: cryopreservation; FET: frozen embryo transfer.

The COVID-19 pandemic through eyes of a NYC fertility center: a unique learning experience with often unexpected results.

Affecting basic tenets of human existence such as health, economic as well as personal security and, of course, reproduction, the COVID-19 pandemic transcended medical specialties and professional disciplines. Yet, six months into the pandemic, there still exists no consensus on how to combat the virus in absence of a vaccine. Facing unprecedented circumstances, and in absence of real evidence on how to proceed, our organization early in the pandemic decided to act independently from often seemingly irrational guidance and, instead, to carefully follow a quickly evolving COVID-19 literature. Here described is the, likely, unique journey of a fertility center that maintained services during peaks of COVID-19 and political unrest that followed. Closely following publicly available data, we recognized relatively early that New York City and other East Coast regions, which during the initial COVID-19 wave between March and May represented the hardest-hit areas in the country, during the second wave, beginning in June and still in progress, remained almost completely unaffected. In contrast, south western regions, almost completely unaffected by the initial wave, were severely affected in the second wave. These two distinctively different infectious phenotypes suggested two likely explanations: The country was witnessing infections with two different SARS-CoV-2 viruses and NYC (along with the East Coast) acquired during the first wave much better immunity to the virus than south western regions. Both hypotheses since have been confirmed: East and West Coasts, indeed, were initially infected by two distinctively different lineages of the virus, with the East Coast lineage being 10-times more infectious. In addition, immunologists discovered an up to this point unknown long-term anti-viral innate (cellular) immune response which offers additional and much broader anti-viral immunity than the classical adaptive immunity via immobilizing antibodies that has been known for decades. Consequently, we predict that in the U.S., even in absence of an available vaccine, COVID-19, by September-October, will be at similarly low levels as are currently seen in NYC and other East Coast regions (generally < 1% test-positivity). We, furthermore, predict that, if current mitigation measures are maintained and no newly aggressive mutation of the virus enters the country, a significant fall-wave of COVID-19, in combination with the usual fall wave of influenza, appears unlikely. To continue serving patients uninterrupted throughout the pandemic, turned for all of our center's staff into a highly rewarding experience, garnered respect and appreciation from patients, and turned into an absolutely unique learning experience.

Patient experiences of fertility clinic closure during the COVID-19 pandemic: appraisals, coping and emotions.

STUDY QUESTION: What are appraisals, coping strategies and emotional reactions of patients to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) fertility clinic closures? SUMMARY ANSWER: Clinic closure was appraised as stressful due to uncertainty and threat to the attainability of the parenthood goal but patients were able to cope using strategies that fit the uncertainty of the situation. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Psychological research on COVID-19 suggests that people are more anxious than historical norms and moderately to extremely upset about fertility treatment cancellation owing to COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The study was of cross-sectional design, comprising a mixed-methods, English language, anonymous, online survey posted from April 9 to 21 to social media. Eligibility criteria were being affected by COVID-19 fertility clinic closure, 18 years of age or older and able to complete the survey in English. In total, 946 people clicked on the survey link, 76 did not consent, 420 started but did not complete the survey and 450 completed (48% completion, 446 women, four men). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Overall 74.7% (n = 336) of respondents were residents in the UK with an average age of 33.6 years (SD = 4.4) and average years trying to conceive, 3.5 years (SD = 2.22). The survey comprised quantitative questions about the intensity of cognitive appraisals and emotions about clinic closure, and ability to cope with clinic closure. Open-text questions covered their understanding of COVID-19 and its effect on reproductive health and fertility plans, concerns and perceived benefits of clinic closure, and knowledge about closure. Sociodemographic information was collected. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used on quantitative data. Thematic qualitative analysis (inductive coding) was performed on the textual data from each question. Deductive coding grouped themes from each question into meta-themes related to cognitive stress and coping theory. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Most patients (81.6%, n = 367) had tests or treatments postponed, with these being self (41.3%, n = 186) or publicly (46.4%, n = 209) funded. Patients appraised fertility clinic closure as having potential for a more negative than positive impact on their lives, and to be very or extremely uncontrollable and stressful (P ≤ 0.001). Most reported a slight to moderate ability to cope with closure. Data saturation was achieved with all open-text questions, with 33 broad themes identified and four meta-themes linked to components of the cognitive stress and coping theory. First, participants understood clinic closure was precautionary due to unknown effects of COVID-19 but some felt clinic closure was unfair relative to advice about getting pregnant given to the public. Second, closure was appraised as a threat to attainability of the parenthood goal largely due to uncertainty of the situation (e.g. re-opening, effect of delay) and intensification of pre-existing hardships of fertility problems (e.g. long time waiting for treatment, history of failed treatment). Third, closure taxed personal coping resources but most were able to cope using thought-management (e.g. distraction, focusing on positives), getting mentally and physically fit for next treatments, strengthening their social network, and keeping up-to-date. Finally, participants reported more negative than positive emotions (P ≤ 0.001) and, almost all participants reported stress, worry and frustration at the situation, while some expressed anger and resentment at the unfairness of the situation. Overall, 11.8% were not at all able to cope, with reports of intense feelings of hopelessness and deteriorating well-being and mental health. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The survey captures patient reactions at a specific point in time, during lockdown and before clinics announced re-opening. Participants were self-selected (e.g. UK residents, women, 48% starting but not completing the survey), which may affect generalisability. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Fertility stakeholders (e.g. clinics, patient support groups, regulators, professional societies) need to work together to address the great uncertainty from COVID-19. This goal can be met proactively by setting up transparent processes for COVID-19 eventualities and signposting to information and coping resources. Future psychological research priorities should be on identifying patients at risk of distress with standardised measures and developing digital technologies appropriate for the realities of fertility care under COVID-19. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): University funded research. Outside of the submitted work, Prof. J.B. reports personal fees from Merck KGaA, Merck AB, Theramex, Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S; grants from Merck Serono Ltd; and that she is co-developer of the Fertility Quality of Life (FertiQoL) and MediEmo apps. Outside of the submitted work, Dr R.M. reports personal or consultancy fees from Manchester Fertility, Gedeon Richter, Ferring and Merck. Outside of the submitted work, Dr S.G. reports consultancy fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S, Access Fertility and SONA-Pharm LLC, and grants from Merck Serono Ltd. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Managing the IVF laboratory during a pandemic: international perspectives from laboratory managers.

Fertility societies worldwide responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by recommending that fertility clinics close, or sharply reduce, the clinical operation, leading to a shift in the management of IVF laboratories in three phases: shutdown preparation; maintenance during shutdown; and restart. Each of these phases carries distinct risks that need identification and mitigation, forcing laboratory managers to rethink and adapt their procedures in response to the pandemic. The sudden and unprecedented nature of the pandemic forced laboratory managers from around the world to base decisions on opinion and experience when evidence-based response options were unavailable. These perspectives on pandemic response were presented during a virtual international symposium on COVID-19, held on 3 April 2020, and organized by the London Laboratory Managers' Group. Laboratory managers from seven different countries at different stages of the pandemic (China, Italy, Spain, France, UK, Brazil and Australia) presented their personal experiences to a select audience of experienced laboratory managers from 19 different countries. The intention of this paper is to collect the learnings and considerations from this group of laboratory managers who collaborated to share personal experiences to contribute to the debate surrounding what constitutes good IVF laboratory practice in extraordinary circumstances, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 and fertility: a virtual reality.

The COVID-19 pandemic is an extraordinary global situation, and all countries have adopted their own strategies to diminish and eliminate the spread of the virus. All measures are in line with the recommendations provided by the World Health Organization. Scientific societies, such as the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology and American Society for Reproductive Medicine, have provided recommendations and guidance to overcome and flatten the growing curve of infection in patients who undergo IVF treatments. Although there is as yet no evidence that the virus causing COVID-19 might have negative effects on IVF outcomes, fertility treatments have been postponed in order to support healthcare systems by avoiding placing them under additional stress. The possibility of the virus affecting sperm function and egg performance cannot be excluded. In addition, an indirect effect of the virus on gametes and embryos during their manipulation cannot be ruled out. This commentary aims to provide some ideas on the possible effect of the virus on gametes and embryos, as well as how it could affect the normal functioning of the embryology laboratory.

A picture of the covid-19 impact on IVIRMA fertility treatment clinics in Spain and Italy.

The emergence of the novel coronavirus infection that arose in Wuhan, China in December 2019 has resulted in an epidemic that has quickly expanded to become one of the most significant public health threats in recent times. Unfortunately, the disease has spread globally. On March 11th (2020) World Health Organization (WHO) declared Covid-19 a pandemic and has called governments to take urgent and aggressive action to change the course of the outbreak. Within the context of Assisted Reproduction, both reproductive medicine professionals and patients are also fighting against this unprecedented viral pandemic. In view of events, most of us had to make serious decisions, some of them with a lack of scientific evidence due to the circumstances and with the only objective of ensuring the safe care of our patients, reduce non-essential contacts and prevent possible maternal and fetal complications in future pregnancies. Pregnant women should not be considered at high risk for developing severe infection. Up to date, there are no reported deaths in pregnant women with Covid-19, while in the cases that have presented pneumonia because of Covid-19, the symptoms have been moderate and with a good prognosis in recovery.