Fertility Does not Quarantine: Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic Impacts on in Vitro Fertilization Clinical Pregnancy Rates.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinical pregnancy rates and analyze factors that may have influenced their outcome. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study conducted at a tertiary-care Brazilian fertility center. All fresh IVF and embryo warming cycles performed from March 11 to December 31, 2018-2021 were analyzed, and their data were used to calculate fertilization, embryo cleavage, cycle cancellation, embryo transfer (ET), and clinical pregnancy rates. Statistical tests were used to evaluate the alterations found. Logistic regression models were used to explore the association of the categorical variables with the observed clinical pregnancy rates. Data from 2018 and 2019 (prepandemic) and 2020 and 2021 (pandemic) were grouped. RESULTS: A total of 756 cycles were analyzed (n = 360 prepandemic and n = 396 pandemic). The age group of the patients, fertilization rates, and cleavage rates did not have significant differences (p > 0.05). There was a reduction in the percentage of fresh IVF and an increase in embryo warming cycles (p = 0.005) during the pandemic. There was also an increase in fresh cycle cancellations (p < 0.001) and a reduction in ET rates (p < 0.001). The pandemic had a negative impact on clinical pregnancy rates (p < 0.001) especially due to the increase in fresh cycle cancellations (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Embryo warming cycles with subsequent frozen-thawed ET were presented as a viable alternative to continue assisted reproductive treatments against pandemic restrictions on fresh cycles, ensuring clinical pregnancy, albeit at a lower rate than that of the prepandemic period.

OBJETIVO: Compreender os impactos da pandemia de COVID-19 nas taxas de gravidez clínica em fertilização in vitro (FIV) e analisar fatores que possam ter influenciado seu resultado. MéTODOS: Foi realizado um estudo observacional retrospectivo em um centro brasileiro de reprodução assistida. Todos os ciclos de FIV com embriões frescos e descongelados realizados entre 11 de março e 31 de dezembro, 2018-2021 foram analisados, e seus dados utilizados para cálculo das taxas de fertilização, clivagem embrionária, cancelamento de ciclos, transferência de embriões (TE) e gravidez clínica. Testes estatísticos avaliaram significância das alterações encontradas e modelos de regressão logística exploraram associação das variáveis categóricas estudadas com as taxas de gravidez clínica observadas. Os dados de 2018 e 2019 (pré-pandemia) e 2020 e 2021 (pandemia) foram agrupados. RESULTADOS: Foram analisados um total de 756 ciclos (n = 360 na pré-pandemia e n = 396 na pandemia). A faixa etária das pacientes e as taxas de fertilização e de clivagem não tiveram alterações significativas (p > 0,05). Na pandemia, houve redução da porcentagem de ciclos de FIV com embriões frescos e aumento dos com descongelamento (p = 0,005). Também foi notado aumento das taxas de cancelamentos de ciclos com embriões frescos (p < 0,001) e redução do número de TEs (p < 0,001). A pandemia exerceu impacto negativo na taxa de gravidez clínica (p < 0,001), especialmente devido ao aumento de cancelamentos dos ciclos a fresco (p < 0,001). CONCLUSãO: Frente às limitações pandêmicas impostas aos ciclos com embriões frescos, os ciclos de descongelamento de embriões se apresentaram como alternativa viável à continuidade dos ciclos de FIV, garantindo gravidez clínica ainda que em taxas inferiores às do período pré-pandêmico.

Effect of COVID-19 vaccination on the outcome of in vitro fertilization: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Universal COVID-19 vaccination programs are now recommended in several countries and represent the most effective preventive measure against COVID-19. However, some reports suggest that vaccination may cause infertility or have adverse effects on pregnancy. Conflicting reports have led to vaccine hesitancy in women planning pregnancy. Purpose: To determine whether vaccination against COVID-19 affects in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes, we conducted a meta-analysis. Method: A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases for all published literature on COVID-19 vaccines and outcomes of IVF. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registration was completed on September 13, 2022 (CRD42022359771). Results: We analyzed 20 studies totaling 18,877 individual cases undergoing IVF. COVID-19 vaccination had significant effect on clinical and ongoing pregnancy rate (risk ratio (RR): 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.94-0.99; RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.87-0.99). These outcomes did not differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals: biochemical pregnancy rate (RR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.88-1.03), implantation rate (RR: 1.02; 95%CI: 0.97-1.07; P = 0.41), the number of oocytes (mean difference (MD): 0.12; 95% CI: -0.65-0.88) and MII/mature oocytes recovered (MD: 0.27; 95% CI: -0.36-0.90), blastocysts rate (MD: 0.01; 95% CI: -0.04, 0.06), and fertilization rate (MD: 1.08; 95% CI: -0.57, 2.73). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that vaccination against COVID-19 does not adversely affect the biochemical pregnancy rates; number of oocytes and MII/mature oocytes obtained; implantation, blastocysts; and fertilization rates in women undergoing IVF treatment. Subgroup analysis showed that the mRNA vaccine had no statistical significance on all indexes (clinical, biochemical, or ongoing pregnancy rates; implantation, blastocysts, or fertilization rates; and the number of oocytes and MII/mature oocytes). The findings of this meta-analysis are anticipated to increase the willingness of women planning IVF treatment to receive COVID-19 vaccination and provide evidence-based medical guidance for the development and implementation of guidelines. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022359771.

Impact of vaccination against COVID-19 on the outcomes of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become the primary approach in the fight against the spread of COVID-19. Studies have shown that vaccination against COVID-19 has adverse effects, particularly on human reproductive health, despite the fact that vaccination rates are still on the rise. However, few studies have reported whether vaccination affects the outcome of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) or not. In this study, we compared the outcome of IVF-ET and the development of follicles and embryos between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study of 10,541 in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles was conducted from June 2020 to August 2021. 835 IVF cycles with a history of vaccination against COVID-19 and 1670 IVF cycles that served as negative controls were selected and analyzed utilizing the Matchlt package of R software ( http://www.R-project.org/ ) and the nearest neighbor matching algorithm for propensity-matched analysis at a 1:2 ratio. RESULTS: The number of oocytes collected in the vaccinated group and the unvaccinated group were 8.00 (0, 40.00) and 9.00 (0, 77.00) ( P  = 0.073) and the good-quality embryo rates of the two groups were 0.56±0.32 and 0.56±0.31 averagely ( P  = 0.964). Clinical pregnancy rates for the vaccinated group and unvaccinated group were 42.4% (155/366) and 40.2% (328/816) ( P  = 0.486) and biochemical pregnancy rates were 7.1% (26/366) and 8.7% (71/816) ( P  = 0.355). Two other factors were analyzed in this study; vaccination among different genders and different types (inactivated vaccine or recombinant adenovirus vaccine) showed no statistically significant effect on the above outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In our findings, vaccination against COVID-19 showed no statistically significant effect on the outcomes of IVF-ET and the development of follicles and embryos, nor did the gender of the vaccinated person or the formulation of vaccines show significant effects.

Effect of female coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination on assisted reproductive outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: The effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination on fertility warrants clarification in women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment. OBJECTIVE: To study the association between female COVID-19 vaccination and outcomes of assisted reproductive treatment. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, the Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and medRxiv and bioRxiv were searched for eligible studies from December 1, 2019, to November 30, 2022, with no language restrictions. STUDY SELECTION AND SYNTHESIS: Observational studies comparing assisted reproductive outcomes between women with and without COVID-19 vaccination were included. The pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effects models as mean differences (MDs), standardized MDs, or odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic. MAIN OUTCOMES: The number of oocytes retrieved and clinical pregnancy rate. RESULTS: Twenty-one cohort studies involving a total of 19,687 treatment cycles were included. In a comparison of the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated groups, the pooled MD for oocyte number was -0.06 (95% CI, -0.51 to 0.39; I2 = 0), and the pooled odds ratio for clinical pregnancy was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.85-1.05; I2 = 0). Similarly, there were no statistically significant adverse effects identified in other outcomes determined a priori, including 4 cycle characteristics, 6 laboratory parameters, and 3 pregnancy indicators. Most results were consistently unchanged in subgroup and sensitivity analyses, with no evidence of publication bias according to Egger's test. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Our work did not find significant differences in assisted reproductive outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated women. However, more data are warranted to confirm the safety of COVID-19 vaccination for assisted reproductive treatment and in female fertility in general.

The risk of miscarriage following COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the risk of miscarriage among pregnant women who received any of the COVID-19 vaccines? SUMMARY ANSWER: There is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are associated with an increased risk of miscarriage. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the mass roll-out of vaccines helped to boost herd immunity and reduced hospital admissions, morbidity, and mortality. Still, many were concerned about the safety of vaccines for pregnancy, which may have limited their uptake among pregnant women and those planning a pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception until June 2022 using a combination of keywords and MeSH terms. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We included observational and interventional studies that enrolled pregnant women and evaluated any of the available COVID-19 vaccines compared to placebo or no vaccination. We primarily reported on miscarriage in addition to ongoing pregnancy and/or live birth. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We included data from 21 studies (5 randomized trials and 16 observational studies) reporting on 149 685 women. The pooled rate of miscarriage among women who received a COVID-19 vaccine was 9% (n = 14 749/123 185, 95% CI 0.05-0.14). Compared to those who received a placebo or no vaccination, women who received a COVID-19 vaccine did not have a higher risk of miscarriage (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% CI 0.89-1.28, I2 35.8%) and had comparable rates for ongoing pregnancy or live birth (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97-1.03, I2 10.72%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our analysis was limited to observational evidence with varied reporting, high heterogeneity and risk of bias across included studies, which may limit the generalizability and confidence in our findings. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: COVID-19 vaccines are not associated with an increase in the risk of miscarriage or reduced rates of ongoing pregnancy or live birth among women of reproductive age. The current evidence remains limited and larger population studies are needed to further evaluate the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No direct funding was provided to support this work. M.P.R. was funded by the Medical Research Council Centre for Reproductive Health Grant No: MR/N022556/1. B.H.A.W. hold a personal development award from the National Institute of Health Research in the UK. All authors declare no conflict of interest. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021289098.

The BISTIM study: a randomized controlled trial comparing dual ovarian stimulation (duostim) with two conventional ovarian stimulations in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF.

STUDY QUESTION: Is the total number of oocytes retrieved with dual ovarian stimulation in the same cycle (duostim) higher than with two consecutive antagonist cycles in poor responders? SUMMARY ANSWER: Based on the number of total and mature oocytes retrieved in women with poor ovarian response (POR), there is no benefit of duostim versus two consecutive antagonist cycles. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Recent studies have shown the ability to obtain oocytes with equivalent quality from the follicular and the luteal phase, and a higher number of oocytes within one cycle when using duostim. If during follicular stimulation smaller follicles are sensitized and recruited, this may increase the number of follicles selected in the consecutive luteal phase stimulation, as shown in non-randomized controlled trials (RCT). This could be particularly relevant for women with POR. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a multicentre, open-labelled RCT, performed in four IVF centres from September 2018 to March 2021. The primary outcome was the number of oocytes retrieved over the two cycles. The primary objective was to demonstrate in women with POR that two ovarian stimulations within the same cycle (first in the follicular phase, followed by a second in the luteal phase) led to the retrieval of 1.5 (2) more oocytes than the cumulative number of oocytes from two consecutive conventional stimulations with an antagonist protocol. In a superiority hypothesis, with power 0.8 alpha-risk 0.05 and a 35% cancellation rate, 44 patients were needed in each group. Patients were randomized by computer allocation. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Eighty-eight women with POR, defined using adjusted Bologna criteria (antral follicle count ≤5 and/or anti-Müllerian hormone ≤1.2 ng/ml) were randomized, 44 in the duostim group and 44 in the conventional (control) group. HMG 300 IU/day with flexible antagonist protocol was used for ovarian stimulation, except in luteal phase stimulation of the duostim group. In the duostim group, oocytes were pooled and inseminated after the second retrieval, with a freeze-all protocol. Fresh transfers were performed in the control group, frozen embryo transfers were performed in both control and duostim groups in natural cycles. Data underwent intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There was no difference between the groups regarding demographics, ovarian reserve markers, and stimulation parameters. The mean (SD) cumulative number of oocytes retrieved from two ovarian stimulations was not statistically different between the control and duostim groups, respectively, 4.6 (3.4) and 5.0 (3.4) [mean difference (MD) [95% CI] +0.4 [-1.1; 1.9], P = 0.56]. The mean cumulative numbersof mature oocytes and total embryos obtained were not significantly different between groups. The total number of embryos transferred by patient was significantly higher in the control group 1.5 (1.1) versus the duostim group 0.9 (1.1) (P = 0.03). After two cumulative cycles, 78% of women in the control group and 53.8% in the duostim group had at least one embryo transfer (P = 0.02). There was no statistical difference in the mean number of total and mature oocytes retrieved per cycle comparing Cycle 1 versus Cycle 2, both in control and duostim groups. The time to the second oocyte retrieval was significantly longer in controls, at 2.8 (1.3) months compared to 0.3 (0.5) months in the duostim group (P < 0.001). The implantation rate was similar between groups. The cumulative live birth rate was not statistically different, comparing controls versus the duostim group, 34.1% versus 17.9%, respectively (P = 0.08). The time to transfer resulting in an ongoing pregnancy did not differ in controls 1.7 (1.5) months versus the duostim group, 3.0 (1.6) (P = 0.08). No serious adverse events were reported. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The RCT was impacted by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and the halt in IVF activities for 10 weeks. Delays were recalculated to exclude this period; however, one woman in the duostim group could not have the luteal stimulation. We also faced unexpected good ovarian responses and pregnancies after the first oocyte retrieval in both groups, with a higher incidence in the control group. However, our hypothesis was based on 1.5 more oocytes in the luteal than the follicular phase in the duostim group, and the number of patients to treat was reached in this group (N = 28). This study was only powered for cumulative number of oocytes retrieved. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first RCT comparing the outcome of two consecutive cycles, either in the same menstrual cycle or in two consecutive menstrual cycles. In routine practice, the benefit of duostim in patients with POR regarding fresh embryo transfer is not confirmed in this RCT: first, because this study demonstrates no improvement in the number of oocytes retrieved in the luteal phase after follicular phase stimulation, in contrast to previous non-randomized studies, and second, because the freeze-all strategy avoids a pregnancy with fresh embryo transfer after the first cycle. However, duostim appears to be safe for women. In duostim, the two consecutive processes of freezing/thawing are mandatory and increase the risk of wastage of oocytes/embryos. The only benefit of duostim is to shorten the time to a second retrieval by 2 weeks if accumulation of oocytes/embryos is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This is an investigator-initiated study supported by a research Grant from IBSA Pharma. N.M. declares grants paid to their institution from MSD (Organon France); consulting fees from MSD (Organon France), Ferring, and Merck KGaA; honoraria from Merck KGaA, General Electrics, Genevrier (IBSA Pharma), and Theramex; support for travel and meetings from Theramex, Merck KGaG, and Gedeon Richter; and equipment paid to their institution from Goodlife Pharma. I.A. declares honoraria from GISKIT and support for travel and meetings from GISKIT. G.P.-B. declares Consulting fees from Ferring and Merck KGaA; honoraria from Theramex, Gedeon Richter, and Ferring; payment for expert testimony from Ferring, Merck KGaA, and Gedeon Richter; and support for travel and meetings from Ferring, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter. N.C. declares grants from IBSA pharma, Merck KGaA, Ferring, and Gedeon Richter; support for travel and meetings from IBSA pharma, Merck KGaG, MSD (Organon France), Gedeon Richter, and Theramex; and participation on advisory board from Merck KGaA. E.D. declares support for travel and meetings from IBSA pharma, Merck KGaG, MSD (Organon France), Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Theramex, and General Electrics. C.P.-V. declares support for travel and meetings from IBSA Pharma, Merck KGaA, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, and Theramex. M.Pi. declares support for travel and meetings from Ferring, Gedeon Richetr, and Merck KGaA. M.Pa. declares honoraria from Merck KGaA, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter; support for travel and meetings from Merck KGaA, IBSA Pharma, Theramex, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, and MSD (Organon France). H.B.-G. declares honoraria from Merck KGaA, and Gedeon Richter and support for travel and meetings from Ferring, Merck KGaA, IBSA Pharma, MSD (Organon France), Theramex, and Gedeon Richter. S.G. and M.B. have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registration number EudraCT: 2017-003223-30. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03803228. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: EudraCT: 28 July 2017. ClinicalTrials.gov: 14 January 2019. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 3 September 2018.

Does mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in oocyte donors impact ovarian stimulation parameters or IVF outcomes for recipients?

RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the effect of mRNA severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination in young oocyte donors in terms of ovarian response to stimulation, fertilization rate, embryo development and clinical outcomes in recipients? DESIGN: This retrospective, multicentre cohort study evaluated 115 oocyte donors who had undergone at least two ovarian stimulation protocols (before and after complete SARS-CoV-2 vaccination) between November 2021 and February 2022. Comparisons were made of the primary outcomes of days of stimulation, total dose of gonadotrophins and laboratory performance in ovarian stimulation in oocyte donors before and after vaccination. A total of 136 cycles in matched recipients were analysed as secondary outcomes and, from those, 110 women received a fresh single-embryo transfer, with analysis of biochemical ß-human chorionic gonadotrophin concentrations and rates of clinical pregnancy with heartbeat. RESULTS: Longer stimulation was required in the post-vaccination than pre-vaccination group (10.31 ± 1.5 versus 9.51 ± 1.5 days; P < 0.001) along with higher gonadotrophin consumption (2453.5 ± 740 versus 2235.5 ± 615 IU; P < 0.001) with a similar starting dose of gonadotrophins in both groups. More oocytes were retrieved in the post-vaccination group (16.62 ± 7.1 versus 15.38 ± 7.0; P = 0.02). However, the number of metaphase II (MII) oocytes was similar between groups (pre-vaccination 12.61 ± 5.9 versus post-vaccination 13.01 ± 6.6; P = 0.39) and the ratio of MII/retrieved oocytes favoured the pre-vaccination group (0.83 ± 0.1 versus 0.77 ± 0.2 post-vaccination; P = 0.019). In recipients with a similar number of provided oocytes, the fertilization rate, total number of obtained blastocysts, number of top-quality blastocysts, and rates of biochemical pregnancy and clinical pregnancy with heartbeat were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows no adverse influence of mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on ovarian response in a young population.

COVID-19 infection and vaccine have no impact on in-vitro fertilization (IVF) outcome.

To investigate the effect of COVID-19 infection or vaccine on IVF outcome. This is a multicenter retrospective study. Data were collected from all patients treated in the ART units between September and November 2021 after the vaccination of the general population began. Medical records of all patients who had IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were categorized into four groups: previously infected by COVID-19, vaccinated by COVID vaccine, previously infected and vaccinated, or neither infected nor vaccinated. Total number of participants 151 (vaccinated only 66, infected only 18, vaccinated and previously infected 34, and control 33. Outcomes (ET on day of trigger, number of oocytes retrieved, quality of oocytes, number of fertilized oocytes, number and quality of embryos, number of embryos transferred, number of embryos frozen, implantation rate and clinical pregnancy rate) were compared between these four groups. Moreover, we compared the outcome before and post infection, as well as before and post vaccine in a group of patients. No evidence was found to suggest that COVID-19 disease or SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine adversely affects Clinical pregnancy rates (positive fetal heartbeat) (OR 0.9, CI 0.5-1.9, OR 1.8, CI 0.9-3.6, respectively) and the following parameters: fertilization rate, implantation rate, positive bHcg) (OR 0.9, CI 0.5-1.8, OR 1.5, CI 0.7-2.9, respectively). Although a limitation of our study is the small comparison groups, and the wide confidence intervals in the Odds Ratio estimates.

Effect of inactivated COVID-19 vaccination on pregnancy outcomes following frozen-thawed embryo transfer: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of inactivated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination on frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study enrolled 1,210 patients undergoing FET cycles in a single university-affiliated hospital between July 1, 2021, and May 1, 2022. Of them, 387 women with two full doses of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (CoronaVac or BBIBP-CorV) after oocyte retrieval were assigned to the vaccinated group, while 823 were unvaccinated as controls. Propensity score matching and multiple regression analysis were applied to control for baseline and cycle characteristics (19 covariates in total). RESULTS: There were 265 patients in each group after matching. The rates of clinical pregnancy (58.5% vs. 60.8%; P = 0.595) and live birth (44.4% vs. 48.8%; P = 0.693) were similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, with adjusted odds ratios of 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-1.29) and 1.31 (95% CI 0.37-4.56), respectively. Consistently, no significant differences were found in serum human chorionic gonadotropin levels as well as biochemical pregnancy, biochemical pregnancy loss, and embryo implantation rates. Based on the time interval from vaccination to FET, vaccinated patients were further subdivided into two categories of ≤2 months and >2 months, and the outcomes remained comparable. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that inactivated COVID-19 vaccination in women did not have measurable detrimental impact on implantation performance and live birth outcome during FET treatment cycles. This finding denies the impairment of endometrial receptivity and trophoblast function by vaccine-induced antibodies at the clinical level.

Association Between Time Interval from COVID-19 Vaccination to In Vitro Fertilization and Pregnancy Rate After Fresh Embryo Transfer.

Importance: There is a lack of information regarding the need to postpone conception after COVID-19 vaccination. Objective: To investigate the time interval between the first dose of inactivated COVID-19 vaccine and in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment as well as the rate of pregnancy after a fresh embryo transfer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted at a single public IVF center in China. Female patients aged 20 to 47 years and undergoing IVF treatment were consecutively registered from May 1 to December 22, 2021, with follow-up until March 31, 2022. Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection before or during IVF treatment and those who underwent 2 or more IVF treatments, received the noninactivated or unknown COVID-19 vaccine, or did not have a fresh embryo transfer were excluded from this study. Exposures: The vaccinated group (subdivided into 4 subgroups of time interval from first vaccination to fertilization treatment: ≤30 days, 31-60 days, 61-90 days, and ≥91 days) and nonvaccinated group. Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk ratios (RRs) for the association between the time interval and ongoing pregnancy (pregnancy continued at least 12 weeks). Results: A total of 3052 female patients (mean [SD] age, 31.45 [3.96] years) undergoing IVF treatment were analyzed in this study. There were 667 vaccinated patients receiving IVF (35 were vaccinated ≤30 days, 58 were vaccinated 31-60 days, 105 were vaccinated 61-90 days, and 469 were vaccinated ≥91 days before fertilization treatment), and 2385 unvaccinated patients receiving treatment. The ovarian stimulation and laboratory parameters were similar among all groups. Ongoing pregnancy was significantly lower in the 30 days or less subgroup (34.3% [12 of 35]; adjusted RR [aRR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.33-0.91) and the 31 to 60 days' subgroup (36.2% [21 of 58]; aRR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42-0.85). A slightly but not statistically lower rate was found in the 61 to 90 days' subgroup, and no reduced risk for ongoing pregnancy in the 91 days or more subgroup was observed (56.3% [264 of 469]; aRR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88-1.04) compared with the unvaccinated group (60.3% [1439 of 2385], as reference). Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this study suggest that receipt of the first inactivated COVID-19 vaccine dose 60 days or less before fertilization treatment is associated with a reduced rate of pregnancy. In patients undergoing IVF treatment with a fresh embryo transfer, the procedure may need to be delayed until at least 61 days after COVID-19 vaccination.

Inactivated Covid-19 vaccine did not undermine live birth and neonatal outcomes of women with frozen-thawed embryo transfer.

STUDY QUESTION: Does inoculation with inactivated vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) before frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) affect live birth and neonatal outcomes? SUMMARY ANSWER: Inactivated Covid-19 vaccines did not undermine live birth and neonatal outcomes of women planning for FET. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Accumulating reports are now available indicating the safe use of mRNA vaccines against Covid-19 in pregnant and lactating women, and a few reports indicate that they are not associated with adverse effects on ovarian stimulation or early pregnancy outcomes following IVF. Evidence about the safety of inactivated Covid-19 vaccines is very limited. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a retrospective cohort analysis from Reproductive Medical Center of a tertiary teaching hospital. Clinical records and vaccination record of 2574 couples with embryos transferred between 1 March 2021 and 30 September 2021 were screened for eligibility of this study. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Clinical and vaccination data of infertile couples planning for FET were screened for eligibility of the study. The reproductive and neonatal outcomes of FET women inoculated with inactivated Covid-19 vaccines or not were compared. The primary outcomes were live birth rate per embryo transfer cycle and newborns' birth height and weight. Secondary outcomes included rates of ongoing pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, biochemical pregnancy and spontaneous miscarriage. Multivariate logistical regression and propensity score matching (PSM) analyses were performed to minimize the influence of confounding factors. Subgroup analyses, including single dose versus double dose of the vaccines and the time intervals between the first vaccination and embryo transfer, were also performed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Vaccinated women have comparable live birth rates (43.6% versus 45.0% before PSM, P = 0.590; and 42.9% versus 43.9% after PSM, P = 0.688), ongoing pregnancy rates (48.2% versus 48.1% before PSM, P = 0.980; and 52.2% versus 52.7% after PSM, P = 0.875) and clinical pregnancy rate (55.0% versus 54.8% before PSM, P = 0.928; and 54.7% versus 54.2% after PSM, P = 0.868) when compared with unvaccinated counterparts. The newborns' birth length (50.0 ± 1.6 versus 49.0 ± 2.9 cm before PSM, P = 0.116; and 49.9 ± 1.7 versus 49.3 ± 2.6 cm after PSM, P = 0.141) and birth weight (3111.2 ± 349.9 versus 3030.3 ± 588.5 g before PSM, P = 0.544; and 3053.8 ± 372.5 versus 3039.2 ± 496.8 g after PSM, P = 0.347) were all similar between the two groups. Neither single dose nor double dose of vaccines, as well as different intervals between vaccination and embryo transfer showed any significant impacts on reproductive and neonatal outcomes. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The main findings might be limited by retrospective design. Besides, inoculations of triple dose of Covid-19 vaccines were not available by the time of data collection, thus the results cannot reflect the safe use of triple dose of inactivated Covid-19 vaccines. Finally, history of Covid-19 infection was based on patients' self-report rather than objective laboratory tests. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Eligible individuals of inactivated vaccines against Covid-19 should not postpone vaccination plan because of their embryo transfer schedule, or vice versa. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported by the Medical Key Discipline of Guangzhou (2021-2023). All authors had nothing to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the pregnancy outcomes of women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques (ARTs): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The global outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) led to the suspension of most treatments with assisted reproductive technique (ART). However, with the recent successful control of the pandemic in China, there is an urgent public need to resume full reproductive care. To determine whether the COVID-19 pandemic had any adverse effects on female fertility and the pregnancy outcomes of women undergoing ART, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using the electronic Chinese and English databases. Dichotomous outcomes were summarized as prevalence, and odds ratios (ORs) and continuous outcomes as standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The risk of bias and subgroup analyses were assessed using Stata/SE 15.1 and R 4.1.2. The results showed that compared with women treated by ART in the pre-COVID-19 time frame, women undergoing ART after the COVID-19 pandemic exhibited no significant difference in the clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.19; I2=0.0%), miscarriage rate (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.14; I2=38.4%), embryo cryopreservation rate (OR 2.90, 95% CI 0.17 to 48.13; I2=85.4%), and oocyte cryopreservation rate (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.65; I2=81.6%). This review provided additional evidence for gynecologists to guide the management of women undergoing ART treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic timeframe.

Impact of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on embryo ploidy: a retrospective cohort study of 133 PGT-A cycles in China.

BACKGROUND: Unsubstantiated concerns have been raised on the potential correlation between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination and infertility, leading to vaccine hesitancy in reproductive-aged population. Herein, we aim to evaluate the impact of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on embryo ploidy, which is a critical indicator for embryo quality and pregnancy chance. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 133 patients who underwent preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) cycles with next-generation sequencing technology from June 1st 2021 to March 17th 2022 at a tertiary-care medical center in China. Women fully vaccinated with two doses of Sinopharm or Sinovac inactivated vaccines (n = 66) were compared with unvaccinated women (n = 67). The primary outcome was the euploidy rate per cycle. Multivariate linear and logistic regression analyses were performed to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: The euploidy rate was similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups (23.2 ± 24.6% vs. 22.6 ± 25.9%, P = 0.768), with an adjusted ß of 0.01 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.08-0.10). After frozen-thawed single euploid blastocyst transfer, the two groups were also comparable in clinical pregnancy rate (75.0% vs. 60.0%, P = 0.289), with an adjusted odds ratio of 6.21 (95% CI: 0.76-50.88). No significant associations were observed between vaccination and cycle characteristics or other laboratory and pregnancy outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccination had no detrimental impact on embryo ploidy during in vitro fertilization treatment. Our finding provides further reassurance for vaccinated women who are planning to conceive. Future prospective cohort studies with larger datasets and longer follow-up are needed to confirm the conclusion.

Inactivated COVID-19 vaccination does not affect in vitro fertilization outcomes in women.

STUDY QUESTION: Do inactivated coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccines affect IVF outcomes among the vaccine recipients? SUMMARY ANSWER: The receipt of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines before ovarian stimulation has little effect on the outcomes of IVF, including ovarian stimulation outcomes, embryo development and pregnancy rates. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Limited studies have reported that COVID-19 vaccines do not affect ovarian function, embryo development or pregnancy outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This was a retrospective cohort study performed at the Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University on 240 women vaccinated with either CoronaVac or Sinopharm COVID-19 before ovarian stimulation in the exposed group and 1343 unvaccinated women before ovarian stimulation in the unexposed group. All participants received fresh embryo transfers between 1 March 2021 and 15 September 2021. The included women were followed up until 12 weeks of gestation. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Vaccination information of all subjects was followed up by a nurse, and the IVF data were obtained from the IVF data system. The following aspects were compared between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated groups: parameters of ovarian stimulation, embryo development and pregnancy rates. Regression analyses were performed to control for confounders of embryo development and pregnancy rates. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to balance the baseline parameters of the two groups. The primary outcome was the ongoing pregnancy rate. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Liner regression analysis revealed that the number of oocytes retrieved (regression coefficient (B) = -0.299, P = 0.264), embryos suitable for transfer (B = -0.203, P = 0.127) and blastocysts (B = -0.250, P = 0.105) were not associated with the status of vaccination before ovarian stimulation, after adjusting for the confounders. The ongoing pregnancy rate in the women of the vaccinated group was not significantly lower than that in the unvaccinated group (36.3% vs 40.7%, P = 0.199) (adjust odd ratio = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.68-1.22, P = 0.52). After PSM, the rates of ongoing pregnancy (36.0% vs 39.9%, P = 0.272), implantation (35.4% vs 38.3%, P = 0.325), biochemical pregnancy (47.3% vs 51.6%, P = 0.232), clinical pregnancy (44.4% vs 47.4%, P = 0.398) and early miscarriage (15.0% vs 12.1%, P = 0.399) were not significantly different between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated groups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This is a retrospective study of women with infertility. The results from the present study warrant confirmation by prospective studies with a larger cohort. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first study with a large sample size on the effect of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines on ongoing pregnancy rates of women undergoing IVF. The present results showed that vaccination has no detrimental effect on IVF outcomes. Therefore, women are recommended to receive COVID-19 vaccines before undergoing their IVF treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2018YFC1003803 to J.L.), the Guangzhou Science and Technology Plan Project (No. 202102010076 to H.L.) and the Medical Key Discipline of Guangzhou (2021-2023), as well as the Sino-German Center for Research Promotion Rapid Response Funding Call for Bilateral Collaborative Proposals between China and Germany in COVID-19 Related Research (No. C-0032 to Xingfei Pan). The authors declare no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Rates of COVID-19 infection among in vitro fertilization patients undergoing treatment at a university reproductive health center.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused an unprecedented challenge for in-vitro fertilization (IVF) patients. The incidence of COVID-19 infection among this population is a fundamental knowledge gap. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of COVID-19 infection among IVF patients compared to other gynecologic surgery patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated the incidence of COVID-19 infection among patients undergoing IVF, female fertility-related surgeries (FRS) and other gynecologic surgeries at a single academic institution in Los Angeles, California. All patients underwent routine COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) screening prior to treatment. RESULT: A total of 2742 patients underwent asymptomatic COVID-19 screening before a surgical procedure or IVF between March 1, 2020, and April 5, 2021. The rate of COVID-19 infection among patients who underwent preoperative testing for a non-fertility-related gynecologic procedure was 1.74% (28/1612). In comparison, the positive test results for those who underwent either FRS or IVF were 0.56% (1/180) and 0.34% (1/290), respectively, representing 6.70% (2/30) of positive tests for the whole cohort. The infertility patients had a significantly lower positivity rate compared to the other gynecologic patients during preoperative COVID-19 testing (0.43% vs 1.74%, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION(S): Our study demonstrated that there was a significantly lower incidence of COVID-19 infections in infertility patients undergoing IVF or FRS compared to other gynecologic surgery patients. Future studies should evaluate the cost-effectiveness of routine screening in both the gynecology and infertility patient population, especially in the setting of different variant surges and vaccination rates.

COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have no effect on endometrial receptivity after euploid embryo transfer.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does the COVID-19 vaccination affect endometrial receptivity after single euploid embryo transfer, measured by sustained implantation rate? DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study analysing two groups of single euploid embryo transfers using own oocytes: one historical cohort of 3272 transfers 1 year before the pandemic; and one comprising 890 transfers in women previously vaccinated with mRNA vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The main outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and sustained implantation rate (SIR) per embryo transfer. These outcomes were compared between non-vaccinated and vaccinated women, and women who had received one and two doses. Lastly, vaccinated women were divided into quartiles according to the time from last dose to embryo transfer. RESULTS: Similar CPR and SIR were found between non-vaccinated and vaccinated women, and the odds ratio for both outcomes was not statistically significant after being controlled for potential confounders (OR 0.937, 95% CI 0.695 to 1.265 and OR 0.910, 95% CI 0.648 to 1.227 respectively). Within the vaccinated group, women who had received one or two doses also had similar outcomes. In addition, no differences were found according to the time interval from vaccination to embryo transfer. CONCLUSION: The administration of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 had no effect on endometrial receptivity and embryo implantation, regardless of the number of doses and time interval from vaccination to embryo transfer. The potential negative effect of the vaccine on endometrial receptivity and reproductive outcomes is reassuring for patients in the process of undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.

Effects of COVID-19 vaccination status, vaccine type, and vaccination interval on IVF pregnancy outcomes in infertile couples.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to explore whether the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccination of both partners in infertile couples, different types of COVID-19 vaccines, and the interval between complete vaccination and oocyte retrieval or embryo transfer (ET) affect the quality of embryos and pregnancy rates in in vitro fertilization (IVF). METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study, comprising 735 infertile couples conducted between December 6, 2021, and March 31, 2022, in a single university hospital-based IVF center. The patients were divided into different groups according to the vaccination status of both partners in infertile couples, type of vaccine, and interval between complete vaccination and IVF treatment. The embryo quality and pregnancy rates were compared among different groups. RESULTS: The results showed that embryo quality and pregnancy rates had no significant differences among different groups. The multivariate regression model showed that the vaccination status of both infertile couples, types of vaccines, and intervals had no significant effects on the clinical pregnancy rate. CONCLUSIONS: The vaccination status of both partners in infertile couples, different types of vaccines, and time intervals have no effect on embryo quality and pregnancy rates in IVF. This is the first study to compare the vaccination status of both partners in infertile couples and the impact of different vaccine types on pregnancy rates and embryo quality in detail. Our findings provide evidence of vaccine safety for infertile couples wishing to undergo IVF treatment. This evidence is crucial for decision-making by clinicians and policymakers involved in IVF cycles.

The impact of past COVID-19 infection on pregnancy rates in frozen embryo transfer cycles.

PURPOSE: To study the effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection on pregnancy rates in frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study including women under the age of 42 with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection up to 1 year prior to treatment, undergoing FET cycles in the first half of 2021, with transfer of embryos generated prior to the infection. Controls were SARS-CoV-2 non-diagnosed, non-vaccinated women matched by age, number, and day of embryo transfer. Demographic and cycle characteristics and outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Forty-one recovered women and 41 controls were included. Pregnancy rates were 29% and 49% respectively (p = 0.070). Stratification by time from SARS-CoV-2 infection to transfer into ≤ 60 and > 60 days revealed a difference in pregnancy rates, with women in the COVID group having lower pregnancy rates if infected in proximity to the transfer (21% vs. 55%; p = 0.006). In a logistic regression model, infection was a significant variable (p = 0.05, OR 0.325, 95% CI 0.106-0.998). Logistic regression applied on the subgroup of women infected in proximity to the transfer further strengthened the univariate results, with COVID-19 remaining a significant parameter (p = 0.005, OR 0.072, 95% CI 0.012-0.450). CONCLUSIONS: In FET cycles of patients with past SARS-CoV-2 infection, in which oocytes were retrieved prior to infection, decreased pregnancy rates were observed, specifically in patients who recovered less than 60 days prior to embryo transfer. Pending further studies, in cases of FET cycles with limited number of embryos, postponing embryo transfer for at least 60 days following recovery from COVID-19 might be considered when feasible.

Impact of Protocol Adjustments Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic on Infertility Treatment Outcomes.

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, our centre made adjustments that reduced the number of patient visits, ultrasound scans, laboratory investigations, and face-to face instructions. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether these changes had any effect on the pregnancy rate for patients undergoing infertility treatment. The primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rates from intrauterine insemination and frozen embryo transfer. Clinical pregnancy rates were not statistically different between patients who underwent either procedure before and after the protocols were put in place. It is reassuring to know our pandemic protocol adjustments did not have a negative impact on infertility treatment outcomes.

Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination and infertility treatment outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) messenger ribonucleic acid vaccine on ovarian response and in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment outcomes. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A tertiary university-affiliated medical center and a private medical center. PATIENT(S): The study included a total of 400 patients, 200 vaccinated women and 200 age-matched unvaccinated women, who underwent IVF in January-April 2021. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The mean number of oocytes retrieved and clinical pregnancy rates in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated patients. RESULT(S): A total of 200 patients underwent oocyte retrieval 14-68 days after receiving COVID-19 vaccination. No difference was found in the mean number of oocytes retrieved per cycle (10.63 vs. 10.72) between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Among 128 vaccinated and 133 unvaccinated patients who underwent fresh embryos transfers, no difference was demonstrated in the clinical pregnancy rates (32.8% vs. 33.1%), with 42 and 44 clinical pregnancies, respectively. The fertilization rates and mean number of cryopreserved embryos were similar between the 2 groups in freeze-all cycles (55.43% vs. 54.29% and 3.59 vs. 3.28, respectively). Among vaccinated and unvaccinated patients who underwent fresh embryo transfers, no difference was noted in the fertilization rate (64.81% vs. 61.98%) and transferred embryos' quality. Regression models applied demonstrated no effect of the vaccine on oocyte yields and pregnancy rates. CONCLUSION(S): The COVID-19 messenger ribonucleic acid vaccine did not affect the ovarian response or pregnancy rates in IVF treatment. Women should be vaccinated for COVID-19 before attempting to conceive via IVF treatments, given the higher risk of severe illness in pregnant women.