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.

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.

The Effects of City Lockdown Policy on Frozen Embryo Transfer Outcome during COVID-19 Epidemic in Hubei Province, China.

Objective: To evaluate whether there is a difference in clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate between the corresponding period in 2019 and COVID-19 city lockdown period in 2020 in frozen embryo transfer (FET). Methods: In one single in vitro fertilization (IVF) center (Shiyan, Hubei province, China), a retrospective cohort analysis was conducted, with a sample size of 59 patients in the lockdown period (2020.1.23-2020.2.23, 2020 group) and 34 patients in the corresponding 2019 period (2019.1.23-2019.2.23, 2019 group). Implantation, biochemical and clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth rates were all measured. Results: Age, basal serum follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), basal serum luteinizing hormone (LH), basal serum E2, and serum total T were all comparable between the two groups. On the day of progesterone administration, endometrial thickness was similar (8.5 ± 1.3 vs. 8.2 ± 1.4, P = 0.356). The number of transferred blastocysts was not significantly different. The two groups had similar clinical pregnancy rate (61.8% vs. 61.0%, P > 0.05) and live birth rate (47.1% vs. 49.2%, P > 0.05), which did not significantly differ. Nonetheless, there was a significant difference in the cancelled cycle rate between the two groups (0% vs. 28.0%, P = 0.043). Conclusions: Lockdown period FET versus corresponding period FET outcome did not show any significant difference in terms of pregnancy rate and live birth rate between two groups of patients. Although there was no significant difference, in the 2020 group, the live birth rate was higher compared with that in the 2019 group. There was a significant difference in the rate of cancelled cycles due to the seal off control. In summary, artificial endometrial preparation is an appropriate protocol for special periods.

Immediate versus postponed frozen embryo transfer after IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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.

Suggestions on cleavage embryo and blastocyst vitrification/transfer based on expression profile of ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in current COVID-19 pandemic.

An outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is leading to an unprecedented worldwide health crisis. SARS-CoV-2 cell entry depends on ACE2 and TMPRSS2. Our objectives are to analysis the expression profile of ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in human spermatogenic cells, follicle cells, and preimplantation embryos, thereby providing mechanistic insights into viral entry and viral impact on reproduction. We found that ACE2 is mainly expressed during gametogenesis in spermatogonia and oocytes of antral follicles, granulosa cells of antral follicles and pre-ovulatory follicles, while TMPRSS2 almost has no expression in spermatogenic cells, oocytes or granulosa cells. In preimplantation embryos, ACE2 is expressed in early embryos before eight-cell stage, and trophectoderm of late blastocysts, while TMPRSS2 initiates its robust expression in late blastocyst stage. ACE2 and TMPRSS2 only show significant co-expression in trophectoderm of late blastocysts in all above cell types. We speculate that trophectoderm of late blastocysts is susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, and that the chance of SARS-CoV-2 being passed on to offspring through gametes is very low. Therefore, we propose that fertility preservation for COVID-19 patients is relatively safe and rational. We also recommend embryo cryopreservation and embryo transfer into healthy recipient mother at cleavage stage instead of blastocyst stage. Moreover, we unexpectedly found that co-expression pattern of ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in oocytes and preimplantation embryos in human, rhesus monkey and mouse are totally different, so animal models have significant limitations for evaluating transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2 in reproduction.

High-security closed devices are efficient and safe to protect human oocytes from potential risk of viral contamination during vitrification and storage especially in the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The main purpose and research question of the study are to compare the efficacy of high-security closed versus open devices for human oocytes' vitrification. METHODS: A prospective randomized study was conducted. A total of 737 patients attending the Infertility and IVF Unit at S.Orsola University Hospital (Italy) between October 2015 and April 2020 were randomly assigned to two groups. A total of 368 patients were assigned to group 1 (High-Security Vitrification™ - HSV) and 369 to group 2 (Cryotop® open system). Oocyte survival, fertilization, cleavage, pregnancy, implantation, and miscarriage rate were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed on survival rate (70.3% vs. 73.3%), fertilization rate (70.8% vs. 74.9%), cleavage rate (90.6% vs. 90.3%), pregnancy/transfer ratio (32.0% vs. 31.8%), implantation rate (19.7% vs. 19.9%), nor miscarriage rates (22.1% vs. 21.5%) between the two groups. Women's mean age in group 1 (36.18 ± 3.92) and group 2 (35.88 ± 3.88) was not significantly different (P = .297). A total of 4029 oocytes were vitrified (1980 and 2049 in groups 1 and 2 respectively). A total of 2564 were warmed (1469 and 1095 in groups 1 and 2 respectively). A total of 1386 morphologically eligible oocytes were inseminated by intracytoplasmic sperm injection (792 and 594 respectively, P = .304). CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that the replacement of the open vitrification system by a closed one has no impact on in vitro and in vivo survival, development, pregnancy and implantation rate. Furthermore, to ensure safety, especially during the current COVID-19 pandemic, the use of the closed device eliminates the potential samples' contamination during vitrification and storage.

Cryopreservation and IVF in the time of Covid-19: what is the best good tissue practice (GTP)?

Examine good tissue practices as relates to in vitro fertilization, biopsying, and vitrificationto compare current knowledge of ova, sperm, and embryos as vectors for disease transmission as it relates to our current knowledge regarding the SARS-CoV-2 virus.Unknown risks relating to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and sperm, ova, and embryos necessitate a reexamining of how human IVF is performed. Over the last decade, improvements in cryosurvival and live birth outcomes have been associated with zona pellucida breaching procedures (e.g., blastocyst collapsing and biopsying). In turn, today embryos are generally no longer protected by an intact zona pellucida when vitrified and in cryostorage. Additionally, high security storage containers have proven to be resilient to potential cross-contamination and reliable for routine human sperm freezing and embryo vitrification.Several options to current IVF practices are presented that can effectively mitigate the risks of cross-contamination and infection due to the current Covid-19 pandemic or other viral exposures. The question remains; is heightened security and change warranted where the risks of disease transmission likely remain negligible?

Assisted reproduction and thromboembolic risk in the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly increased mortality in many countries, with the number of infected cases increasing exponentially worldwide. One of the main determining factors of the poor prognosis in these patients is the development of coagulopathy. Moreover, it is well known that assisted reproductive technology procedures confer a risk of thromboembolic complications. This commentary analyses specific aspects coexisting between the thrombotic risk described during virus infection and that reported in the context of assisted reproduction treatments. Based on known pathophysiological aspects of virus infection and of ovarian stimulation, there are common elements that deserve to be taken into account. In the present context, any risk of hyperstimulation should be avoided. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist triggering should be mandatory in high-responder patients and/or those with COVID-19 infection. In both cases, the cycle should be segmented. A proposal is made for the use of prophylactic low molecular weight heparin not only in those cases in which oocyte retrieval has been performed, but also in those in which cancellation has been decided. In addition, endometrial preparation for frozen-thawed embryo transfers should use the transdermal route in order to minimize the higher thrombotic risk associated with the oral route.