Sperm quality is not affected by the BNT162b2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: results of a 6-14 months follow-up.

PURPOSE: We aimed to investigate the possible effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on sperm quality by evaluating semen analyses of men prior to vaccination and 6-14 months after vaccination. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study, conducted in a university-affiliated in vitro fertilization center between October 2021 and March 2022, including men not previously infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus who received at least 2 doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Semen analyses of samples given pre-vaccination and 6-14 months post-vaccination were analyzed for the parameters of volume, concentration, motility, morphology, and total motile count (TMC) and compared. These parameters were also compared separately for men who received a third (booster) dose and for men with pre-vaccination normal and abnormal sperm. Correlations between time from vaccination and post-vaccination sperm parameters were also assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-eight men were included in the final analysis. Semen volume (2.9 ± 1.4 vs. 2.9 ± 1.6 ml), sperm concentration (42.9 ± 37.9 vs. 51.5 ± 46.2 million/ml), motility (42.5 ± 23.1 vs. 44.3 ± 23.4 percent), morphology (8.8 ± .16.6 vs. 6.6 ± 8.8 percent), and TMC (55.7 ± 57.9 vs. 71.1 ± 77.1 million) were comparable between the pre- and post-vaccination samples. This was true for the entire study cohort, for the subgroup of men who received a third dose and for the subgroups of men with a pre-vaccination normal and abnormal semen samples. No correlation was found between time from vaccination and post-vaccination sperm parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) SARS-CoV-2 vaccine does not impair any of the sperm parameters over a relatively long-time interval of 6 to 14 months from vaccination.

Pfizer SARS-CoV-2 BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination (BNT162b2) has no adverse effect on elective oocyte cryopreservation outcomes.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Do elective oocyte cryopreservation outcomes in women 1-13 months after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination alter compared with unvaccinated women and do different time intervals between vaccination and ovarian stimulation impact these outcomes? DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study, conducted in a university-affiliated IVF centre, included 232 elective oocyte cryopreservation cycles of vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, without previous infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, between December 2020 and January 2022. Two control groups - pre-pandemic (January 2019 to February 2020) and intra-pandemic (December 2020 to January 2022) unvaccinated groups - were compared with the vaccinated group, further divided into four subgroups (under 3, 3-6, 6-9 and 9-13 months). The primary outcome was the elective oocyte cryopreservation cycle outcomes - number of retrieved and number of mature oocytes. RESULTS: The vaccinated group demonstrated comparable outcomes with regards to number of retrieved and mature oocytes compared with the pre-pandemic and intra-pandemic unvaccinated groups (12.6 ± 8.0 versus 13.0 ± 8.2 and 12.5 ± 7.4 retrieved and 10.1 ± 6.9 versus 9.5 ± 6.4 and 10.1 ± 6.3 mature oocytes, respectively; not significant for both). Similar results were noted in a comparison between the intra-pandemic unvaccinated group and the four vaccinated subgroups. No correlation was found between the parameter of days from vaccination and cycle outcomes. Similarly, analysis of covariance showed no association between vaccination status and timing and number of mature oocytes. CONCLUSIONS: The SARS-CoV-2 vaccination does not alter the outcomes of elective oocyte cryopreservation procedures. This is true even in a relatively long time interval of 9 to 13 months from vaccination.

Communication with fertility patients during the COVID-19 pandemic- let's talk about it.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the activity of a tertiary fertility service and compare telemedicine and face-to-face meetings during this time. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in a university affiliated tertiary medical center. Included were patients scheduled for an appointment in the in-vitro fertilization (IVF) unit between March 18th and April 15th. A comparison was made between patients who chose telemedicine as opposed to face-to-face meetings. Additionally, the population of patients who chose to cancel their appointment was characterized. IVF cycle outcomes were additionally compared between the groups. RESULTS: Overall, 90 IVF clinic appointments were scheduled during the study period. Thirty-four (37.8 %) patients chose to arrive to the clinic in spite of the COVID 19 pandemic and partial quarantine, 27 (30.0 %) patients chose to avoid in person meeting and scheduled a telemedicine appointment and 29 (32.2 %) patients cancelled their appointment. On comparison between patients who chose telemedicine vs. face-to-face meeting, the telemedicine group had lower prevalence of primary infertility (20.0 % vs. 47.1 %, p = 0.037) and higher rates of preimplantation genetic testing indication for in-vitro fertilization (48.2 % vs. 20.6 %, p = 0.026). Rate of a first-ever clinic visit was higher in patients that arrived for a face-to-face meeting, as compared to telemedicine encounter (55.9 % vs. 28.0 %, respectively; p = 0.036). Patients that opted to avoid attending the clinic or meeting via telemedicine had higher rates of medical comorbidities compared to patients who chose to attend their appointment (51.7 % vs. 29.5 %, p = 0.016). Rate of appointments that led to fresh or frozen-thawed embryo transfer and these transfers' outcomes (clinical pregnancy rate) were similar in the telemedicine and face-to-face meeting groups (72.2 % vs. 88.0 % and 30.8 % vs. 31.8 %, p = 0.73 and p = 1.00; respectively). CONCLUSION: Telemedicine is a valuable tool for delivering fertility care during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is need to determine which patients will benefit most from this modality.