Disparities in reproductive outcomes according to the endometrial preparation protocol in frozen embryo transfer : The risk of early pregnancy loss in frozen embryo transfer cycles.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of stimulated and artificial endometrial preparation protocols on reproductive outcomes in frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 1926 FET cycles over a 3.5-year period in the Fertility Unit at a University Hospital. Stimulated and artificial protocols were used for endometrial preparation. The embryos for FET were obtained from either in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Live birth rate and early pregnancy loss rates were retrospectively compared. In artificial protocols, oral or vaginal administration of oestradiol 2 mg two or three times a day was followed by vaginal supplementation with progesterone 200 mg two or three times a day. In stimulated protocols, recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone was administered from day 4 onward. Vaginal ultrasound was used for endometrial and ovarian monitoring. A pregnancy test was performed 14 days after FET. If it was positive, oestradiol and progesterone were administered up until the 12th week of gestation in artificial cycles. We defined early pregnancy losses as biochemical pregnancies (preclinical losses) and miscarriages. RESULTS: Data on 865 artificial cycles (45% of the total) and 1061 stimulated cycles (55%) were collected. Early pregnancy loss rate was significantly lower for stimulated cycles (34.2%) than for artificial cycles (56.9%), and the live birth rate was significantly higher for stimulated cycles (59.7%) than for artificial cycles (29.1%). CONCLUSION: In frozen embryo transfer, artificial cycles were associated with more early pregnancy loss and lower live birth rate than stimulated cycles.

[Male age in assisted reproductive technologies: Is there a limit?] / Âge du père en assistance médicale à la procréation : faut-il une limite ?

In France, there does exist any age limit for infertile men management neither in the law nor for the coverage by the "French Assurance Maladie". French law specifies only that both partners of the couple have to be "of childbearing age", but there is no definition for men of childbearing age. Does legislation have to determine a limit on man management in function of his age? Could ART practitioners decide (themselves) whether they take care of infertile men or not? Should male age be a criteria to decide this management? Would ART practitioners "need" a legislation to help them to decide? In 2016, the "French Assurance Maladie" covers all costs for infertile couple if woman is less than 43 years old, whatever male age. If an age-threshold should be establish for the coverage of infertile men management by the "French Assurance Maladie", then what should be this threshold? In order to try to answer these questions, we asked them to French ART practitioners (gynecologists and embryologists) and gynecologists. The first questionnaire included 13 questions and was filled by 244 ART specialists; the second was filled by 138 gynecologists. Most of them agree to limit the male management and the coverage by the "French Assurance Maladie" at 60 for men in ART. Gynecologists who does not practice ART wish a limit for insurance (80% of them but are only 57% to wish a legal limit).