Real-world practices of hormone monitoring during ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology: a global online survey.

Objective: The aim of this study is to understand the global practice of routine hormonal monitoring (HM) during ovarian stimulation (OS) in the context of assisted reproductive technique (ART) treatment. Methods: An open-access questionnaire was available to 3,845 members of IVF-Worldwide.com from September 8 to October 13, 2021. The survey comprised 25 multiple-choice questions on when and how ultrasound (US) and hormone tests were conducted during ovarian stimulation OS. For most questions, respondents were required to select a single option. Some questions allowed the selection of multiple options. Results: In all, 528 (13.7%) members from 88 countries responded to the questionnaire. Most respondents (98.9%) reported using US to monitor OS cycles. HM was used by 79.5% of respondents during any of the cycle monitoring visits and was most commonly performed on the day of, or a day prior to final oocyte maturation. Overall, 87% of respondents claimed adjusting the dose of gonadotropin during OS, with 61.7% adjusting the dose based on hormonal levels. Oestradiol (E2) was the most frequently monitored hormone during all visits and was used by 74% of respondents for the prediction of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). On or a day prior to ovulation triggering (OT), the number of respondents who measured progesterone increased from 34.3% in the second/third visit to 67.7%. Approximately one-third of respondents measured luteinizing hormone during all visits. Conclusion: Globally, most ART specialists (~80%) use HM, along with US, for monitoring OS, especially for the prevention of OHSS.

Improving success rates by applying interventions in clinical practice and measuring their impact: A multicenter retrospective analysis of more than 240,000 cycles.

BACKGROUND: Systematic monitoring of key performance indicators (KPI) is an important component of quality management within the IVF laboratory and, as success of assisted reproduction depends on many variables, it is important to examine how each variable can be optimized to achieve the best possible outcome for patients. OBJECTIVE: To analyze how the design of a QMS impacts homogenization, safety, and efficacy in multiple fertility centers. Study Design Multicenter, retrospective cohort study with 188,251 patients who underwent 246,988 assisted reproductive treatments at 14 private centers belonging to IVI-RMA clinics between January 2005 and December 2019. Data were stratified by year, clinic, and patient group (standard patient cycles with no PGT-A, standard patients with PGT-A, and oocyte donation patients). Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models with other known predictors were made to analyze the impact and the interactions of policies. Main outcomes were determined per clinic and summarized per year as the median of the rates of the clinics; each clinic had the same weight independent of the number of cycles. RESULTS: Up to 188,251 patients were treated, for a total of 246,988 IVF cycles and 356,433 procedures. The introduction of standard operating procedures, trophectoderm biopsies, and blastocyst-stage transfers, coupled with an increased proportion of PGT-A cycles, led to improved outcomes while maximizing the number of single embryo transfers, driving a significant decrease in the number of multiple pregnancies while improving live birth rates. In terms of the live-birth rate per transfer, the interventions with greater impact over time in logistic regression analysis were 24-chromosome analysis and the introduction of benchtop incubators (odds ratio 1.92 [95% confidence interval 1.81 to 2.05]; p < 0.001). The odd ratios of the policies remained significant and very similar in the unadjusted and adjusted models. CONCLUSIONS: The greatest impact on live-birth rate per cycle was obtained with a cumulative effect of all policies, especially in egg donation patients. In patients without PGT-A changing embryo culture conditions and blastocyst stage transfer had the greatest impact; in patients with PGT-A, trophectoderm biopsy. Standardizing procedures was essential in reducing variability among clinics and implementing changes.

The type of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine does not affect ovarian function in assisted reproduction cycle.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether vaccination or the type of vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 affects ovarian function in an assisted reproduction treatment. DESIGN: A retrospective and observational study. SETTING: University-affiliated private in vitro fertilization (IVF) center. PATIENT(S): Five hundred one patients who had received the complete vaccination schedule. INTERVENTION(S): Treatment before and after vaccination. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Parameters for both reproductive outcomes and IVF results in patients vaccinated RESULT(S): We included 510 patients, distributed as follows: 13.5% (n = 69) received a viral vector vaccine, either the adenovirus serotype 26 vector vaccine (Ad26.CoV2.S; Janssen; n = 31) or the chimpanzee adenovirus vector vaccine (ChAdOx; AstraZeneca; n = 38). The remaining 86.5% (n = 441) received an messenger RNA vaccine from either Pfizer-BioNTech (n = 336) or Moderna (n = 105). Sample size for the unexposed women was n = 1190. No differences were found in any of the evaluated parameters for both reproductive outcomes and IVF results in patients vaccinated with any adenovirus or messenger RNA vaccine. When we compared the results after vaccination with different types of vaccines between the exposed and unexposed groups, and similar results were obtained in the days of stimulation or the doses of administered follicle stimulating hormone. Finally, the numbers of oocytes were as follows: Johnson & Johnson (9.2 ± 2.6), AstraZeneca (7.7 ± 1.2), Moderna (11.3 ± 1.8), Pfizer (12.6 ± 1.0), and the unvaccinated group (10.2 ± 1.5), P=0.057. CONCLUSION(S): These early results suggest no measurable detrimental effect on reproductive outcomes, regardless of the type of vaccine received.

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.

Donor IUI is equally effective for heterosexual couples, single women and lesbians, but autologous IUI does worse.

STUDY QUESTION: Are there differences in the clinical outcomes of IUI among different populational groups (heterosexual couples, single women and lesbian couples)? SUMMARY ANSWER: The outcome of donor IUI (D-IUI) is similar in all populational groups and better than that seen with autologous insemination. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A vast body of literature on clinical outcome is available for counselling heterosexual couples regarding decisions related to ART. The reproductive potential of single women, lesbian couples and heterosexual couples who need donor semen is assumed to be better, but there is a scarcity of data on their ART performance to actually confirm it. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: In this retrospective multicentric cohort study, a total of 7228 IUI treatment cycles performed in 3807 patients between January 2013 and December 2016 in 13 private clinics belonging to the same reproductive medicine group in Spain were included. Patients with previous IUI attempts were excluded from the study. Only 1.9% of cycles were lost to follow-up. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: A total of 5318 D-IUI cycles were performed in three different populational groups: heterosexual couples (D-HC, 1167 cycles), single women (SW, 2839 cycles) and lesbian couples (LC, 1312), while a total of 1910 autologous IUI cycles were performed in heterosexual couples (A-HC). This last one was considered the control group and was composed of cycles performed in couples with a male partner with sperm parameters equivalent to those requested from donors. In order to identify factors with an impact on clinical outcome, a multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed. Regarding live birth rate (LBR), mixed effect models were employed to control for the fact that different patients were submitted to different numbers of treatments. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Parameters that were significant to the primary outcome (LBR) according to the multivariate analysis were the populational group (D-HC, SW, LC and A-HC) to which the patient belonged, female age and a diagnosis of low ovarian reserve. At the age range of good prognosis (≤37 years), LBR was similar in all groups that underwent D-IUI (18.8% for D-HC, 16.5% for SW and 17.6% for LC) but was significantly lower in the autologous IUI (A-HC) group (11%). For all these significant findings, the strength of the association was confirmed by P values <0.001. From 38 years of age on, no significant differences were observed among the populational groups studied, and for all of them, LBR was below 7% from 40 years of age on. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: To the best of our knowledge, a smoking habit was the only known factor with a potential effect on ART outcome that could not be controlled for, due to the unavailability of this information in a significant percentage of the clinical files studied. Our study was not capable of precisely quantifying the impact of a diagnosis of low ovarian reserve on the LBR of both IUI and D-IUI, due to the number of cycles performed in patients with such diagnosis (n = 231, 3.2% of the total). WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: For the first time, a comparison among D-HC, SW, LC and A-HC was performed in a study with a robust sample size and controlling for potential sources of bias. There is now sound evidence that equivalent clinical outcome is seen in the three groups treated with donor semen (D-HC, SW and LC). Specifically, regarding the comparison between SW and LC, our findings rule out differences in LBR proposed by previous publications, with very similar clinical outcomes within the same age ranges. At age ranges of good prognosis (≤37 years), reproductive performance of D-IUI is significantly better than that seen in heterosexual couples undergoing autologous IUI, even when only cases of optimal sperm quality are considered in this last group. This finding is in agreement with the concept that, as a group, A-HC are more prone to have female factor infertility, even when their infertility assessment finds no contraindication to IUI. Age affects all these groups equally, with none of them reaching a 7% LBR after the age of 40 years. Our findings will be useful for the counselling of patients from the different populations studied here about ART strategies. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): None.