Search

STUDY QUESTION What are the clinical pregnancy and live birth rates in women who underwent up to two more euploid blastocyst transfers after three failures in the absence of another known factor that affects implantation? SUMMARY ANSWER The fourth and fifth euploid blastocyst transfers resulted in similar live birth rates of 40% and 53.3%, respectively, culminating in a cumulative live birth rate of 98.1% (95% CI = 96.5–99.6%) after five euploid blastocyst transfers. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The first three euploid blastocysts have similar implantation and live birth rates and provide a cumulative live birth rate of 92.6%. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION An international multi-center retrospective study was conducted at 25 individual clinics. The study period spanned between January 2012 and December 2022. A total of 123 987 patients with a total of 64 572 euploid blastocyst transfers were screened for inclusion. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Patients with a history of any embryo transfer at another clinic, history of any unscreened embryo transfer at participating clinics, parental karyotype abnormalities, the use of donor oocytes or a gestational carrier, untreated intracavitary uterine pathology (e.g. polyp, leiomyoma), congenital uterine anomalies, adenomyosis, communicating hydrosalpinx, endometrial thickness <6 mm prior to initiating of progesterone, use of testicular sperm due to non-obstructive azoospermia in the male partner, transfer of an embryo with a reported intermediate chromosome copy number (i.e. mosaic), preimplantation genetic testing cycles for monogenic disorders, or structural chromosome rearrangements were excluded. Ovarian stimulation protocols and embryology laboratory procedures including trophectoderm biopsy followed the usual practice of each center. The ploidy status of blastocysts was determined with comprehensive chromosome screening. Endometrial preparation protocols followed the usual practice of participating centers and included programmed cycles, natural or modified natural cycles. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE A total of 105 (0.085% of the total population) patients met the criteria and underwent at least one additional euploid blastocyst transfer after failing to achieve a positive pregnancy test with three consecutive euploid blastocyst transfers. Outcomes of the fourth and fifth euploid blastocyst transfers were similar across participating centers. Overall, the live birth rate was similar with the fourth and fifth euploid blastocysts (40% vs 53.3%, relative risk = 1.33, 95% CI = 0.93–1.9, P value = 0.14). Sensitivity analyses excluding blastocysts biopsied on Day 7 postfertilization, women with a BMI >30 kg/m2, cycles using non-ejaculate or donor sperm, double-embryo transfer cycles, and cycles in which the day of embryo transfer was modified due to endometrial receptivity assay test result yielded similar results. Where data were available, the fourth euploid blastocyst had similar live birth rate with the first one (relative risk = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.58–1.21, P  = 0.29). The cumulative live birth rate after five euploid blastocyst transfers was 98.1% (95% CI = 96.5–99.6%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Retrospective design has its own inherent limitations. Patients continuing with a further euploid embryo transfer and patients dropping out from treatment after three failed euploid transfers can be systematically different, perhaps with regard to ovarian reserve or economic status. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS Implantation failure seems to be mainly due to embryonic factors. Given the stable and high live birth rates up to five euploid blastocysts, unexplained recurrent implantation failure should have a prevalence of <2%. Proceeding with another embryo transfer can be the best next step once a known etiology for implantation failure is ruled out. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(s) None. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A study published in the journal Human Reproduction analyzed the outcomes of 123,987 patients from 26 clinics in three continents to investigate the prevalence of recurrent implantation failure (RIF). The study found that RIF is much less common than previously believed. The study included patients who had undergone up to five euploid blastocyst transfers, ruling out known causes of implantation failure. The results were consistent across multiple sensitivity analyses and were unaffected by factors such as the number of eggs retrieved, BMI, or the use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) or endometrial receptivity array (ERA). The study does not recommend or discourage the use of PGT-A or ERA, but rather provides evidence against the presence of an obscure endometrial/uterine/maternal factor in cases of implantation failure. The authors of the study have no conflicts of interest to declare. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses a study on progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) and its effects on aneuploidy (abnormal number of chromosomes) in blastocysts. The study compared two cycles in the same patients, one using a GnRH antagonist and the other using a PPOS protocol. The results showed similar rates of euploidy (normal number of chromosomes) between the two cycles, with slightly higher oocyte yield in the PPOS cycle. The article also addresses previous studies that have reported conflicting results on the effectiveness of PPOS, emphasizing the need for high-quality studies to determine its true impact. Overall, the study supports the use of PPOS as a safe and effective method for ovarian stimulation. [Extracted from the article]

Background: In 2020, SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic had a huge impact on the access to and provision of ART treatments. Gradually, knowledge of the virus and its transmission has become available, allowing ART activities to resume. Still, questions on the impact of the virus on human gametes and fertility remain.Objective and Rationale: This article summarizes published data, aiming to clarify the impact of SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 disease on human fertility and assisted reproduction, as well as the impact of vaccination, and from this, provide answers to questions that are relevant for people contemplating pregnancy and for health care professionals.Search Methods: PUBMED/MEDLINE and the WHO COVID-19 database were searched from inception to 5 October 2022 with search terms focusing on 'SARS-CoV-2' and gametes, embryos, reproductive function, fertility and ART. Non-English studies and papers published prior to 2020 were excluded, as well as reviews and non-peer reviewed publications. Full papers were assessed for relevance and quality, where feasible.Outcomes: From the 148 papers included, the following observations were made. The SARS-CoV-2-binding proteins, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and type II transmembrane serine protease (TMPRSS2), are expressed in the testis, but co-expression remains to be proven. There is some evidence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the ejaculate of COVID-19 patients with severe disease, but not in those with mild/moderate disease. SARS-CoV-2 infection can impair spermatogenesis, but this seems to resolve after one spermatogenic cycle. Testosterone levels seem to be lower during and after COVID-19, but long-term data are lacking; disease severity may be associated with testosterone levels. COVID-19 cannot be considered a sexually transmitted disease. There is no co-expression of ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in the myometrium, uterus, ovaries or fallopian tubes. Oocytes seem to have the receptors and protease machinery to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, viral RNA in oocytes has not been detected so far. Women contemplating pregnancy following COVID-19 may benefit from screening for thyroid dysfunction. There is a possible (transient) impact of COVID-19 on menstrual patterns. Embryos, and particularly late blastocysts, seem to have the machinery to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most studies have not reported a significant impact of COVID-19 on ovarian reserve, ovarian function or follicular fluid parameters. Previous asymptomatic or mild SARS-CoV-2 infection in females does not seem to negatively affect laboratory and clinical outcomes of ART. There are no data on the minimum required interval, if any, between COVID-19 recovery and ART. There is no evidence of a negative effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on semen parameters or spermatogenesis, ovarian function, ovarian reserve or folliculogenesis. A transient effect on the menstrual cycle has been documented. Despite concerns, cross reactivity between anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibodies and Syncytin-1, an essential protein in human implantation, is absent. There is no influence of mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine on patients' performance during their immediate subsequent ART cycle. Pregnancy rates post-vaccination are similar to those in unvaccinated patients.Wider Implications: This review highlights existing knowledge on the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 on fertility and assisted reproduction, but also identifies gaps and offers suggestions for future research. The knowledge presented should help to provide evidence-based advice for practitioners and couples contemplating pregnancy alike, facilitating informed decision-making in an environment of significant emotional turmoil. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: What is the impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection on the outcome of a pregnancy after medically assisted reproduction (MAR)?Summary Answer: Our results suggest that MAR pregnancies are not differentially affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to spontaneous pregnancies.What Is Known Already: Information on the effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on pregnancy after MAR is scarce when women get infected during MAR or early pregnancy, even though such information is vital for informing women seeking pregnancy.Study Design, Size, Duration: Data from SARS-CoV-2 affected MAR pregnancies were collected between May 2020 and June 2021 through a voluntary data collection, organised by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE).Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: All ESHRE members were invited to participate to an online data collection for SARS-CoV-2-infected MAR pregnancies.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: The dataset includes 80 cases from 32 countries, including 67 live births, 10 miscarriages, 2 stillbirths and 1 maternal death. An additional 25pregnancies were ongoing at the time of writing.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: An international data registry based on voluntary contribution can be subject to selective reporting with possible risks of over- or under-estimation.Wider Implications Of the Findings: The current data can be used to guide clinical decisions in the care of women pregnant after MAR, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The authors acknowledge the support of ESHRE for the data registry and meetings. J.S.T. reports grants or contracts from Sigrid Juselius Foundation, EU and Helsinki University Hospital Funds, outside the scope of the current work. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.Trial Registration Number: N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PGDIS Position statement on chromosome mosaicism and preimplantation aneuploidy testing at the blastocyst statement. Sir, [2] report live births from blastocysts with "abnormal" results, which were previously denied transfer. In the study by [2], after excluding results predicting "mosaicism" and "segmental aberrations", the transfer embryos with uniform whole chromosome aneuploidies, led to a clinical pregnancy loss rate of 100% (5/5 transfers with exclusively full chromosome aneuploid embryos). [Extracted from the article]

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic created a significant impact on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) services. ESHRE decided to mobilize resources in order to collect, analyse, monitor, prepare and disseminate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) knowledge specifically related to ART and early pregnancy. This article presents the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic focusing on reproductive healthcare. It details the rationale behind the guidance prepared to support MAR services in organizing and managing the re-start of treatments or in case of any future wave of COVID-19 disease. The guidance includes information on patient selection and informed consent, staff and patient triage and testing, adaptation of ART services, treatment planning and code of conduct. The initiatives detailed in this article are not necessarily COVID-specific and such action plans could be applied effectively to manage similar emergency situations in different areas of medicine, in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Progestins are capable of suppressing endogenous LH secretion from the pituitary. Progestins can be used orally and are less expensive than GnRH analogues. However, early endometrial exposure to progestin precludes a fresh embryo transfer (ET), but the advent of vitrification and increasing number of oocyte cryopreservation cycles allow more opportunities for using progestins for pituitary suppression.Objective and Rationale: This review summarizes: the mechanism of pituitary suppression by progestins; the effectiveness of progestins when compared with GnRH analogues and with each other; the effect of progestins on oocyte and embryo developmental potential and euploidy status; and the cost-effectiveness aspects of progestin primed stimulation. Future research priorities are also identified.Search Methods: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via PubMed, the Web of Science and Scopus were screened with a combination of keywords related to ART, progesterone, GnRH analogue and ovarian stimulation, in various combinations. The search period was from the date of inception of each database until 1 April 2020. Only full text papers published in English were included.Outcomes: Overall, the duration of stimulation, gonadotrophin consumption and oocyte yield were similar with progestins and GnRH analogues. However, sensitivity analyses suggested that progestins were associated with significantly lower gonadotrophin consumption than the long GnRH agonist protocol (mean difference (MD) = -648, 95% CI = -746 to -550 IU) and significantly higher gonadotrophin consumption than the short GnRH agonist protocol (MD = 433, 95% CI = 311 to 555 IU). Overall, live birth, ongoing and clinical pregnancy rates per ET were similar with progestins and GnRH analogues. However, when progestins were compared with GnRH agonists, sensitivity analyses including women with polycystic ovary syndrome (risk ratio (RR) = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.53) and short GnRH agonist protocols (RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.28) showed significantly higher clinical pregnancy rates with progestins. However, the quality of evidence is low. Studies comparing medroxyprogesterone acetate, dydrogesterone and micronized progesterone suggested similar ovarian response and pregnancy outcomes. The euploidy status of embryos from progestin primed cycles was similar to that of embryos from conventional stimulation cycles. Available information is reassuring regarding obstetric and neonatal outcomes with the use of progestins. Despite the lower cost of progestins than GnRH analogues, the mandatory cryopreservation of all embryos followed by a deferred transfer may increase cost per live birth with progestins as compared to an ART cycle culminating in a fresh ET.Wider Implications: Progestins can present an effective option for women who do not contemplate a fresh ET, e.g. fertility preservation, anticipated hyper responders, preimplantation genetic testing, oocyte donors, double stimulation cycles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION How did coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) impact on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) services in Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic (March to May 2020)? SUMMARY ANSWER MAR services, and hence treatments for infertile couples, were stopped in most European countries for a mean of 7 weeks. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY With the outbreak of COVID-19 in Europe, non-urgent medical care was reduced by local authorities to preserve health resources and maintain social distancing. Furthermore, ESHRE and other societies recommended to postpone ART pregnancies as of 14 March 2020. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A structured questionnaire was distributed in April among the ESHRE Committee of National Representatives, followed by further information collection through email. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The information was collected through the questionnaire and afterwards summarised and aligned with data from the European Centre for Disease Control on the number of COVID-19 cases per country. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE By aligning the data for each country with respective epidemiological data, we show a large variation in the time and the phase in the epidemic in the curve when MAR/ART treatments were suspended and restarted. Similarly, the duration of interruption varied. Fertility preservation treatments and patient supportive care for patients remained available during the pandemic. LARGE SCALE DATA N/A LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Data collection was prone to misinterpretation of the questions and replies, and required further follow-up to check the accuracy. Some representatives reported that they, themselves, were not always aware of the situation throughout the country or reported difficulties with providing single generalised replies, for instance when there were regional differences within their country. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The current article provides a basis for further research of the different strategies developed in response to the COVID-19 crisis. Such conclusions will be invaluable for health authorities and healthcare professionals with respect to future similar situations. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) There was no funding for the study, apart from technical support from ESHRE. The authors had no COI to disclose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Are there any differences in the molecular characteristics of the luteal granulosa cells (GC) obtained from stimulated versus non-stimulated (natural) IVF cycles that may help explain the defective luteal phase in the former?Summary Answer: Luteal GC of stimulated IVF cycles, particularly those of agonist-triggered antagonist cycles, are less viable ex vivo, express LH receptor and anti-apoptotic genes at lower levels, undergo apoptosis earlier and fail to maintain their estradiol (E2) and progesterone (P4) production in comparison to natural cycle GC.What Is Known Already: Luteal function is defective in stimulated IVF cycles, which necessitates P4 and/or hCG administration (known as luteal phase support) in order to improve clinical pregnancy rates and prevent miscarriage. The luteal phase becomes shorter and menstruation begins earlier than a natural cycle if a pregnancy cannot be achieved, indicative of early demise of corpus luteum (premature luteolysis). Supra-physiological levels of steroids produced by multiple corpora luteae in the stimulated IVF cycles are believed to inhibit LH release directly via negative feedback actions on the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis resulting in low circulating levels of LH and a defective luteal phase. We hypothesized that some defects in the viability and steroidogenic activity of the luteal GC of the stimulated IVF cycles might contribute to this defective luteal phase in comparison to natural cycle GC. This issue has not been studied in human before.Study Design, Size, Duration: A comparative translational research study of ex vivo and in vitro models of luteal GC recovered from IVF patients undergoing natural versus stimulated IVF cycles was carried out. Luteinized GC were obtained from 154 IVF patients undergoing either natural (n = 22) or stimulated IVF cycles with recombinant FSH and GnRH agonist (long) (n = 44), or antagonist protocol triggered conventionally either with recombinant hCG (n = 46) or with a GnRH agonist (n = 42). GC were maintained in vitro for up to 6 days.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Cellular viability (YO-PRO-1 staining), the expression of the steroidogenic enzymes, pro-apoptotic genes [Bcl-2-associated death promoter (BAD), Bcl-2-associated X protein (BAX) and Caspase-3 (CASP3)], anti-apoptotic genes [RAC-alpha serine/threonine-protein kinase (AKT-1) and Bcl-2-like protein 2 (BCL2-L2)], LH receptor, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) (using real-time quantitative PCR at mRNA level and western blot immunoprecipitation assay at protein level) and in vitro E2 and P4 production (electrochemiluminescence immunoassay) were compared in GC among the groups.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: Natural cycle GC were significantly more viable ex vivo (88%) compared to their counterparts of the stimulated IVF cycles (66, 64 and 37% for agonist and antagonist cycles triggered with hCG and GnRH agonist respectively, P < 0.01). They were also more capable of maintaining their vitality in culture compared to their counterparts from the stimulated IVF cycles: at the end of the 6-day culture period, 74% of the cells were still viable whereas only 48, 43 and 22% of the cells from the agonist and antagonist cycles triggered with hCG and agonist respectively, were viable (P < 0.01). The mRNA expression of anti-apoptotic genes (AKT-1 and BCL2-L2) was significantly lower, while that of pro-apoptotic genes (BAD, BAX and CASP3) was significantly higher in the stimulated cycles, particularly in the agonist-triggered antagonist cycles, compared to natural cycle GC (P < 0.01 for long protocol and antagonist hCG trigger, P < 0.001 for agonist trigger). The expression of steroidogenic enzymes (stAR, SCC, 3β-HSD and aromatase) and VEGF was significantly higher in the agonist and hCG-triggered antagonist cycles compared to natural cycle GC. Therefore, in vitro E2 and P4 production in cells from the stimulated IVF cycles was significantly higher than their counterparts obtained from the natural cycles in the first 2 days of culture. However, after Day 2, their viability and hormone production began to decline very rapidly with the most drastic decrease being observed in the agonist-triggered cycles. By contrast, natural cycle GC maintained their viability and produced E2 and P4 in increasing amounts in culture up to 6 days. In vitro P production and the mRNA and protein expression of LH receptor, VEGF and 3β-HSD were most defective in the agonist-triggered antagonist cycles compared to natural and agonist and hCG-triggered antagonist cycles. In vitro hCG treatment of a subset of the cells from the agonist-triggered cycles improved their viability, increased E2 and P4 production in vitro and up-regulated the mRNA expression of anti-apoptotic gene BCL-L2 together with steroidogenic enzymes stAR, SCC, 3B-HSD, LH receptor and VEGF.Large Scale Data: Not applicable.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: The limitations include analysis of luteinized GC only might not reflect the in vivo mechanisms involved in survival and function of the whole corpus luteum; GC recovered during oocyte retrieval belong to a very early stage of the luteal phase and might not be representative; effects of ovulation triggered with hCG may not equate to the endogenous LH trigger; the clinical characteristics of the patients may vary among the different groups and it was not possible to correlate stimulation-related molecular alterations in luteal GC with the clinical outcome, as no oocytes have been utilized yet. Therefore, our findings do not conclusively rule out the possibility that some other mechanisms in vivo may also account for defective luteal function observed in stimulated IVF cycles.Wider Implications Of the Findings: Ovarian stimulation is associated with significant alterations in the viability and steroidogenic activity of luteal GC depending on the stimulation protocol and mode of ovulation trigger. Reduced survival and down-regulated expression of 3B-HSD, LH receptor and VEGF leading to compromised steroid production in stimulated cycles, and particularly in the agonist-triggered cycles, may at least in part help explain why the luteal phase is defective and requires exogenous support in these cycles.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This study was funded by the School of Medicine, the Graduate School of Health Sciences of Koc University and Koç University Research Center for Translational Medicine (KUTTAM), equally funded by the Republic of Turkey Ministry of Development Research Infrastructure Support Program. All authors declare no conflict of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Are live birth rates (LBR) different after ART cycles between women with primary or recurrent endometrioma?Summary Answer: Women with recurrent endometrioma have similar LBR as compared to patients with primary endometrioma.What Is Already Known: Recurrence rate can be as high as 29% after endometrioma excision. Prior studies on management of endometrioma before ART involve primary endometriomas. There is limited information regarding the prognosis of women with recurrent endometriomas.Study Design, Size, Duration: A multicenter retrospective cohort study, including 76 women with primary and 82 women with recurrent endometriomas treated at the participating centers over a 6-year period.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Women with endometrioma who underwent ART at three academic ART centers. Couples with another indication for ART were excluded.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: Female age, median number of prior failed ART cycles, proportion of patients with bilateral endometrioma (28 versus 28.9%), ovarian stimulation protocols, and total gonadotropin consumption were similar between the study groups. Numbers of metaphase two oocytes (5 versus 6), number of embryos transferred, and the proportion of patients undergoing blastocyst transfer were similar across the study groups. Clinical pregnancy rates (36.6 versus 34.2%, absolute difference 2.4%, 95% CI: -12.5 to 17.3%, P = 0.83) and LBR (35.4 versus 30.3%, absolute difference 5.1%, 95% CI: -9.5 to 19.7%, P = 0.51) per started cycle in recurrent and primary endometrioma were similar. Comparable success rates were also confirmed with logistic regression analysis (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.78-0.57, P = 2.3).Limitations, Reasons For Caution: The retrospective design has inherent limitations. Some women with severely decreased ovarian reserve after primary endometrioma excision may not have pursued further treatment.Wider Implications Of the Findings: The management of endometrioma prior to ART is controversial but a different management strategy is not required for recurrent endometriomas. Since recurrent endometriomas do not have a worse impact on ART outcome than primary endometriomas, and repeat surgery has a higher risk for complications, conservative management without surgery can be justified.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): No funding or competing interests to declare.Trial Registration Number: None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]