Search

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 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 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]

To date, recurrent implantation failure (RIF) has no clear definition and no clearly identified impaired function. Hence, the term RIF is currently used somewhat haphazardly, on the basis of clinicians' judgment. International experts in reproductive medicine met on July 1, 2022, in Lugano, Switzerland, to review the different facets of RIF and define the diagnosis and its appropriate management. A systematic review without meta-analysis of studies published in English from January 2015 to May 2022. Data indicated that RIF has been largely overevaluated, overdiagnosed, and overtreated without sufficient critical assessment of its true nature. Our analyses show that true RIF is extremely uncommon—occurring in <5% of couples with infertility—and that reassurance and continued conventional therapies are warranted in most cases of assisted reproductive technology (ART) failure. Although the true biologic determinants of RIF may exist in a small subset of people with infertility, they elude the currently available tools for assessment. Without identification of the true underlying etiology(ies), it is reasonable not to assign this diagnosis to a patient until she has failed at least 3 euploid blastocyst transfers (or the equivalent number of unscreened embryo transfers, adjusted to the patient's age and corresponding euploidy rate). In addition, other factors should be ruled out that may contribute to her reduced odds of sustained implantation. In such cases, implantation failure should not be the only issue considered in case of ART failure because this may result from multiple other factors that are not necessarily repetitive or persistent. In reality, RIF impacting the probability of further ART success is a very rare occurrence. True RIF is extremely uncommon, occurring in <5% of couples with infertility. Reassurance and continued conventional therapies are warranted in most cases. It would seem reasonable not to assign this diagnosis to a patient until she has failed at least 3 euploid embryo transfers (or the equivalent number of unscreened embryos, adjusted to her age). Given the number of internationally recognized experts in the field present at the Lugano meeting 2022, our publication constitutes a consensus statement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate the predictive value of endometrial thickness (EMT) for live birth when a lower threshold of EMT is not employed for embryo transfer (ET).Design: Retrospective study SETTING: Academic assisted reproduction center PATIENT(S): All women who underwent fresh or frozen-thawed ET at the Koç University Hospital Assisted Reproduction Unit between October 2016 and August 2019 INTERVENTION(S): After ruling out endometrial pathology, blastocyst transfer was planned regardless of the EMT in the absence of increased serum progesterone level on the trigger day in fresh embryo transfer cycles or before commencing progesterone treatment in artificially prepared frozen-thawed ET cycles.Main Outcome Measure(s): The primary outcome was live birth. Live birth and miscarriage rates per ET were stratified according to fresh and frozen-thawed ET cycles for each millimeter of endometrial thickness. Receiver operator characteristic curve analyses were performed to evaluate the predictive value of EMT for live birth.Result(s): A total of 560 ET cycles, 273 fresh and 287 frozen-thawed, were included in the study. Relevant patient characteristics as well as EMTs were similar between women who achieved a live birth and those who did not after fresh or frozen-thawed ET. There was no linear association between EMT and live birth or miscarriage rates. Area under the curve values for EMT to predict live birth after fresh, frozen-thawed, and all ETs were 0.56, 0.47, and 0.52, respectively.Conclusion(s): Our results showed that the EMT was not predictive for live birth in either fresh or frozen-thawed ET cycles. Once intracavitary pathology and inadvertent progesterone exposure were excluded, women with thinner EMTs should not be denied their potential for live birth because it is comparable to that of those with thicker EMT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]