The role of DEFB126 variation in male infertility and medically assisted reproduction technique outcome

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 649-657
Author(s):  
Parnaz Borjian Boroujeni ◽  
Somayeh Ebrahimian ◽  
Maryam Abedini ◽  
Maral Rostami Chayjan ◽  
Mahdye Hassani ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Pozza ◽  
Davide Dèttore ◽  
Maria Elisabetta Coccia

Background: Depressive and anxious symptoms are common psychological reactions to infertility and Medically Assisted Reproduction (MAR). No study compared depressive and anxious symptoms and infertility stress dimensions across homologous and heterologous MAR, nor explored the specific role of the infertility stress dimensions in the two pathways. Homologous MAR may be associated with higher distress as the couple feel that the responsibility to reproduce and carry on the family line falls on them, and they feel inadequate if they are unable to bear children. Objective: We compared depressive/anxious symptoms and infertility stress dimensions between individuals undergoing homologous and heterologous MAR. We also explored the association between the infertility stress dimensions and depressive/anxious symptoms separately in two MAR pathways. Methods: Two-hundred twenty-six individuals participated [mean age = 39.71 years; 54.45% women]: 118 (52.2%) in homologous and 108 (47.8%) in heterologous MAR. The Fertility Problem Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory-II, and State and Trait Anxiety Inventory-Y form were administered. Results: Individuals in homologous MAR had higher depressive/state-trait anxious symptoms, general infertility stress, and infertility-related sexual concerns than those in heterologous MAR. In homologous MAR, social and sexual concerns were associated with depressive/trait anxious symptoms while gender had no effect. In heterologous MAR, male gender was associated with lower state anxious symptoms while infertility stress dimensions had no effect. Conclusion: Individuals in homologous MAR are a more distressed subgroup which requires a tailored supportive psychological intervention specifically on sexual and social concerns.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathalie Vermeulen ◽  
◽  
Eduard Hambartsoumian ◽  
Kazem Nouri ◽  
Thomas Ebner ◽  
...  

Abstract 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.


Author(s):  
Judith Daar

The need for infertility treatment brings professionals into reproductive decisions that are important private matters for patients. In medically assisted reproduction, providers are brought into roles traditionally regarded as occupied only by nature and into a position to determine which embryos are suitable for transfer in the effort to achieve pregnancy. These powers of judgment present ethical challenges for professionals providing assisted reproduction services. Among these challenges is the potential conflictual involvement of multiple patients in the process: intended parents, gamete donors, and gestational surrogates. Other challenges include the obligation to avoid discrimination in selecting embryos for transfer or in making decisions about which patients to serve. Providers must be informed by ethical discussions such as the ethics opinions of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Important ethical considerations include respect for patient choice, the best interests of offspring, nondiscrimination, and social justice.


2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (12) ◽  
pp. 2715-2724 ◽  
Author(s):  
J M N Duffy ◽  
G D Adamson ◽  
E Benson ◽  
S Bhattacharya ◽  
S Bhattacharya ◽  
...  

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified? SUMMARY ANSWER The top 10 research priorities for the four areas of male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care for people with fertility problems were identified. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, diverse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties was entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI and IVF) and ethics, access and organization of care were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from 11 countries. These research priorities were diverse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require diverse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research and population science. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, methodological decisions informed by professional judgment and arbitrary consensus definitions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The study was funded by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. G.D.A. reports research sponsorship from Abbott, personal fees from Abbott and LabCorp, a financial interest in Advanced Reproductive Care, committee membership of the FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, International Federation of Fertility Societies and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, and research sponsorship of the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies from Abbott and Ferring. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. A.W.H. reports research sponsorship from the Chief Scientist’s Office, Ferring, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research and Wellbeing of Women and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Ferring, Nordic Pharma and Roche Diagnostics. M.L.H. reports grants from Merck, grants from Myovant, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work and ownership in Embrace Fertility, a private fertility company. N.P.J. reports research sponsorship from AbbVie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy fees from Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Roche Diagnostics and Vifor Pharma. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring and retains a financial interest in NexHand. J.S. reports being employed by a National Health Service fertility clinic, consultancy fees from Merck for educational events, sponsorship to attend a fertility conference from Ferring and being a clinical subeditor of Human Fertility. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. J.W. reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. A.V. reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their ‘traffic light’ system for infertility treatment ‘add-ons’. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the present work. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document