scholarly journals Prioritizing IVF treatment in the post-COVID 19 era: a predictive modelling study based on UK national data

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siladitya Bhattacharya ◽  
Abha Maheshwari ◽  
Mariam Begum Ratna ◽  
Rik van Eekelen ◽  
Ben Willem Mol ◽  
...  

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Can we use prediction modelling to estimate the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) related delay in starting IVF or ICSI in different groups of women? SUMMARY ANSWER Yes, using a combination of three different models we can predict the impact of delaying access to treatment by 6 and 12 months on the probability of conception leading to live birth in women of different age groups with different categories of infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Increased age and duration of infertility can prejudice the chances of success following IVF, but couples with unexplained infertility have a chance of conceiving naturally without treatment whilst waiting for IVF. The worldwide suspension of IVF could lead to worse outcomes in couples awaiting treatment, but it is unclear to what extent this could affect individual couples based on age and cause of infertility. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A population-based cohort study based on national data from all licensed clinics in the UK obtained from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Register. Linked data from 9589 women who underwent their first IVF or ICSI treatment in 2017 and consented to the use of their data for research were used to predict livebirth. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Three prediction models were used to estimate the chances of livebirth associated with immediate treatment versus a delay of 6 and 12 months in couples about to embark on IVF or ICSI. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE We estimated that a 6-month delay would reduce IVF livebirths by 0.4%, 2.4%, 5.6%, 9.5% and 11.8% in women aged <30, 30–35, 36–37, 38–39 and 40–42 years, respectively, while corresponding values associated with a delay of 12 months were 0.9%, 4.9%, 11.9%, 18.8% and 22.4%, respectively. In women with known causes of infertility, worst case (best case) predicted chances of livebirth after a delay of 6 months followed by one complete IVF cycle in women aged <30, 30–35, 36–37, 38–39 and 40–42 years varied between 31.6% (35.0%), 29.0% (31.6%), 23.1% (25.2%), 17.2% (19.4%) and 10.3% (12.3%) for tubal infertility and 34.3% (39.2%), 31.6% (35.3%) 25.2% (28.5%) 18.3% (21.3%) and 11.3% (14.1%) for male factor infertility. The corresponding values in those treated immediately were 31.7%, 29.8%, 24.5%, 19.0% and 11.7% for tubal factor and 34.4%, 32.4%, 26.7%, 20.2% and 12.8% in male factor infertility. In women with unexplained infertility the predicted chances of livebirth after a delay of 6 months followed by one complete IVF cycle were 41.0%, 36.6%, 29.4%, 22.4% and 15.1% in women aged <30, 30–35, 36–37, 38–39 and 40–42 years, respectively, compared to 34.9%, 32.5%, 26.9%, 20.7% and 13.2% in similar groups of women treated without any delay. The additional waiting period, which provided more time for spontaneous conception, was predicted to increase the relative number of babies born by 17.5%, 12.6%, 9.1%, 8.4% and 13.8%, in women aged <30, 30–35, 36–37, 38–39 and 40–42 years, respectively. A 12-month delay showed a similar pattern in all subgroups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Major sources of uncertainty include the use of prediction models generated in different populations and the need for a number of assumptions. Although the models are validated and the bases for the assumptions are robust, it is impossible to eliminate the possibility of imprecision in our predictions. Therefore, our predicted live birth rates need to be validated in prospective studies to confirm their accuracy. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS A delay in starting IVF reduces success rates in all couples. For the first time, we have shown that while this results in fewer babies in older women and those with a known cause of infertility, it has a less detrimental effect on couples with unexplained infertility, some of whom conceive naturally whilst waiting for treatment. Post-COVID 19, clinics planning a phased return to normal clinical services should prioritize older women and those with a known cause of infertility. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) No external funding was received for this study. B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy work for ObsEva, Merck, Merck KGaA, Guerbet and iGenomics. S.B. is Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open. None of the other authors declare any conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e040563
Author(s):  
Haiyan Lin ◽  
Yu Li ◽  
Songbang Ou ◽  
Xuedan Jiao ◽  
Wenjun Wang ◽  
...  

ObjectiveThe objective of this retrospective cohort study was to explore the optimal range of the total progressive motile sperm count (TPMSC) for live birth in couples with varying infertility diagnosis undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI) in a university-affiliated teaching hospital.MethodsA total of 2647 couples and 5171 IUI cycles were included between January 2015 and December 2018. Of those, 1542 cycles were performed due to unexplained infertility, 1228 cycles due to anovulation, 1120 cycles due to mild male factor infertility and 122 cycles due to mild endometriosis. The primary outcome measure was live birth rate (LBR). The secondary outcome measure was clinical pregnancy rate (CPR).ResultsThe CPR and LBR were highest in patients with a diagnosis of anovulation compared with the other three groups of patients. The CPR and LBR in patients with unexplained, mild male factor and mild endometriosis were comparable. For the patients with mild male factor infertility, the CPR with prewash TPMSC of >75.0 M and postwash TPMSC of 65.10 M was above 10%, statistically significantly higher than other quartiles of TPMSC (p<0.05). The LBR with postwash TPMSC of >65.10 M was statistically significantly higher than other groups (p<0.05). However, in patients with unexplained infertility, the CPR and LBR were not statistically different in quartiles of TPMSC, being less than 10%. Overall, there was only one clinical pregnancy and no live birth in patients >40 years of age.ConclusionsIn conclusion, the infertility diagnosis plays a significant role for the patient undergoing IUI. Thus, the anovulatory patients benefitted most from IUI, irrespective of TPMSC. For patients with unexplained infertility, TPMSC does not affect the success rate of IUI. Overall,female patients more than 40 years old should not be referred to IUI.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e051058
Author(s):  
Sine Berntsen ◽  
Bugge Nøhr ◽  
Marie Louise Grøndahl ◽  
Morten Rønn Petersen ◽  
Lars Franch Andersen ◽  
...  

IntroductionOver the last decades, the use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has increased, even among patients without male factor infertility. The increase has happened even though there is no evidence to support that ICSI results in higher live birth rates compared with conventional in vitro fertilisation (IVF) in cases with nonmale factor infertility. The lack of robust evidence on an advantage of using ICSI over conventional IVF in these patients is problematic since ICSI is more invasive, complex and requires additional resources, time and effort. Therefore, the primary objective of the IVF versus ICSI (INVICSI) study is to determine whether ICSI is superior to standard IVF in patients without severe male factor infertility. The primary outcome measure is first live birth from fresh and frozen-thawed transfers after one stimulated cycle. Secondary outcomes include fertilisation rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, birth weight and congenital anomalies.Methods and analysisThis is a two-armed, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. In total, 824 couples/women with infertility without severe male factor will be recruited and allocated randomly into two groups (IVF or ICSI) in a 1:1 ratio. Participants will be randomised in variable block sizes and stratified by trial site and age. The main inclusion criteria are (1) no prior IVF/ICSI treatment, (2) male partner sperm with an expected count of minimum 2 million progressive motile spermatozoa following density gradient purification on the day of oocyte pick up and (3) age of the woman between 18 and 42 years.Ethics and disseminationThe study will be performed in accordance with the ethical principles in the Helsinki Declaration. The study is approved by the Scientific Ethical Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark. Study findings will be presented, irrespectively of results at international conferences and submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT04128904. Pre-results.


Reproduction ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 154 (6) ◽  
pp. F93-F110 ◽  
Author(s):  
G D Palermo ◽  
C L O’Neill ◽  
S Chow ◽  
S Cheung ◽  
A Parrella ◽  
...  

Among infertile couples, 25% involve both male and female factors, while male factor alone accounts for another 25% due to oligo-, astheno-, teratozoospermia, a combination of the three, or even a complete absence of sperm cells in the ejaculate and can lead to a poor prognosis even with the help of assisted reproductive technology (ART). Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has been with us now for a quarter of a century and in spite of the controversy generated since its inception, it remains in the forefront of the techniques utilized in ART. The development of ICSI in 1992 has drastically decreased the impact of male factor, resulting in millions of pregnancies worldwide for couples who, without ICSI, would have had little chance of having their own biological child. This review focuses on the state of the art of ICSI regarding utility of bioassays that evaluate male factor infertility beyond the standard semen analysis and describes the current application and advances in regard to ICSI, particularly the genetic and epigenetic characteristics of spermatozoa and their impact on reproductive outcome.


2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 228-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cihan Kaya ◽  
İsmail Alay ◽  
Günay Babayeva ◽  
Asuman Gedikbaşı ◽  
Sinem Ertaş Kaya ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (7) ◽  
pp. 1322-1330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Z Li ◽  
A Y Wang ◽  
M Bowman ◽  
K Hammarberg ◽  
C Farquhar ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Thomas Ebner ◽  
Pierre Vanderzwalmen ◽  
Barbara Wirleitner

2018 ◽  
Vol 100 (2) ◽  
pp. 318-330
Author(s):  
Ana Catarina Lopes ◽  
Pedro F Oliveira ◽  
Mário Sousa

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document