Changes in First and Second Births to U.S. Teenagers From 2000 to 2022.

Objectives: This study examines trends in the numbers, percentages, and rates of first and second and higher-order births to teenagers younger than age 20 and for those ages 15-17 and 18-19 by race and Hispanic origin. Methods: Data for this analysis are from the National Vital Statistics System birth data files from 2000 and 2022. Analyses are limited to births to females younger than age 20. Changes in the numbers, percentages, and rates of total, first, and second and higher-order teen births from 2000 to 2022 were calculated for all teenagers and for non-Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, and Hispanic teenagers. Results: The number of first teen births declined 67% and the number of second and higher-order teen births declined 79%, while the population of female teenagers increased 7% from 2000 to 2022. The declines were greater for younger teenagers compared with older teenagers. First and second and higher-order teen birth rates declined 69% and 80%, respectively. Similar declines were found for each race and Hispanic-origin group. In 2000 and 2022, first and second and higher-order birth rates were lowest among White teenagers. First birth rates were highest among Hispanic teenagers in 2000 and for Hispanic and non-Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native teenagers in 2022. In 2000, second and higher-order birth rates were highest for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic teenagers; second and higher-order birth rates were more similar by race and Hispanic-origin group in 2022.

Births: Final Data for 2022.

Objectives- This report presents 2022 data on U.S. births by selected characteristics. Trends in fertility patterns and maternal and infant characteristics are described. Methods-Descriptive tabulations based on birth certificates of the 3.67 million births registered in 2022 are shown by maternal age, live-birth order, race and Hispanic origin, marital status, tobacco use, prenatal care, source of payment for the delivery, method of delivery, gestational age, birthweight, and plurality. Selected data by mother's state of residence and birth rates also are shown. Trends for 2010 to 2022 are presented for selected items, and by race and Hispanic origin for 2016-2022. Results-A total of 3,667,758 births occurred in the United States in 2022, essentially unchanged from 2021. The general fertility rate declined 1% from 2021 to 56.0 births per 1,000 females ages 15-44 in 2022. The birth rate for females ages 15-19 declined 2% from 2021 to 2022; birth rates fell 7% for women ages 20-24, rose 1% to 5% for women ages 25-29 and 35-44, and rose 12% for women ages 45-49 (the first increase since 2016). The total fertility rate declined less than 1% to 1,656.5 births per 1,000 women in 2022. Birth rates declined for unmarried women but increased for married women from 2021 to 2022. Prenatal care beginning in the first trimester declined to 77.0% in 2022; the percentage of women who smoked during pregnancy declined to 3.7%. The cesarean delivery rate was unchanged in 2022 (32.1%); Medicaid was the source of payment for 41.3% of births. The preterm birth rate declined 1% to 10.38%; the low birthweight rate rose 1% to 8.60%. The twin birth rate was unchanged in 2022 (31.2 per 1,000 births); the 2% decrease in the triplet and higher-order multiple birth rate.

The COVID-19 baby bump in the United States.

We use natality microdata covering the universe of US. births for 2015 to 2021 and California births from 2015 through February 2023 to examine childbearing responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. We find that 60% of the 2020 decline in US fertility rates was driven by sharp reductions in births to foreign-born mothers although births to this group comprised only 22% of all US births in 2019. This decline started in January 2020. In contrast, the COVID-19 recession resulted in an overall "baby bump" among US-born mothers, which marked the first reversal in declining fertility rates since the Great Recession. Births to US-born mothers fell by 31,000 in 2020 relative to a prepandemic trend but increased by 71,000 in 2021. The data for California suggest that US births remained elevated through February 2023. The baby bump was most pronounced for first births and women under age 25, suggesting that the pandemic led some women to start families earlier. Above age 25, the baby bump was most pronounced for women aged 30 to 34 and women with a college education. The 2021 to 2022 baby bump is especially remarkable given the large declines in fertility rates that would have been projected by standard statistical models.

Global fertility in 204 countries and territories, 1950-2021, with forecasts to 2100: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.

BACKGROUND: Accurate assessments of current and future fertility-including overall trends and changing population age structures across countries and regions-are essential to help plan for the profound social, economic, environmental, and geopolitical challenges that these changes will bring. Estimates and projections of fertility are necessary to inform policies involving resource and health-care needs, labour supply, education, gender equality, and family planning and support. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 produced up-to-date and comprehensive demographic assessments of key fertility indicators at global, regional, and national levels from 1950 to 2021 and forecast fertility metrics to 2100 based on a reference scenario and key policy-dependent alternative scenarios. METHODS: To estimate fertility indicators from 1950 to 2021, mixed-effects regression models and spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression were used to synthesise data from 8709 country-years of vital and sample registrations, 1455 surveys and censuses, and 150 other sources, and to generate age-specific fertility rates (ASFRs) for 5-year age groups from age 10 years to 54 years. ASFRs were summed across age groups to produce estimates of total fertility rate (TFR). Livebirths were calculated by multiplying ASFR and age-specific female population, then summing across ages 10-54 years. To forecast future fertility up to 2100, our Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) forecasting model was based on projections of completed cohort fertility at age 50 years (CCF50; the average number of children born over time to females from a specified birth cohort), which yields more stable and accurate measures of fertility than directly modelling TFR. CCF50 was modelled using an ensemble approach in which three sub-models (with two, three, and four covariates variously consisting of female educational attainment, contraceptive met need, population density in habitable areas, and under-5 mortality) were given equal weights, and analyses were conducted utilising the MR-BRT (meta-regression-Bayesian, regularised, trimmed) tool. To capture time-series trends in CCF50 not explained by these covariates, we used a first-order autoregressive model on the residual term. CCF50 as a proportion of each 5-year ASFR was predicted using a linear mixed-effects model with fixed-effects covariates (female educational attainment and contraceptive met need) and random intercepts for geographical regions. Projected TFRs were then computed for each calendar year as the sum of single-year ASFRs across age groups. The reference forecast is our estimate of the most likely fertility future given the model, past fertility, forecasts of covariates, and historical relationships between covariates and fertility. We additionally produced forecasts for multiple alternative scenarios in each location: the UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) for education is achieved by 2030; the contraceptive met need SDG is achieved by 2030; pro-natal policies are enacted to create supportive environments for those who give birth; and the previous three scenarios combined. Uncertainty from past data inputs and model estimation was propagated throughout analyses by taking 1000 draws for past and present fertility estimates and 500 draws for future forecasts from the estimated distribution for each metric, with 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) given as the 2·5 and 97·5 percentiles of the draws. To evaluate the forecasting performance of our model and others, we computed skill values-a metric assessing gain in forecasting accuracy-by comparing predicted versus observed ASFRs from the past 15 years (2007-21). A positive skill metric indicates that the model being evaluated performs better than the baseline model (here, a simplified model holding 2007 values constant in the future), and a negative metric indicates that the evaluated model performs worse than baseline. FINDINGS: During the period from 1950 to 2021, global TFR more than halved, from 4·84 (95% UI 4·63-5·06) to 2·23 (2·09-2·38). Global annual livebirths peaked in 2016 at 142 million (95% UI 137-147), declining to 129 million (121-138) in 2021. Fertility rates declined in all countries and territories since 1950, with TFR remaining above 2·1-canonically considered replacement-level fertility-in 94 (46·1%) countries and territories in 2021. This included 44 of 46 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, which was the super-region with the largest share of livebirths in 2021 (29·2% [28·7-29·6]). 47 countries and territories in which lowest estimated fertility between 1950 and 2021 was below replacement experienced one or more subsequent years with higher fertility; only three of these locations rebounded above replacement levels. Future fertility rates were projected to continue to decline worldwide, reaching a global TFR of 1·83 (1·59-2·08) in 2050 and 1·59 (1·25-1·96) in 2100 under the reference scenario. The number of countries and territories with fertility rates remaining above replacement was forecast to be 49 (24·0%) in 2050 and only six (2·9%) in 2100, with three of these six countries included in the 2021 World Bank-defined low-income group, all located in the GBD super-region of sub-Saharan Africa. The proportion of livebirths occurring in sub-Saharan Africa was forecast to increase to more than half of the world's livebirths in 2100, to 41·3% (39·6-43·1) in 2050 and 54·3% (47·1-59·5) in 2100. The share of livebirths was projected to decline between 2021 and 2100 in most of the six other super-regions-decreasing, for example, in south Asia from 24·8% (23·7-25·8) in 2021 to 16·7% (14·3-19·1) in 2050 and 7·1% (4·4-10·1) in 2100-but was forecast to increase modestly in the north Africa and Middle East and high-income super-regions. Forecast estimates for the alternative combined scenario suggest that meeting SDG targets for education and contraceptive met need, as well as implementing pro-natal policies, would result in global TFRs of 1·65 (1·40-1·92) in 2050 and 1·62 (1·35-1·95) in 2100. The forecasting skill metric values for the IHME model were positive across all age groups, indicating that the model is better than the constant prediction. INTERPRETATION: Fertility is declining globally, with rates in more than half of all countries and territories in 2021 below replacement level. Trends since 2000 show considerable heterogeneity in the steepness of declines, and only a small number of countries experienced even a slight fertility rebound after their lowest observed rate, with none reaching replacement level. Additionally, the distribution of livebirths across the globe is shifting, with a greater proportion occurring in the lowest-income countries. Future fertility rates will continue to decline worldwide and will remain low even under successful implementation of pro-natal policies. These changes will have far-reaching economic and societal consequences due to ageing populations and declining workforces in higher-income countries, combined with an increasing share of livebirths among the already poorest regions of the world. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Births: Final Data for 2021.

Objectives-This report presents 2021 data on U.S. births according to a variety of characteristics. Trends in fertility patterns and maternal and infant characteristics are described and interpreted.

The Limits of the Constant-rate Birth-Death Prior for Phylogenetic Tree Topology Inference.

Birth-death models are stochastic processes describing speciation and extinction through time and across taxa and are widely used in biology for inference of evolutionary timescales. Previous research has highlighted how the expected trees under the constant-rate birth-death (crBD) model tend to differ from empirical trees, for example, with respect to the amount of phylogenetic imbalance. However, our understanding of how trees differ between the crBD model and the signal in empirical data remains incomplete. In this Point of View, we aim to expose the degree to which the crBD model differs from empirically inferred phylogenies and test the limits of the model in practice. Using a wide range of topology indices to compare crBD expectations against a comprehensive dataset of 1189 empirically estimated trees, we confirm that crBD model trees frequently differ topologically compared with empirical trees. To place this in the context of standard practice in the field, we conducted a meta-analysis for a subset of the empirical studies. When comparing studies that used Bayesian methods and crBD priors with those that used other non-crBD priors and non-Bayesian methods (i.e., maximum likelihood methods), we do not find any significant differences in tree topology inferences. To scrutinize this finding for the case of highly imbalanced trees, we selected the 100 trees with the greatest imbalance from our dataset, simulated sequence data for these tree topologies under various evolutionary rates, and re-inferred the trees under maximum likelihood and using the crBD model in a Bayesian setting. We find that when the substitution rate is low, the crBD prior results in overly balanced trees, but the tendency is negligible when substitution rates are sufficiently high. Overall, our findings demonstrate the general robustness of crBD priors across a broad range of phylogenetic inference scenarios but also highlight that empirically observed phylogenetic imbalance is highly improbable under the crBD model, leading to systematic bias in data sets with limited information content.

More comprehensive sex education reduced teen births: Quasi-experimental evidence.

Women in the United States are much more likely to become mothers as teens than those in other rich countries. Teen births are particularly likely to be reported as unintended, leading to debate over whether better information on sex and contraception might lead to reductions in teen births. We contribute to this debate by providing causal evidence at the population level. Our causal identification strategy exploits county-level variation in the timing and receipt of federal funding for more comprehensive sex education and data on age-specific teen birth rates at the county level constructed from birth certificate natality data covering all births in the United States. Our results show that federal funding for more comprehensive sex education reduced county-level teen birth rates by more than 3%. Our findings thus complement the mixed evidence to date from randomized control trials on teen pregnancies and births by providing population-level causal evidence that federal funding for more comprehensive sex education led to reductions in teen births.

National, regional, and global estimates of preterm birth in 2020, with trends from 2010: a systematic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is the leading cause of neonatal mortality and is associated with long-term physical, neurodevelopmental, and socioeconomic effects. This study updated national preterm birth rates and trends, plus novel estimates by gestational age subgroups, to inform progress towards global health goals and targets, and aimed to update country, regional, and global estimates of preterm birth for 2020 in addition to trends between 2010 and 2020. METHODS: We systematically searched population-based, nationally representative data on preterm birth from Jan 1, 2010, to Dec 31, 2020 and study data (26 March-14 April, 2021) for countries and areas with no national-level data. The analysis included 679 data points (86% nationally representative administrative data [582 of 679 data points]) from 103 countries and areas (62% of countries and areas having nationally representative administrative data [64 of 103 data points]). A Bayesian hierarchical regression was used for estimating country-level preterm rates, which incoporated country-specific intercepts, low birthweight as a covariate, non-linear time trends, and bias adjustments based on a data quality categorisation, and other indicators such as method of gestational age estimation. FINDINGS: An estimated 13·4 million (95% credible interval [CrI] 12·3-15·2 million) newborn babies were born preterm (<37 weeks) in 2020 (9·9% of all births [95% CrI 9·1-11·2]) compared with 13·8 million (12·7-15·5 million) in 2010 (9·8% of all births [9·0-11·0]) worldwide. The global annual rate of reduction was estimated at -0·14% from 2010 to 2020. In total, 55·6% of total livebirths are in southern Asia (26·8% [36 099 000 of 134 767 000]) and sub-Saharan Africa (28·7% [38 819 300 of 134 767 000]), yet these two regions accounted for approximately 65% (8 692 000 of 13 376 200) of all preterm births globally in 2020. Of the 33 countries and areas in the highest data quality category, none were in southern Asia or sub-Saharan Africa compared with 94% (30 of 32 countries) in high-income countries and areas. Worldwide from 2010 to 2020, approximately 15% of all preterm births occurred at less than 32 weeks of gestation, requiring more neonatal care (<28 weeks: 4·2%, 95% CI 3·1-5·0, 567 800 [410 200-663 200 newborn babies]); 28-32 weeks: 10·4% [9·5-10·6], 1 392 500 [1 274 800-1 422 600 newborn babies]). INTERPRETATION: There has been no measurable change in preterm birth rates over the last decade at global level. Despite increasing facility birth rates and substantial focus on routine health data systems, there remain many missed opportunities to improve preterm birth data. Gaps in national routine data for preterm birth are most marked in regions of southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, which also have the highest estimated burden of preterm births. Countries need to prioritise programmatic investments to prevent preterm birth and to ensure evidence-based quality care when preterm birth occurs. Investments in improving data quality are crucial so that preterm birth data can be improved and used for action and accountability processes. FUNDING: The Children's Investment Fund Foundation and the UNDP, United Nations Population Fund-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction.

Changes in Twin Births in the United States,2019-2021.

Objectives-This report describes changes in the number and rate of twin births from 2019 to 2021 by month and year of birth and age and race and Hispanic origin of the mother.

What do women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) understand about their chance of IVF success?

STUDY QUESTION: How well informed are Australian women who undergo IVF about their chances of having a baby? SUMMARY ANSWER: Only one in four women estimated their individual chance of success with IVF accurately, with most women overestimating their chance. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Limited knowledge about infertility and infertility treatment in the general population is well-documented. The few studies that have investigated patients' knowledge about the chance of IVF success suggest that while IVF patients are aware of average success rates, they tend to be unrealistic about their own chance of success. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We conducted an anonymous online survey of 217 women who had started IVF since 2018 in Australia. The survey was advertised on social media, enabling women from across Australia to participate. Responses were collected in June 2021. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The survey included questions on demographic characteristics and IVF history. It asked what participants thought their chance of having a baby from one IVF treatment cycle was, how they rated their knowledge about chance of success, and about their experience of receiving IVF-related information. Participants' estimations of their chance of success were compared with their chance as calculated by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology's (SART) online calculator. Responses to a free-text question about what information women wished they had been given when they started treatment were analysed thematically. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Only about a quarter (58/217, 27%) of participants accurately estimated their chance of having a baby within 20% relative to their SART calculated chance, with more than half (118/217, 54%) overestimating their chance. Ninety percent of women indicated that their preferred source of treatment information was a consultation with their doctor, despite less than half (44%) reporting that doctors explained the probability of having a baby with IVF well (mean 5.9/10). In free-text responses, many women also reported that they wished they had been given more realistic information about IVF and their chance of success. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The dissemination method precludes calculation of response rate, and it is not possible to know if participants are representative of all women undergoing IVF. Additionally, we only surveyed women undergoing IVF, while those who decided not to have IVF were not included. Therefore, women who overestimated their chance may have been overrepresented. There is also inherent imprecision in the way understanding of chance of success was estimated. The potential impact of recall bias could neither be quantified nor excluded. It is difficult to determine to what extent women's lack of understanding of what is possible with IVF is due to poor information-provision by clinicians and the clinic, and how much can be explained by optimism bias. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The finding of poor understanding of personal chance of success amongst women undergoing IVF in Australia requires further investigation to determine potential reasons for this. The findings can be used by clinics to develop strategies for improvement in the information-provision process to ensure that women can make informed decisions about their fertility treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study received no external funding. S.L. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator Grant (APP1195189). R.W. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator Grant (APP2009767). B.W.M. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator Grant (GNT1176437). B.W.M. reports consultancy for Merck and ObsEva and has received research funding and travel funding from Merck. The other authors have no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Intra-patient analysis of individual weight gain or loss between IVF cycles: cycle now and transfer later.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the impact of clinically significant weight change on outcomes related to IVF cycle performance? SUMMARY ANSWER: While individual weight loss did not significantly impact ovarian response to stimulation or other cycle outcome parameters in our study, some positive associations were found for individual weight gain. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The role of weight-change in patients undergoing IVF has been largely studied by comparing weight loss in different cohorts of patients stratified by a static BMI. Specifically, obesity has been extensively studied in relation to its negative effects on assisted or unassisted conception outcomes and ovulatory function. Previous research has shown conflicting results, while BMI, which is commonly used as a marker of obesity, may not accurately reflect the underlying factors affecting fertility in obese patients. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This study utilized a retrospective within-patient repeated measurement analysis design to assess the impact of weight change on IVF outcomes in cycles where all embryos were cryopreserved at the blastocyst stage for transfer at a later date. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The study was conducted at an academically affiliated fertility center. The data included 961 women who underwent at least two IVF cycles between December 2014 and June 2020, with documented short-term weight gain (n = 607) or weight loss (n = 354) within 1 year from their initial IVF cycle. Multivariable generalized estimating equations (GEE) and generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) were employed to assess associations between weight change and outcomes across cycles. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The multivariable models indicated that weight loss did not show any significant associations with the numbers of oocytes retrieved, or mature oocytes, the fertilization rate or the blastulation rate. However, weight gain demonstrated a minor positive association with the number of oocytes retrieved in both GEE models (coefficient: 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00-0.01) and GLMM models (0.01, 95% CI: 0.01-0.00). There was also a potential increase in the fertilization rate with weight gain, as indicated by a positive coefficient in both GEE models (coefficient: 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00-0.02) and GLMM models (coefficient: 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00-0.01). However, the association between weight gain and the embryo blastulation rate was not statistically significant in any model. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study focused on cycle performance parameters instead of reproductive outcomes, which restricted our ability to evaluate the impact of weight change on cumulative live birth rates. Additionally, the study did not account for variables such as stimulation protocols, potentially introducing confounding factors and limiting the generalizability of the results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Although obesity is associated with adverse obstetrical risks, there is less evidence of adverse reproductive outcomes in IVF cycles. We therefore recommend that an IVF cycle should not be delayed due to weight, so that the patient is not adversely affected by increasing age. The IVF cycle should aim to freeze all embryos, so that embryo transfer can then occur after weight loss, so as to limit the recognized obstetrical risks. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was not funded and there were no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Pretreatment prediction for IVF outcomes: generalized applicable model or centre-specific model?

STUDY QUESTION: What was the performance of different pretreatment prediction models for IVF, which were developed based on UK/US population (McLernon 2016 model, Luke model, Dhillon model, and McLernon 2022 model), in wider populations? SUMMARY ANSWER: For a patient in China, the published pretreatment prediction models based on the UK/US population provide similar discriminatory power with reasonable AUCs and underestimated predictions. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Several pretreatment prediction models for IVF allow patients and clinicians to estimate the cumulative probability of live birth in a cycle before the treatment, but they are mostly based on the population of Europe or the USA, and their performance and applicability in the countries and regions beyond these regions are largely unknown. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A total of 26 382 Chinese patients underwent oocyte pick-up cycles between January 2013 and December 2020. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: UK/US model performance was externally validated according to the coefficients and intercepts they provided. Centre-specific models were established with XGboost, Lasso, and generalized linear model algorithms. Discriminatory power and calibration of the models were compared as the forms of the AUC of the Receiver Operator Characteristic and calibration curves. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The AUCs for McLernon 2016 model, Luke model, Dhillon model, and McLernon 2022 model were 0.69 (95% CI 0.68-0.69), 0.67 (95% CI 0.67-0.68), 0.69 (95% CI 0.68-0.69), and 0.67 (95% CI 0.67-0.68), respectively. The centre-specific yielded an AUC of 0.71 (95% CI 0.71-0.72) with key predictors including age, duration of infertility, and endocrine parameters. All external models suggested underestimation. Among the external models, the rescaled McLernon 2022 model demonstrated the best calibration (Slope 1.12, intercept 0.06). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study is limited by its single-centre design and may not be representative elsewhere. Only per-complete cycle validation was carried out to provide a similar framework to compare different models in the sample population. Newer predictors, such as AMH, were not used. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Existing pretreatment prediction models for IVF may be used to provide useful discriminatory power in populations different from those on which they were developed. However, models based on newer more relevant datasets may provide better calibrations. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 22176159], the Xiamen Medical Advantage Subspecialty Construction Project [grant number 2018296], and the Special Fund for Clinical and Scientific Research of Chinese Medical Association [grant number 18010360765]. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Applying a simplified economic evaluation approach to evaluate infertility treatments in clinical practice.

IVF is the backbone of infertility treatment, but due to its costs, it is not affordable for everyone. The cost of IVF is further escalated by interventions added to the routine treatment, which are claimed to boost pregnancy rates, so-called add-ons. Consequently, it is critical to offset the increased costs of an intervention against a potentially higher benefit. Here, we propose using a simplified framework considering the cost of a standard IVF procedure to create one live-born baby as a benchmark for the cost-effectiveness of other fertility treatments, add-ons inclusive. This framework is a simplified approach to a formal economic evaluation, enabling a rapid assessment of cost effectiveness in clinical settings. For a 30-year-old woman, assuming a 44.6% cumulative live birth rate and a cost of $12 000 per complete cycle, the cost to create one live-born baby would be ∼$27 000 (i.e. willingness to pay). Under this concept, the decision whether to accept or reject a new treatment depends from an economic perspective on the incremental cost per additional live birth from the new treatment/add-on, with the $27 000 per live-born baby as a reference threshold. This threshold can vary with women's age, and other factors such as the economic perspective and risk of side effects can play a role. If a new add-on or treatment costs >$27 000 per live birth, it might be more rational to invest in a new IVF cycle rather than spending on the add-on. With the increasing number of novel technologies in IVF and the lack of a rapid approach to evaluate their cost-effectiveness, this simplified framework will help with a more objective assessment of the cost-effectiveness of infertility treatments, including add-ons.

ESHRE guideline: number of embryos to transfer during IVF/ICSI†.

STUDY QUESTION: Which clinical and embryological factors should be considered to apply double embryo transfer (DET) instead of elective single embryo transfer (eSET)? SUMMARY ANSWER: No clinical or embryological factor per se justifies a recommendation of DET instead of eSET in IVF/ICSI. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: DET is correlated with a higher rate of multiple pregnancy, leading to a subsequent increase in complications for both mother and babies. These complications include preterm birth, low birthweight, and other perinatal adverse outcomes. To mitigate the risks associated with multiple pregnancy, eSET is recommended by international and national professional organizations as the preferred approach in ART. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development and update of ESHRE guidelines. Literature searches were performed in PUBMED/MEDLINE and Cochrane databases, and relevant papers published up to May 2023, written in English, were included. Live birth rate, cumulative live birth rate, and multiple pregnancy rate were considered as critical outcomes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were discussed until a consensus was reached within the Guideline Development Group (GDG). A stakeholder review was organized after the guideline draft was finalized. The final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The guideline provides 35 recommendations on the medical and non-medical risks associated with multiple pregnancies and on the clinical and embryological factors to be considered when deciding on the number of embryos to transfer. These recommendations include 25 evidence-based recommendations, of which 24 were formulated as strong recommendations and one as conditional, and 10 good practice points. Of the evidence-based recommendations, seven (28%) were supported by moderate-quality evidence. The remaining recommendations were supported by low (three recommendations; 12%), or very low-quality evidence (15 recommendations; 60%). Owing to the lack of evidence-based research, the guideline also clearly mentions recommendations for future studies. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The guideline assessed different factors one by one based on existing evidence. However, in real life, clinicians' decisions are based on several prognostic factors related to each patient's case. Furthermore, the evidence from randomized controlled trials is too scarce to formulate high-quality evidence-based recommendations. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The guideline provides health professionals with clear advice on best practice in the decision-making process during IVF/ICSI, based on the best evidence currently available, and recommendations on relevant information that should be communicated to patients. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in the field. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, the literature searches, and the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. DPB declared receiving honoraria for lectures from Merck, Ferring, and Gedeon Richter. She is a member of ESHRE EXCO, and the Mediterranean Society for reproductive medicine and the president of the Croatian Society for Gynaecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine. CDG is the past Chair of the ESHRE EIM Consortium and a paid deputy member of the Editorial board of Human Reproduction. IR declared receiving reimbursement from ESHRE and EDCD for attending meetings. She holds an unpaid leadership role in OBBCSSR, ECDC Sohonet, and AER. KAR-W declared receiving grants for clinical researchers and funding provision to the institution from the Swedish Cancer Society (200170F), the Senior Clinical Investigator Award, Radiumhemmets Forskningsfonder (Dnr: 201313), Stockholm County Council FoU (FoUI-953912) and Karolinska Institutet (Dnr 2020-01963), NovoNordisk, Merck and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. She received consulting fees from the Swedish Ministry of Health and Welfare. She received honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, and Organon for chairmanship and lectures. She received support from Organon for attending meetings. She participated in advisory boards for Merck, Nordic countries, and Ferring. She declared receiving time-lapse equipment and grants with payment to institution for pre-clinical research from Merck pharmaceuticals and from Ferring. SS-R received research funding from Roche Diagnostics, Organon/MSD, Theramex, and Gedeo-Richter. He received consulting fees from Organon/MSD, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Merck Serono. He declared receiving honoraria for lectures from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Besins, Organon/MSD, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter. He received support for attending Gedeon Richter meetings and participated in the Data Safety Monitoring Board of the T-TRANSPORT trial. He is the Deputy of ESHRE SQART special interest group. He holds stock options in IVI Lisboa and received equipment and other services from Roche Diagnostics and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. KT declared receiving payment for honoraria for giving lectures from Merck Serono and Organon. She is member of the safety advisory board of EDQM. She holds a leadership role in the ICCBBA board of directors. ZV received reimbursement from ESHRE for attending meetings. She also received research grants from ESHRE and Juhani Aaltonen Foundation. She is the coordinator of EHSRE SQART special interest group. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. DISCLAIMER: This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose (full disclaimer available at https://www.eshre.eu/Guidelines-and-Legal).

Effect of prematurely elevated late follicular progesterone on pregnancy outcomes following ovarian stimulation-intrauterine insemination for unexplained infertility: secondary analysis of the AMIGOS trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the relationship between late follicular phase progesterone levels and clinic pregnancy and live birth rates in couples with unexplained infertility undergoing ovarian stimulation with IUI (OS-IUI)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Late follicular progesterone levels between 1.0 and <1.5 ng/ml were associated with higher live birth and clinical pregnancy rates while the outcomes in groups with higher progesterone levels did not differ appreciably from the <1.0 ng/ml reference group. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Elevated late follicular progesterone levels have been associated with lower live birth rates after fresh embryo transfer following controlled ovarian stimulation and egg retrieval, but less is known about whether an association exists with outcomes in OS-IUI cycles. Existing studies are few and have been limited to ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophins, but the use of oral agents, such as clomiphene citrate and letrozole, is common with these treatments and has not been well studied. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The study was a prospective cohort analysis of the Assessment of Multiple Intrauterine Gestations from Ovarian Stimulation (AMIGOS) randomized controlled trial. Frozen serum was available for evaluation from 2121 cycles in 828 AMIGOS participants. The primary pregnancy outcome was live birth per cycle, and the secondary pregnancy outcome was clinical pregnancy rate per cycle. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Couples with unexplained infertility in the AMIGOS trial, for whom female serum from day of trigger with hCG was available in at least one cycle of treatment, were included. Stored frozen serum samples from day of hCG trigger during treatment with OS-IUI were evaluated for serum progesterone level. Progesterone level <1.0 ng/ml was the reference group for comparison with progesterone categorized in increments of 0.5 ng/ml up to ≥3.0 ng/ml. Unadjusted and adjusted risk ratios (RR) and 95% CI were estimated using cluster-weighted generalized estimating equations to estimate modified Poisson regression models with robust standard errors. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Compared to the reference group with 110/1363 live births (8.07%), live birth rates were significantly increased in cycles with progesterone 1.0 to <1.5 ng/ml (49/401 live births, 12.22%) in both the unadjusted (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.14, 2.13) and treatment-adjusted models (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.10, 2.06). Clinical pregnancy rates were also higher in this group (55/401 clinical pregnancies, 13.72%) compared to reference group with 130/1363 (9.54%) (unadjusted RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.10, 1.94 and adjusted RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.07, 1.89). In cycles with progesterone 1.5 ng/ml and above, there was no evidence of a difference in clinical pregnancy or live birth rates relative to the reference group. This pattern remained when stratified by ovarian stimulation treatment group but was only statistically significant in letrozole cycles. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The AMIGOS trial was not designed to answer this clinical question, and with small numbers in some progesterone categories our analyses were underpowered to detect differences between some groups. Inclusion of cycles with progesterone values above 3.0 ng/ml may have included those wherein ovulation had already occurred at the time the IUI was performed. These cycles would be expected to experience a lower success rate but pregnancy may have occurred with intercourse in the same cycle. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Compared to previous literature focusing primarily on OS-IUI cycles using gonadotrophins, these data include patients using oral agents and therefore may be generalizable to the wider population of infertility patients undergoing IUI treatments. Because live births were significantly higher when progesterone ranged from 1.0 to <1.5 ng/ml, further study is needed to clarify whether this progesterone range may truly represent a prognostic indicator in OS-IUI cycles. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Oklahoma Shared Clinical and Translational Resources (U54GM104938) National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS). AMIGOS was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development: U10 HD077680, U10 HD39005, U10 HD38992, U10 HD27049, U10 HD38998, U10 HD055942, HD055944, U10 HD055936, and U10HD055925. Research made possible by the funding by American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Dr Burks has disclosed that she is a member of the Board of Directors of the Pacific Coast Reproductive Society. Dr Hansen has disclosed that he is the recipient of NIH grants unrelated to the present work, and contracts with Ferring International Pharmascience Center US and with May Health unrelated to the present work, as well as consulting fees with May Health also unrelated to the present work. Dr Diamond has disclosed that he is a stockholder and a member of the Board of Directors of Advanced Reproductive Care, Inc., and that he has a patent pending for the administration of progesterone to trigger ovulation. Dr Anderson, Dr Gavrizi, and Dr Peck do not have conflicts of interest to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Vitrification preservation of good-quality blastocysts for more than 5 years reduces implantation and live birth rates.

STUDY QUESTION: Does vitrification cryopreservation of embryos for more than 5 years affect the pregnancy outcomes after frozen embryo transfer (FET)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Vitrification cryopreservation of good-quality blastocysts for more than 5 years is associated with a decrease in the implantation rate (IR) and live birth rate (LBR). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Previous studies have predominantly focused on embryos cryopreserved for relatively short durations (less than 5 years), yet the impact of extended cryopreservation duration on pregnancy outcomes remains a controversial issue. There is a relative scarcity of data regarding the efficacy and safety of storing embryos for 5 years or longer. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This retrospective study involved 36 665 eligible vitrified-thawed embryo transfer cycles from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2022, at a single fertility center in China. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Patients were divided into three groups according to embryo storage time: Group 1 consisted of 31 565 cycles, with storage time of 0-2 years; Group 2 consisted of 4458 cycles, with a storage time of 2-5 years; and Group 3 included 642 cycles, with storage time exceeding 5 years. The main outcome measures were IR and LBR. Secondary outcome variables included rates of biochemical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, and miscarriage, as well as neonatal outcomes. Reproductive outcomes were analyzed as binary variables. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to explore the effect of preservation time on pregnancy outcomes after correcting for confounding factors. In addition, we also assessed neonatal outcomes, such as large for gestational age (LGA) and small for gestational age (SGA). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: IRs in the three groups (0-2, 2-5, and >5 years) were 37.37%, 39.03%, and 35.78%, respectively (P = 0.017), and LBRs in the three groups were 37.29%, 39.09%, and 34.91%, respectively (P = 0.028). After adjustment for potential confounding factors, compared with the 0-2 years storage group, prolonged embryo vitrification preservation time (2-5 years or >5 years) did not affect secondary outcomes such as rates of biochemical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, and miscarriage (P > 0.05). But cryopreservation of embryos for more than 5 years reduced the IR (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.69-0.97, P = 0.020) and LBR (aOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.91, P = 0.002). Multivariate stratified analysis also showed that prolonging the cryopreservation time of blastocysts (>5 years) reduced the IR (aOR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.98, P = 0.033) and LBR (aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53-0.87, P = 0.002). However, no effect on cleavage embryos was observed (P > 0.05). We further conducted stratified analyses based on the number and quality of frozen blastocysts transferred, and the results showed that the FET results after transfers of good-quality blastocysts in the >5 years storage group were negatively affected. However, the storage time of non-good-quality blastocysts was not significantly associated with pregnancy outcomes. Regarding the neonatal outcomes (of singletons), embryo vitrification preservation time had no effect on preterm birth rates, fetal birth weight, or neonatal sex ratios. However, as the storage time increased, rates of SGA (5.60%, 4.10%, and 1.18%) decreased, while rates of LGA (5.22%, 6.75%, and 9.47%) increased (P < 0.05). After adjusting for confounding factors, the increase in LGA and the decrease in SGA were significantly correlated with the duration of storage time. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This was a retrospective study using data from a single fertility center, even though the data had been adjusted, our findings still need to be validated in further studies. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: With the full implementation of the two-child policy in China, there may be more patients whose embryos have been frozen for a longer time in the future. Patients should be aware that the IR and LBR of blastocysts are negatively affected when the cryopreservation time is longer than 5 years. Couples may therefore consider shortening the time until FET treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (No. 82101672), Science and Technology Projects in Guangzhou (No. 2024A03J0180), General Guidance Program for Western Medicine of Guangzhou Municipal Health Commission (No. 20231A011096), and the Medical Key Discipline of Guangzhou (2021-2023). None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Abnormal cleavage up to Day 3 does not compromise live birth and neonatal outcomes of embryos that have achieved full blastulation: a retrospective cohort study.

STUDY QUESTION: Do embryos displaying abnormal cleavage (ABNCL) up to Day 3 have compromised live birth rates and neonatal outcomes if full blastulation has been achieved prior to transfer? SUMMARY ANSWER: ABNCL is associated with reduced full blastulation rates but does not impact live birth rates and neonatal outcomes once full blastulation has been achieved. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY?: It is widely accepted that ABNCL is associated with reduced implantation rates of embryos when transferred at the cleavage stage. However, evidence is scarce in the literature reporting birth outcomes from blastocysts arising from ABNCL embryos, likely because they are ranked low priority for transfer. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This retrospective cohort study included 1562 consecutive autologous in vitro fertilization cycles (maternal age 35.1 ± 4.7 years) performed at Fertility North, Australia between January 2017 and June 2022. Fresh transfers were performed on Day 3 or 5, with remaining embryos cultured up to Day 6 before vitrification. A total of 6019 embryos were subject to blastocyst culture, and a subset of 664 resulting frozen blastocysts was included for live birth and neonatal outcome analyses following single transfers. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: ABNCL events were annotated from the first mitotic division up to Day 3, including direct cleavage (DC), reverse cleavage (RC) and <6 intercellular contact points at the 4-cell stage (<6ICCP). For DC and RC in combination, the ratios of affected blastomeres over the total number of all blastomeres up to Day 3 were also recorded. All pregnancies were followed up until birth with gestational age, birthweight, and sex of the baby being recorded. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Full blastulation rates for embryos showing DC (19.5%), RC (41.7%), <6ICCP (58.8%), and mixed (≥2) ABNCL types (26.4%) were lower than the rates for those without ABNCL (67.2%, P < 0.01 respectively). Subgroup analysis showed declining full blastulation rates with increasing ratios of combined DC/RC affected blastomeres over all blastomeres up to the 8-cell stage (66.2% when 0 affected, 47.0% when 0.25 affected, 27.4% when 0.5 affected, 14.5% when 0.75 affected, and 7.7% when all affected, P < 0.01). However, once full blastulation had been achieved, no difference was detected between DC, RC, <6ICCP, and no ABNCL blastocysts following single frozen transfers in subsequent live birth rates (25.9%, 33.0%, 36.0% versus 30.8%, P > 0.05, respectively), gestational age (38.7 ± 1.6, 38.5 ± 1.2, 38.3 ± 3.5 versus 38.5 ± 1.8 weeks, P > 0.05, respectively) and birthweight (3343.0 ± 649.1, 3378.2 ± 538.4, 3352.6 ± 841.3 versus 3313.9 ± 509.6 g, P > 0.05, respectively). Multiple regression (logistic or linear as appropriate) confirmed no differences in all of the above measures after accounting for potential confounders. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our study is limited by its retrospective nature, making it impossible to control every known or unknown confounder. Embryos in our dataset, being surplus after selection for fresh transfer, may not represent the general embryo population. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our findings highlight the incremental impact of ABNCL, depending on the ratio of affected blastomeres up to Day 3, on subsequent full blastulation. The reassuring live birth and neonatal outcomes of ABNCL blastocysts imply a potential self-correction mechanism among those embryos reaching the blastocyst stage, which provides valuable guidance for clinical practice and patient counseling. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETTING INTEREST(S): This research is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship. All authors report no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Natural proliferative phase frozen embryo transfer-a new approach which may facilitate scheduling without hindering pregnancy outcomes.

STUDY QUESTION: How does a natural proliferative phase (NPP) strategy for frozen embryo transfer (FET) compare with the conventional artificial (AC) and natural (NC) endometrial preparation protocols in terms of live birth rates (LBR)? SUMMARY ANSWER: This study supports the hypothesis that, just as for NC, NPP-FET may be a superior alternative to AC in terms of LBR. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Although FETs are increasing worldwide, the optimal FET protocol is still largely controversial. Despite recent evidence supporting a possibly higher efficacy and safety of NC FETs, their widespread use is limited by the difficulties encountered during cycle monitoring and scheduling. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: In this single center retrospective cohort study, we describe the NPP-FET protocol, in which vaginal progesterone is initiated during the proliferative phase as soon as an endometrium with a thickness of at least 7 mm is identified and ovulation is ruled out, regardless of mean diameter of the dominant follicle. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: For comparison, we considered all blastocyst stage FET cycles preformed at a private infertility center between January 2010 and June 2022, subdivided according to the following subgroups of endometrial preparation: AC, NPP, and NC. We performed multivariable generalized estimating equations regression analysis to account for the following potential confounding variables: oocyte age at retrieval, oocyte source (autologous without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A) versus autologous with PGT-A versus donated), number of oocytes retrieved/donated, embryo developmental stage (Day 5 versus Day 6), number of embryos transferred, quality of the best embryo transferred, and year of treatment. The main outcome measure was LBR. The secondary outcomes included hCG positive, clinical pregnancy and miscarriage rates, and the following perinatal outcomes: first trimester bleeding, second/third trimester bleeding, preterm rupture of membranes, gestational diabetes, gestational hypertensive disorders (GHD), and gestational age at delivery. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 5791 FET cycles were included in this analysis (2226 AC, 349 NPP, and 3216 NC). The LBR for FET was lower in the AC subgroup when compared to the NPP and NC (38.4%, 49.1%, and 45.2%, respectively; P < 0.01 AC versus NPP and AC versus NC). The rates of miscarriage were also lower in the NPP and NC subgroups when compared to AC (19.7%, 25.0%, and 34.9%, respectively; P < 0.01 NPP versus AC and NC versus AC). Considering perinatal outcomes, NPP-FET and NC were associated with a significantly lower first trimester bleeding compared to AC (17.3%, 14.7%, and 37.6%, respectively; P < 0.01 NPP versus AC and NC versus AC). Additionally, NC was associated with a lower rate of GHD when compared with AC (8.6% versus 14.5%, P < 0.01), while the rate following NPP-FET was 9.4%. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study is limited by its retrospective design. Moreover, there was also a low number of patients in the NPP subgroup, which may have led the study to be underpowered to detect clinically relevant differences between the subgroups. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our study posits that the NPP-FET protocol may be an effective and safe alternative to both NC and AC, while still allowing for enhanced practicality in patient follow-up and FET scheduling. Further investigation on NPP-FET is warranted, with prospective studies including a larger and more homogeneous subsets of patients. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was supported by the IVI-RMA-Lisbon (2008-LIS-053-CG). The authors did not receive any funding for this study. The authors have no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Does recurrent implantation failure exist? Prevalence and outcomes of five consecutive euploid blastocyst transfers in 123 987 patients.

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.

A history of recurrent pregnancy loss is associated with increased perinatal complications, but not necessarily a longer birth interval: a population study spanning 18 years.

STUDY QUESTION: Is there a difference in the time interval between the first and second live births among individuals with and without recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Primary RPL (two or more pregnancy losses before the first live birth) is associated with a shorter time interval between the first and second live births compared with individuals without RPL, but this association is reversed in patients with secondary RPL (RPL patients with no or one pregnancy loss before the first live birth). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: There is limited information regarding the ability to have more than one child for patients with RPL. Previous studies have investigated the time to live birth and the live birth rate from the initial presentation to clinical providers. Most of the previous studies have included only patients treated at specialized RPL clinics and thus may be limited by selection bias, including patients with a more severe condition. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of 184 241 participants who delivered in British Columbia, Canada, and had at least two recorded live births between 2000 and 2018. The aim was to study the differences in the time interval between the first and second live births and the prevalence of pregnancy complications in patients with and without RPL. Additionally, 198 319 individuals with their first live birth between 2000 and 2010 were studied to evaluate cumulative second live birth rates. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Among individuals with at least two recorded live births between 2000 and 2018, 12 321 patients with RPL and 171 920 participants without RPL were included. RPL was defined as at least two pregnancy losses before 20 weeks gestation. Patients with primary RPL had at least two pregnancy losses occurring before the first live birth, while patients with secondary RPL had no or one pregnancy loss before the first live birth. We compared the time interval from the first to second live birth in patients with primary RPL, those with secondary RPL, and participants without RPL using generalized additive models to allow for a non-linear relationship between maternal age and time interval between first and second live births. We also compared prevalence of pregnancy complications at the first and second live births between the groups using non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis H test and Fisher's exact test for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. We assessed the cumulative second live birth rates in patients with primary RPL and those without RPL, among participants who had their first live birth between 2000 and 2010. Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate and compare hazard ratios between the two groups using a stratified modelling approach. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The adjusted time interval between the first and second live births was the longest in patients with secondary RPL, followed by individuals without RPL, and the shortest time interval was observed in patients with primary RPL: 4.34 years (95% CI: 4.09-4.58), 3.20 years (95% CI: 3.00-3.40), and 3.05 years (95% CI: 2.79-3.32). A higher frequency of pregnancy losses was associated with an increased time interval between the first and second live births. The prevalence of pregnancy complications at the first and second live births, including gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, preterm birth, and multiple gestations was significantly higher in patients with primary RPL compared with those without RPL. The cumulative second live birth rate was significantly lower in patients with primary RPL compared with individuals without RPL. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study may be limited by its retrospective nature. Although we adjusted for multiple potential confounders, there may be residual confounding due to a lack of information about pregnancy intentions and other factors, including unreported pregnancy losses. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The results of this study provide information that will help clinicians in the counselling of RPL patients who desire a second child. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported in part by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR): Reference Number W11-179912. M.A.B. reports research grants from CIHR and Ferring Pharmaceutical. He is also on the advisory board for AbbVie, Pfizer, and Baxter. The other authors report no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04360564.