Intrauterine Insemination After Human Chorionic Gonadotropin Trigger or Luteinizing Hormone Surge: A Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the odds of pregnancy after intrauterine insemination (IUI) timed by ultrasound monitoring and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration compared with monitoring luteinizing hormone (LH) levels. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE (Elsevier), Scopus (Elsevier), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), ClinicalTrials.gov (National Institutes of Health), and the Cochrane Library (Wiley) from the inception until October 1, 2022. No language limitations were applied. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: After deduplication, 3,607 unique citations were subjected to blinded independent review by three investigators. Thirteen studies (five retrospective cohort, four cross-sectional, two randomized controlled trials, and two randomized crossover studies) that enrolled women undergoing natural cycle, oral medication (clomid or letrozole), or both for IUI were included in the final random-effects model meta-analysis. Methodologic quality of included studies was assessed with the Downs and Black checklist. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Data extraction was compiled by two authors, including publication information, hCG and LH monitoring guidelines, and pregnancy outcomes. No significant difference in odds of pregnancy between hCG administration and endogenous LH monitoring was observed (odds ratio [OR] 0.92, 95% CI 0.69-1.22, P =.53). Subgroup analysis of the five studies that included natural cycle IUI outcomes also showed no significant difference in odds of pregnancy between the two methods (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.46-1.69, P =.61). Finally, a subgroup analysis of 10 studies that included women who underwent ovarian stimulation with oral medications (clomid or letrozole) did not demonstrate a difference in odds of pregnancy between ultrasonography with hCG trigger and LH-timed IUI (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66-1.16, P =.32). Statistically significant heterogeneity was noted between studies. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis showed no difference between pregnancy outcomes between at-home LH monitoring and timed IUI. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42021230520.

A Geospatial Analysis of Disparities in Access to Oncofertility Services.

Importance: Fertility preservation (FP), including oocyte and embryo cryopreservation prior to gonadotoxic therapy, is an urgent and essential component of comprehensive cancer care. Geographic proximity to a center offering FP is a critical component of ensuring equitable access for people with cancer desiring future fertility. Objective: To characterize the distribution of centers offering FP services in the US, quantify the number of self-identified reproductive-age female individuals living outside of geographically accessible areas, and investigate the association between geographic access and state FP mandates. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis calculated 2-hour travel time isochrone maps for each center based on latitude and longitude coordinates. Population-based geospatial analysis in the US was used in this study. Fertility clinics identified through the 2018 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Fertility Clinic Success Rates Report were defined as oncofertility centers by meeting 4 criteria: (1) offered oocyte and embryo cryopreservation, (2) performed at least 1 FP cycle in 2018, (3) served people without partners, and (4) had an accredited laboratory. County-level data were obtained from the 2020 US Census, with the primary at-risk population identified as reproductive-age female individuals aged 15 years to 44 years. The analysis was performed from 2021 to 2022. Exposures: Location outside of 2-hour travel time isochrone of an oncofertility center. Main Outcomes and Measures: Oncofertility centers were compared with centers not meeting criteria and were classified by US region, state FP mandate status, number of assisted reproductive technology cycles performed, and number of FP cycles performed. The number and percentage of at-risk patients, defined as those living outside of accessible service areas by state, were identified. Results: Among 456 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-reporting fertility clinics, 86 (18.9%) did not meet the criteria as an oncofertility center. A total of 3.63 million (5.70%) reproductive-age female individuals lack geographic access to an oncofertility center. States with FP mandates have the highest rates of eligible female patients with geographic access (98.54%), while states without active or pending legislation have the lowest rates (79.57%). The greatest disparities in geographic access to care are most concentrated in the Mountain West and West North Central regions. Conclusions and Relevance: Patients face numerous barriers to comprehensive cancer care, including a lack of geographic access to centers capable of offering FP services. This cross-sectional study identified disparities in geographic access and potential opportunities for strategic expansion.

Fertility Preservation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Modified But Uncompromised.

Purpose: Throughout COVID-19, our clinic remained operational for patients requiring urgent fertility preservation (FP). This study aimed to characterize changes to clinical protocols during the first wave of COVID-19 and compare outcomes to historical controls. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study at a university fertility center examining all patients who underwent medically indicated FP cycles during the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) COVID-19 Task Force-recommended suspension of fertility treatment (March 17-May 11, 2020) and patients from the same time period in 2019. FP care was modified for safety during the first wave of COVID-19 with fewer monitoring visits and infection control measures. FP cycle characteristics and outcomes were compared across years. Results: The volume of cycles was nearly 30% higher in 2020 versus 2019 (27 vs. 19). Diagnoses, age, and anti-Mullerian hormone were similar between cohorts. More patients elected to pursue embryo cryopreservation over oocyte cryopreservation in 2020 versus 2019 (45.8% vs. 5.2%, p < 0.005). Patients managed during COVID-19 had fewer monitoring visits (5 ± 1 vs. 6 ± 1, p = 0.02), and 37.5% of cycles utilized a blind trigger injection. There was no difference in total days of ovarian stimulation (11 ± 1 vs. 11 ± 2, p > 0.05), but 2020 cycles utilized more gonadotropin (4770 ± 1480 vs. 3846 ± 1438, p = 0.04). There was no difference in total oocytes retrieved (19 ± 14 vs. 22 ± 12, p > 0.05) or mature oocytes vitrified (15 ± 12 vs. 17 ± 9, p > 0.05) per cycle. Conclusions: FP continued during COVID-19, and more cycles were completed in 2020 versus 2019. Despite minimized monitoring, outcomes were optimal and equivalent to historical controls, suggesting FP care can be adapted without compromising outcomes.