Clinical outcomes of vitrified-warmed autologous oocyte cycles with 15-year follow-up at a single UK centre: consistent and predictable results.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What were the clinical outcomes from 332 autologous vitrified- warmed oocyte cycles derived from 3182 elective autologous oocyte freeze cycles carried out between 2008 and 2022 in a single-centre series? DESIGN: In this retrospective observational study, outcomes in 299 patients returning to use their frozen oocytes between 2015 and 2023 were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 3328 elective oocyte vitrification cycles were performed in 2280 patients. The return rate to use oocytes was 14% (299/2171). Mean ages were 37.6 years at storage and 40 at warming. Ninety-three clinical pregnancies and 77 healthy live births were recorded. The live birth rate (LBR) was 24% (39/163) per fresh transfer and 17% (39/227) per embryo transferred. Stratified by age at freezing, the LBR per embryo transferred was 26% (12/47) in participants under 35 years, 20% (24/118) in those 35-39 years and 5% (3/62) in those 40+ years. Frozen embryo transfers (FET) achieved a 30% (24/80) LBR per embryo transfer and a 27% (24/90) LBR per embryo transferred. PGT-A for embryo selection doubled the LBR compared with FET from an untested embryo after one attempt (40% versus 21%). In patients aged over 40 years, the cumulative LBR reached 42% per patient in euploid FET. CONCLUSION: The proportion of patients who returned to use their stored oocytes and the clinical outcomes were consistent with other recent reports and challenges the prevalent critical narrative regarding elective oocyte freezing for fertility preservation. The results are now comparable to routine IVF. Not everyone who returns to use their oocytes will conceive, but for those choosing to preserve their fertility, oocyte freezing can provide reproducible and reassuring results.

Double vitrification and warming of blastocysts does not affect pregnancy, miscarriage or live birth rates.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does double blastocyst vitrification and warming affect pregnancy, miscarriage or live birth rates, or birth outcomes, from embryos that have undergone preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A) testing? DESIGN: This retrospective observational analysis of embryo transfers was performed at a single centre between January 2017 and August 2022. The double-vitrification group included frozen blastocysts that were vitrified after 5-7 days of culture, warmed, biopsied (either once or twice) and re-vitrified. The single vitrification (SV) group included fresh blastocysts that were biopsied at 5-7 days and then vitrified. RESULTS: A comparison of the 84 double-vitrification blastocysts and 729 control single-vitrification blastocysts indicated that the double-vitrification embryos were frozen later in development and had expanded more than the single-vitrification embryos. Of the 813 embryo transfer procedures reported, 452 resulted in the successful delivery of healthy infants (56%). There were no significant differences between double-vitrification and single-vitrification embryos in the pregnancy, miscarriage or live birth rates achieved after single-embryo transfer (55% versus 56%). Logistic regression indicated that while reduced live birth rates were associated with increasing maternal age at oocyte collection, longer culture prior to freezing and lower embryo quality, double vitrification was not a significant predictor of live birth rate. CONCLUSIONS: Blastocyst double vitrification was not shown to impact pregnancy, miscarriage or live birth rates. Although caution is necessary due to the study size, no effects of double vitrification on miscarriage rates, birthweight or gestation period were noted. These data offer reassurance given the absence of the influence of double vitrification on all outcomes after PGT-A.

First clinical report of 179 surrogacy cases in the UK: implications for policy and practice.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What implications for policy and practice can be derived from outcomes and trends observed across 8 years of a surrogacy programme in two UK-regulated IVF centres (London, Cardiff)? DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study analysing surrogacy treatments undertaken between 2014 and September 2021. RESULTS: Surrogacy continues to rise in popularity in the UK despite the inability of those supporting safe and professional practice to advertise to recruit surrogates. In two IVF centres regulated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), both the number of surrogacy treatments and the proportion of those undertaken on behalf of same-sex male intended parents increased year on year in the period studied. From a cohort of 108 surrogates, 71 babies were born to 61 surrogates (with five pregnancies ongoing) by February 2022. No statistically significant difference in live birth rates (LBR) was observed between the heterosexual couples and same-sex male couples. Sample sizes of single and transgender intended parents were too small (n < 5) to compare. The use of vitrified oocytes in surrogacy treatments has increased year on year, while fresh oocyte use has declined since peaking in 2019. There was no significant difference in LBR between fresh and vitrified oocyte usage across the cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The number of surrogacy treatments steadily increased, with clear evidence that the proportion of same-sex male couples accessing surrogacy is a major contributor to this growth. Vitrified/warmed oocyte use now outstrips the use of fresh oocytes in the surrogacy treatment cycles studied here. The results represent a strong basis for supporting the liberalization of regulatory reform expected to be introduced in the UK later in 2022.

Factors predicting clinical outcomes from 494 vitrified oocyte donation cycles at a UK-regulated egg bank.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Do donor age, AMH, AFC, BMI and reproductive history predict response to ovarian stimulation? Do donor and recipient clinical markers and embryology parameters predict recipient pregnancy and live birth? DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of 494 altruistic oocyte donors aged 18-35 years; 340 were matched to 559 recipients. Predictors of donor total oocyte yield and total mature oocyte yield were identified. Total and mature oocyte number were compared according to stratified donor AMH and age. Donor, recipient and embryology parameters predictive of recipient primary outcomes (clinical pregnancy and live birth) were identified. RESULTS: Donor age and AMH predicted total oocyte yield (P = 0.030 and P < 0.001)) and total mature oocyte yield (P = 0.011 and P < 0.001). Donors aged 30-35 years with AMH 15-29.9 pmol/l had lower total oocyte yield (P = 0.004) and mature oocyte yield (P < 0.001) than donors aged 18-24 years. Up to an AMH threshold of 39.9 pmol/l, increasing AMH levels predicted higher total oocyte yield (<15 pmol/l versus 15-29.9 pmol/l, P = 0.001; 15-29.9 pmol/l versus 30-39.9 pmol/l, P < 0.001; 30-39.9pmol/l versus ≥ 40 pmol/l, P = 1.0) and mature oocyte yield (<15 pmol/l versus 15-29.9 pmol/l, P = 0.005; 15-29.9 pmol/l versus 30-39.9 pmol/l, P = 0.006; 30-39.9 pmol/l versus ≥40 pmol/l, P = 1.0). In recipients, the rate of transferrable embryos per oocytes received, fertilized and number of embryo transfers needed to achieve the primary outcome were predictors of cumulative clinical pregnancy (P = 0.011, P = 0.017 and P < 0.001) and live birth (P = 0.008, P = 0.012 and P < 0.001) rates. Recipient BMI (P = 0.024) and previous miscarriages (P = 0.045) were predictors of cumulative live birth rate. Donor age 18-22 years was associated with a lower incidence of recipient clinical pregnancy (P = 0.004) and live birth (P = 0.001) after the first embryo transfer versus donor age 23-29 years. CONCLUSIONS: Donor age and AMH are independent predictors of oocyte yield. Raised recipient BMI and history of miscarriages reduce cumulative live birth rates, which may be increased by selecting donors aged 23-29 years, instead of younger donors.

Cumulative live birth rates following insemination with donor spermatozoa in single women, same-sex couples and heterosexual patients.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the cumulative live birth rate (LBR) following donor intrauterine insemination (IUI-D) treatment in a large, retrospective, single-centre cohort of single women, same-sex couples and heterosexual patients? DESIGN: Outcomes from 8922 treatments performed in 3333 consecutive women (45% single, 43% from same-sex and 12% from heterosexual couples) were analysed in a 13-year retrospective study from a private, HFEA-regulated UK centre between January 2004 and December 2016. RESULTS: A total of 795 live births resulted in an overall delivery rate of 8.9% per cycle, including 24 (3%) twins. Age-specific crude and expected cumulative LBR calculated in four age groups (<35, 35-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years) were 29, 23, 21, 12% and 66, 49, 54, 28%, respectively. A plateau was reached after six cycles, beyond which there were few additional live births. There was no significant difference in cumulative LBR between single women and same-sex couples. In a multivariate analysis, female age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.93; P < 0.0001), previous live birth following IUI-D (aOR 2.15; 95% CI 1.69-2.73; P < 0.0001) and mild stimulation (aOR 1.27; 95% CI 1.09-1.48; P = 0.02) had a significant effect on outcome, but relationship status or cycle rank did not. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate there is little benefit performing more than six cycles of IUI-D in all women up to 40 years old, including those from same-sex relationships, while only three attempts seem reasonable in those aged 40-42 years. These results do not reflect current clinical guidelines in the UK. The authors found that consecutive IUI cycles, especially with mild stimulation, were an efficient treatment in all indications.