First trimester pregnancy outcomes in a large IVF center from the Lombardy County (Italy) during the peak COVID-19 pandemic.

At the beginning of 2020, the Italian Lombardy region was hit by an "epidemic tsunami" which was, at that point in time, one of the worst pandemics ever. At that moment the effects of SARS-COV 2 were still unknown. To evaluate whether the pandemic has influenced ART (Assisted Reproduction Techniques) outcomes in an asymptomatic infertile population treated at one of the major COVID-19 epicentres during the weeks immediately preceding lockdown. All ART procedures performed during two time periods were compared: November 1st, 2018 to February 28th, 2019 (non-COVID-19 risk) and November 1st, 2019 to February 29th, 2020 (COVID-19 risk). In total 1749 fresh cycles (883 non-COVID-19 risk and 866 COVID-19 risk) and1166 embryos and 63 oocytes warming cycles (538 and 37 during non-COVID and 628 and 26 during COVID-19 risk, respectively) were analysed. Clinical pregnancies per cycle were not different: 370 (25.38%) in non-COVID versus 415 (27.30%) (p = 0.237) during COVID-19 risk. There were no differences in biochemical pregnancy rates 52 (3.57%) versus 38 (2.50%) (p = 0.089) nor in ectopic pregnancies 4 (1.08%) versus 3 (0.72%) (p = 0.594), spontaneous miscarriages 84 (22.70%) versus 103 (24.82%) p = 0.487, nor in intrauterine ongoing pregnancies 282 (76.22%) versus 309 (74.46%) p = 0.569. A multivariate analysis investigating differences in spontaneous miscarriage rate showed no differences between the two timeframes. Our results support no differences in asymptomatic infertile couples' ART outcomes between the pre COVID and COVID-19 periods in one of the earliest and most severe pandemic areas.

The human factor: does the operator performing the embryo transfer significantly impact the cycle outcome?

STUDY QUESTION: Is Ongoing Pregnancy Rate (OPR) operator-dependent, and can experience improve embryo transfer efficiency? SUMMARY ANSWER: OPR is influenced by the operators who perform the embryo transfer (ET), and experience does not assure proficiency for everyone. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: ET remains the critical step in assisted reproduction. Although many other factors such as embryo quality and uterine receptivity impact embryo implantation, the proper ET technique is clearly an operator-dependent variable and as such it should be objectively standardized. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Retrospective comparative analysis including all fresh ETs performed between January 1996 and December 2016 at the Humanitas Fertility Center after IVF-ICSI cycles. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: IVF/ICSI fresh ETs performed by 32 operators, 19 824 cycles in all, were analyzed. All transfers consisting of freehand insertion of a preloaded soft catheter into the uterine cavity under transabdominal ultrasound guidance were considered. Two different statistical analyses were performed. First, a logistic regression model with a random intercept for the operator was used to estimate the heterogeneity of the rate of success among operators, accounting for woman age, FSH, number of oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate, year of the procedure, number and stage of transferred embryos and operator's experience. Second, the relationship between experience and pregnancy rate was estimated separately for each operator by logistic regression, and operator-specific results were combined and compared in a random-effects meta-analysis. In both analyses, the operator's experience at time t was measured in terms of number of embryo transfers performed before t. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The heterogeneity among operators was highly significant (P value <0.001) and explained 44.5% of the total variability. The odds ratio of success of the worst operator in respect to the mean was equal to 0.84. For the best operator, the odds ratio of success was equal to 1.13 in respect to the mean. Based on the meta-analysis of the relationship between operator's experience and success rate, it resulted that, on average, the operators' performance did not improve with additional transfers. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: At our center, operators become independent for ET's after performing between 30 and 50 transfers under supervision. It is also possible that other relevant factors, such as embryologists on duty for the ET, have not been included in the present analysis and this may represent a potential bias. Among these, it should be mentioned that the embryologists on duty for the ET were not taken into consideration. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Continued performance analysis and the use of a digital simulator could help operators to test their expertise over time and either correct poor performance or avoid doing transfers. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): None. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03561129.

Impact of using different biomarkers of liver fibrosis on hepatologic referral of individuals with severe obesity and NAFLD.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to estimate how many individuals with severe obesity and NAFLD should be referred to hepatologists according to the EASL-EASD-EASO guidelines and whether the choice of specific indicators of liver fibrosis would significantly impact the number of referrals. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective study of 495 individuals with severe obesity screened at our institution between 2012 and 2018 for a bariatric surgery intervention. The guidelines were applied using the NAFLD Liver Fat Score (NLFS) to assess the presence of steatosis and the NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS), Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) and Hepamet Fibrosis Score (HFS) to assess the risk of advanced fibrosis. RESULTS: Three hundred and seventy-nine patients (76.6%) had evidence of liver steatosis. The application of the guidelines would lead to referral of 66.3% of patients using NFS, 31.7% using FIB-4 and 34.2% using HFS. When referrals due to abnormal liver function tests were excluded, these percentages dropped to 55.8%, 7.3% and 12.1%, respectively. The strongest inter-biomarker agreement was found between FIB-4 and HFS (κ = 0.86, 95% CI 0.815-0.910). CONCLUSION: Strict application of the guidelines in individuals with severe obesity would probably lead to over-referral, although a great variability exists among the different scores.