Effectivity of conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) when male factor is absent: a perspective point of view.

An objective and individualized approach of in vitro fertilization techniques tends to decrease costs and improve the experience of infertile couples during treatment. The use of available technologies to diagnose and treat infertility based on scientific evidence seems to be the best practice, which is the guideline that motivates this review on the available techniques for laboratory oocyte insemination. Conventional IVF, the pioneering technique, was initially used in the treatment of tubal obstruction infertility, successfully expanding the treatment of infertile couples presenting with several other factors. However, it was less effective in cases of severe male factor infertility. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection, which was developed in 1992, proved to be the method of choice for treating couples with severe male factor infertility. Since then, it has been increasingly used regardless of the infertility factor. This review discusses the effectiveness of conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) when the male factor is absent in all aspects, as technical and clinical outcomes, associated risks, adjustments for using with other technologies and costs. Finally we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each one, with all aspects reviewed.

Coronavirus disease 2019 and human reproduction: a changing perspective

Since the outbreak of severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the coronavirus disease 2019 has had a wide range of effects on human health. This paper summarizes the data related to the effects of the SARS-CoV-2 infection on human reproduction. Both the male and female reproductive tract express high levels of receptors and proteins needed for viral cell entry. There is presently no evidence that gametes are affected by the infection. Male fertility may be temporarily reduced due to inflammatory responses following infection. The endometrium is highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 cell entry; however, it remains unclear whether this could alter receptivity and embryo implantation. Menstrual cycle changes were reported in women who experienced severe infection; however, they tended to be reversible. For couples undergoing assisted reproduction treatment, the pandemic led to a significant psychological burden, with changes in lifestyle that could directly affect the success of the treatment. Human reproduction societies recommend screening all patients prior to cycle initiation and avoiding treatment of women with severe comorbidities until the pandemic is under control. Finally, for pregnant women, it is expected that the infection is more severe in women in the third trimester and in those with comorbidities. Those who are symptomatic for SARS-CoV-2 are more likely to have increased rates of prematurity and intrapartum fetal distress than those who are asymptomatic. Vertical transmission cannot be completely ruled out, but neonatal infection rates are low. Vaccination appears to be safe and is indicated for use in pregnant and lactating women because the benefits outweigh the risks.

A review of initial data on pregnancy during the COVID-19 outbreak: implications for assisted reproductive treatments.

The current outbreak of the novel 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) started in China in December 2019 and has since spread to several other countries. On March 25, 2020, a total of 375,498 cases had been confirmed globally with 2,201 cases in Brazil, showing the urgency of reacting to this international public health emergency. While in most cases, mild symptoms are observed, in some cases the infection leads to serious pulmonary disease. As a result, the possible consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak for pregnant women and its potential effects on the management of assisted reproductive treatments, demand attention. In this review, we summarize the latest research progress related to COVID-19 epidemiology and the reported data of pregnant women, and discuss the current evidence of COVID-19 infections during pregnancy and its potential consequences for assisted reproductive treatments. Reported data suggest that symptoms in pregnant women are similar to those in other people, and that there is no evidence for higher maternal or fetal risks. However, considering the initial data and lack of comprehensive knowledge on the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy, human reproduction societies have recommended postponing the embryo transfers and do not initiate new treatment cycles. New evidence must be considered carefully in order to adjust these recommendations accordingly at any time and to guide assisted reproductive treatments.

Should single embryo transfer be used in patients with any kind of infertility factor? Preliminary outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Multiple embryos have been transferred to compensate for low implantation rates, which in turn, increase the likelihood of multiple pregnancies. Despite the publication of clinical guidelines and a reduction in the number of embryos transferred, double embryo transfer still is the most common practice. There is no clear evidence of who should receive the single embryo transfer (SET), and it is more commonly indicated for patients of good prognosis. However, it is not clear how much the presence of other infertility factors can affect the SET prognosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate differences in clinical pregnancy rates (CPR) of frozen-thawed SET cycles for women presenting with different infertility factors. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study evaluating 305 frozen-thawed SET cycles performed in the last 10 years in a private IVF center. We included patients undergoing ovarian stimulation cycles, using ejaculated sperm and a frozen-thawed ET. Embryos were routinely vitrified and warmed up, and the blastocysts were transferred after endometrium preparation. The cycles were categorized according to the infertility factor classified by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies (SART) as anatomic female factor (n=55), endocrine female factor (n=26), endometriosis (n=37), male factor (n=60), ovarian insufficiency (n=26), unexplained (n=24), multiple factors (n=45) and other (n=32). CPR were compared between the groups and the multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate the association of each infertility factor and the CPR, adjusted for confounders. RESULTS: The women varied in age from 18 to 44 years (35.9±3.8), presented Body Mass Index of 22.4±3.1kg/m2, baseline serum FSH of 7.4±8.3 IU/ml, and had a mean of 11.0±8.4 MII oocytes recovered and 6.4±5.3 embryos cryopreserved. The CPR, according to infertility factors were: anatomic female factor (25.9%), endocrine female factor (30.8%), endometriosis (27.8%), male factor (20.7%), ovarian insufficiency (21.7%), unexplained (9.5%), multiple factors (17.1%) and other (20.7%). Multivariate analysis did not show significant association of infertility factors and CPR adjusted for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Patients presenting different infertility factors seem to have a satisfactory CPR for a SET cycle, except those with unexplained infertility. This is a preliminary outcome and the number of patients by category is small; in addition, the retrospective characteristics of the study are its limitations. Overall, our findings suggest that patients presenting any infertility factor, except unexplained infertility, are suitable to receive a SET with satisfactory outcomes.