Oocyte rescue in-vitro maturation does not adversely affect chromosome segregation during the first meiotic division.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does rescue in-vitro maturation (IVM) in the presence or absence of cumulus cells, affect the progress of meiosis I, compared with oocytes that mature in vivo? DESIGN: This prospective study was conducted in a university-affiliated fertility centre. Ninety-five young oocyte donors (mean age 25.57 ± 4.47) with a normal karyotype and no known fertility problems were included. A total of 390 oocytes (116 mature metaphase II [MII] and 274 immature oocytes) were analysed. The immature oocytes underwent rescue IVM in the presence of cumulus cells (CC; IVM+CC; n = 137) or without them (IVM-CC; n = 137), and IVM rate was calculated. Chromosome copy number analysis using next-generation sequencing (NGS) was performed on all rescue IVM oocytes reaching MII as well as those that were mature at the time of initial denudation (in-vivo-matured oocytes [IVO]). RESULTS: Maturation rates were similar in IVM+CC and IVM-CC oocytes (62.8 versus 71.5%, P = 0.16). Conclusive cytogenetic results were obtained from 65 MII oocytes from the IVM+CC group, 87 from the IVM-CC group, and 99 from the IVO group. Oocyte euploidy rates for the three groups were similar, at 75.4%, 83.9% and 80.8%, respectively (P = 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that culture of germinal vesicle and metaphase I oocytes in the presence of cumulus cells does not improve rates of IVM. In general, the process of rescue IVM does not appear to alter the frequency of oocytes with a normal chromosome copy number.

Progestin primed ovarian stimulation using dydrogesterone from day 7 of the cycle onwards in oocyte donation cycles: a longitudinal study.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does a progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol with dydrogesterone from cycle day 7 yield similar outcomes compared with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol in the same oocyte donors? DESIGN: This retrospective longitudinal study included 128 cycles from 64 oocyte donors. All oocyte donors had the same type of gonadotrophin and daily dose in both stimulation cycles. The primary outcome was the number of cumulus-oocyte complexes (COC) retrieved. RESULTS: The number of COC retrieved (mean ± SD 19.7 ± 10.8 versus 19.2 ± 8.3; P = 0.5) and the number of metaphase II oocytes (15.5 ± 8.4 versus 16.2 ± 7.0; P = 0.19) were similar for the PPOS and GnRH antagonist protocols, respectively. The duration of stimulation (10.5 ± 1.5 days versus 10.8 ± 1.5 days; P = 0.14) and consumption of gonadotrophins (2271.9 ± 429.7 IU versus 2321.5 ± 403.4 IU; P = 0.2) were also comparable, without any cases of premature ovulation. Nevertheless, there was a significant difference in the total cost of medication per cycle: €898.3 ± 169.9 for the PPOS protocol versus €1196.4 ± 207.5 (P < 0.001) for the GnRH antagonist protocol. CONCLUSION: The number of oocytes retrieved and number of metaphase II oocytes were comparable in both stimulation protocols, with the advantage of significant cost reduction in favour of the PPOS protocol compared with the GnRH antagonist protocol. No cases of premature ovulation were observed, even when progestin was started later in the stimulation.

The effect of donor and recipient race on outcomes of assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: A growing literature suggests that minority races, particularly Black women, have a lower probability of live birth and higher risk of perinatal complications after autologous assisted reproductive technology. However, questions still remain as to whether these racial disparities have arisen because of associations between race and oocyte/embryo quality, the uterine environment, or a combination of the two. Oocyte donation assisted reproductive technology represents a unique approach to examine this question. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the associations between the race of female oocyte donors and recipients and live birth rates following vitrified donor oocyte assisted reproductive technologies. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective study conducted at a single, private fertility clinic that included 327 oocyte donors and 899 recipients who underwent 1601 embryo transfer cycles (2008-2015). Self-reported race of the donor and recipient were abstracted from medical records. Live birth was defined as the delivery of at least 1 live-born neonate. We used multivariable cluster weighted generalized estimating equations with binomial distribution and log link function to estimate the adjusted risk ratios of live birth, adjusting for donor age and body mass index, recipient age and body mass index, tubal and uterine factor infertility, and year of oocyte retrieval. RESULTS: The racial profile of our donors and recipients were similar: 73% white, 13% Black, 4% Hispanic, 8% Asian, and 2% other. Women who received oocytes from Hispanic donors had a significantly higher probability of live birth (adjusted risk ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.36) than women who received oocytes from white donors. Among Hispanic recipients, however, there was no significant difference in probability of live birth compared with white recipients (adjusted risk ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.26). Embryo transfer cycles using oocytes from Black donors (adjusted risk ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.03) and Black recipients (adjusted risk ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.99) had a lower probability of live birth than white donors and white recipients, respectively. There were no significant differences in the probability of live birth among Hispanic, Asian, and other race recipients compared with white recipients. CONCLUSION: Black female recipients had a lower probability of live birth following assisted reproductive technology, even when using vitrified oocytes from healthy donors. Female recipients who used vitrified oocytes from Hispanic donors had a higher probability of live birth regardless of their own race.

When using donor oocytes, does embryo stage matter? An analysis of blastocyst versus cleavage stage embryo transfers using a cryopreserved donor oocyte bank.

PURPOSE: Oocyte donor in vitro fertilization (IVF) represents an ideal model to study the effects of embryo stage on reproductive success, as embryos come from young women with high-quality oocytes. Our study aimed to determine if embryo transfer stage affected outcomes in oocyte donor IVF, including the common scenario where only a limited number of quality embryos are available after culture. METHODS: This retrospective cohort analyzed anonymous vitrified donor oocyte cycles at a single clinic between 2008 and 2015. Overall, 983 recipients underwent 1178 warming cycles resulting in fresh transfer of one-to-two embryos. Our primary outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included multiple birth, birthweight, and gestational age. Log binomial regression with cluster-weighted generalized estimating equations were used to calculate adjusted risk ratios (aRR) accounting for recipient age, race, and transfer year. RESULTS: Among 132 cleavage and 1046 blastocyst transfer cycles, cleavage transfers were associated with lower probability of live birth (aRR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.88). Subgroup analysis focused on cycles with a limited number of quality embryos 3 days post-fertilization (≤2), as clinically these women were most likely to be considered for cleavage transfers. Among these cycles (120 cleavage, 371 blastocyst), cleavage transfers were still associated with lower live birth rates compared to blastocyst (aRR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51-0.87) CONCLUSIONS: Even in a donor oocyte model with high-quality oocytes, there was a benefit to extended culture and blastocyst transfer, including when only one-to-two quality embryos were available after early culture. This is possibly owed to improved uterine synchronicity or decreased contractility.

Do we need to measure progesterone in oocyte donation cycles? A retrospective analysis evaluating cumulative live birth rates and embryo quality.

STUDY QUESTION: Does late follicular-phase elevated serum progesterone (LFEP) during ovarian stimulation for oocyte donation have an impact on embryo quality (EQ) and cumulative live birth rate (CLBR)? SUMMARY ANSWER: LFEP does not have an influence on EQ nor CLBR in oocyte donation cycles. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Ovarian stimulation promotes the production of progesterone (P) which, when elevated during the follicular phase, has been demonstrated to have a deleterious effect in autologous fresh IVF outcomes. While there is robust evidence that this elevation results in impaired endometrial receptivity, the impact on EQ remains a matter of debate. The oocyte donation model is an excellent tool to assess the effects of LFEP on EQ from those on endometrium receptivity separately. Previous studies in oocyte donation cycles investigating the influence of elevated P on pregnancy outcomes in oocyte recipients showed conflicting results. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a retrospective analysis including all GnRH antagonist down-regulated cycles for fresh oocyte donation taking place in a tertiary referral university hospital between 2010 and 2017. A total of 397 fresh donor-recipient cycles were included. Each donor was included only once in the analysis and could be associated to a single recipient. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The sample was stratified according to serum P levels of ≤1.5 and >1.5 ng/mL on the day of ovulation triggering. The primary endpoint of the study was the top-quality embryo rate on Day 3, and the secondary outcome measure was CLBR defined as a live-born delivery beyond 24 weeks. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Three hundred ninety-seven fresh oocyte donation cycles were included in the analysis, of which 314 (79%) had a serum P ≤ 1.5 ng/mL and 83 (20.9%) had a serum P > 1.5 ng/mL. The average age of the oocyte donors was 31.4 ± 4.7 and 29.9 ± 4.5 years, respectively, for normal and elevated P (P = 0.017). The mean number of oocytes retrieved was significantly higher in the elevated P group with 16.6 ± 10.6 vs 11.5 ± 6.9 in the P ≤ 1.5 group (P < 0.001).In parallel, the total number of embryos on Day 3, as well as the number of good-quality embryos at this stage, was significantly higher in the elevated P group (6.6 ± 5.6 vs 4.15 ± 3.5 and 8.7 ± 6.3 vs 6.1 ± 4.4; respectively, P < 0.001). However, maturation and fertilization rates did not vary significantly between the two study groups and neither did the top- and good-quality embryo rate and the embryo utilization rate, all evaluated on Day 3 (P = 0.384, P = 0.405 and P = 0.645, respectively). A multivariable regression analysis accounting for P groups, age of the donor, number of retrieved oocytes and top-quality embryo rate as potential confounders showed that LFEP negatively influenced neither the top-quality embryo rate nor the CLBR. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This is an observational study based on a retrospective data analysis. Better extrapolation of the results could be validated by performing a prospective trial. Furthermore, this study was focused on oocyte donation cycles and hence the results cannot be generalized to the entire infertile population. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first study providing evidence that LFEP does not influence CLBR and is adding strong evidence to the existing literature that LFEP does not harm EQ in oocyte donation programs. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: Not applicable.

Effect of oocyte donor stimulation on recipient outcomes: data from a US national donor oocyte bank.

STUDY QUESTION: How does ovarian stimulation in an oocyte donor affect the IVF cycle and obstetric outcomes in recipients? SUMMARY ANSWER: Higher donor oocyte yields may affect the proportion of usable embryos but do not affect live birth delivery rate or obstetric outcomes in oocyte recipients. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In autologous oocyte fresh IVF cycles, the highest live birth delivery rates occur when ~15-25 oocytes are retrieved, with a decline thereafter, perhaps due to the hormone milieu, with super-physiologic estrogen levels. There are scant data in donor oocyte cycles, wherein the oocyte environment is separated from the uterine environment. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This was a retrospective cohort study from 2008 to 2015 of 350 oocyte donors who underwent a total of 553 ovarian stimulations and oocyte retrievals. The oocytes were vitrified and then distributed to 989 recipients who had 1745 embryo transfers. The primary outcome was live birth delivery rate, defined as the number of deliveries that resulted in at least one live birth per embryo transfer cycle. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The study included oocyte donors and recipients at a donor oocyte bank, in collaboration with an academic reproductive endocrinology division. Donors with polycystic ovary syndrome and recipients who used gestational carriers were excluded. The donors all underwent conventional ovarian stimulation using antagonist protocols. None of the embryos underwent pre-implantation genetic testing. The average (mean) number of embryos transferred to recipients was 1.4 (range 1-3). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Per ovarian stimulation cycle, the median number of oocytes retrieved was 30 (range: 9-95). Among the 1745 embryo transfer cycles, 856 of the cycles resulted in a live birth (49.1%). There were no associations between donor oocyte yield and probability of live birth, adjusting for donor age, BMI, race/ethnicity and retrieval year. The results were similar when analyzing by mature oocytes. Although donors with more oocytes retrieved had a higher number of developed embryos overall, there was a relatively lower percentage of usable embryos per oocyte warmed following fertilization and culture. In our model for the average donor in the data set, holding all variables constant, for each additional five oocytes retrieved, there was a 4% (95% CI 1%, 7%) lower odds of fertilization and 5% (95% CI 2%, 7%) lower odds of having a usable embryo per oocyte warmed. There were no associations between donor oocyte yield and risk of preterm delivery (<37 weeks gestation) and low birthweight (<2500 g) among singleton infants. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Ovarian stimulation was exclusively performed in oocyte donors. This was a retrospective study design, and we were therefore unable to ensure proportional exposure groups. These findings may not generalizable to older or less healthy women who may be vitrifying oocytes for planned fertility delay. There remain significant risks to aggressive ovarian stimulation, including ovarian hyperstimulation. In addition, long-term health outcomes of extreme ovarian stimulation are lacking. Lastly, we did not collect progesterone levels and are unable to evaluate the impact of rising progesterone on outcomes. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Live birth delivery rates remain high with varying amounts of oocytes retrieved in this donor oocyte model. In a vitrified oocyte bank setting, where oocytes are typically sent as a limited number cohort, recipients are not affected by oocyte yields. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Additional REDCap grant support at Emory was provided through UL1 TR000424. Dr. Audrey Gaskins was supported in part by a career development award from the NIEHS (R00ES026648).

Expanded carrier screening should not be mandatory for gamete donors.

More and more centers are imposing expanded carrier screening (ECS) on their gamete donors. In some clinics and gamete banks, gamete donors are not given this right, contrary to the freedom to decline genetic screening in the general population. The possible social and psychological burdens that are recognized for infertility patients and the general population are downplayed for gamete donors. The procedure of imposing ECS on gamete donors shows that the interests of the recipients are valued higher than those of the donors. The general ethical argument defended here is the principle of proportionality: the burdens imposed on donors have to be balanced against the potential benefits for the offspring and the recipients. The risk reduction of ECS is below 1% and is too small to outweigh the potential dangers and disadvantages for donors. The conclusion is that clinics may ask, but not compel, donors to submit to ECS provided that they offer appropriate genetic and psychological counseling.

Attitudes of anonymous and identity-release oocyte donors towards future contact with donor offspring.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the attitudes and expectations of past oocyte donors concerning contact with their donor offspring and contact between donor offspring and their own children? SUMMARY ANSWER: The large majority (95%) of open-identity oocyte donors, as well as voluntarily registered donors (registered before the Finnish 2007 ART law), expressed positive or neutral feelings towards contact with their donor offspring and mainly positive expectations towards contact between donor offspring and their own children. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Although there is a growing support for openness and identity-release programmes in gamete donation, there is not much knowledge on how donors feel about potential contact with their offspring. Most previous studies have investigated donor expectations with a relatively short follow-up time, using small samples or participants in voluntary donor linkage services. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A retrospective cross-sectional survey of all women who had donated oocytes between 1990 and 2012 at three fertility clinics in Finland was carried out in 2013. A self-administered questionnaire was sent out to a total of 569 former oocyte donors. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In total, 428 former oocyte donors answered a questionnaire assessing experiences and attitudes related to donation (response rate 75.2%). In this study, 358 donors who were unknown to the recipient were included. The mean follow-up time after the donation was 11.2 years. Before 2008, donors were non-identifiable but could voluntarily consent to release their identifying information to their donor offspring. After 2008, persons born as a result of gamete donation can, from the age of 18, receive information identifying the donor. Altogether 290 respondents had participated in a donation programme in 1990-2007 (before the Finnish ART-law), and 68 participated after the enactment of the ART-law, enabling us to compare attitudes by type of legislation during donation. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Most voluntarily registered and open-identity donors welcomed or were neutral to potential contact with their donor offspring but were slightly more cautious towards contact between their own children and a donor-conceived child. Open-end comments revealed some ambiguity and uncertainty as to what to expect from such contact and feelings varied from neutral curiosity and interest to desire to meet the donor-conceived child. LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION: It is not possible to assess whether the opinions of the study participants is representative of all donors in 1990-2012, as 25% of all contacted former donors did not respond to the survey. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study is one of only a few studies among oocyte donors to evaluate long-term psychosocial consequences of the donation and expectations towards contact with donor offspring, using a large sample. Results from this study show that persisting concerns about adverse outcomes of identity release policies are largely unwarranted, but there is a need to develop counselling practices and material for identity-release donors about how to prepare for and adjust to potential contact with donor offspring. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported by grants from the Medical Society Life and Health, and from the Otto A. Malm Foundation. The authors have no competing interests to report. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Exploring motivations, attitudes and experiences of oocyte donors: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: The demand for fertility treatment with donated oocytes is increasing in many European countries. In order to offer oocyte donors an attractive treatment, it is necessary to understand the views of the donors. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore how women who donate oocytes describe their motives and attitudes towards oocyte donation, as well as their experiences with oocyte donation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A qualitative study based on individual face-to-face interviews with 12 oocyte donors with a donor identity as either anonymous or open. Oocyte donors who had donated oocytes at least once were recruited from the fertility clinic at Herlev University Hospital, Denmark. Data were collected using a piloted, semi-structured interview guide and were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. The analysis was handled in NVIVO 11 PRO. RESULTS: The analysis resulted in three themes: (1) helping others, (2) the treatment, and (3) being an oocyte donor. The financial compensation had varying degrees of importance for the oocyte donors but was always secondary to the desire to help others. All participants were interested in knowing whether their donation had resulted in pregnancy or birth of a child. Many donors had not gained a full understanding of the realistic outcomes of their donation. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that oocyte donors are mainly motivated by altruism, and financial compensation was found to be a secondary motive. Further, political awareness could be directed toward particularly open donors and the need to provide information about the outcome of their donation. Finally, it seems that future oocyte donors, in a treatment with a high need for information, can benefit from clinicians giving more exact information in relation to the probability of the birth of a donor child.

Higher rate of early-onset preeclampsia in pregnancies following oocyte donation according to increasing maternal age.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of maternal age on the incidence of early-onset preeclampsia requiring delivery before 34 weeks of gestation in pregnancies obtained after oocyte donation. METHODS: We carried out a prospective cohort analysis of 431 single and twin pregnancies, admitted to 3 Tertiary Referral Hospital in Northern Italy between 2008 and 2017. The rate of early-onset PE was calculated and stratified according to maternal age (from 30 to 49 years). A reference population of 11,197 single pregnancies collected prospectively at the first trimester of pregnancy in the same geographic area of Italy and in same hospitals was used to calculate the expected incidence of early-onset PE. RESULTS: In women who delivered after 24 weeks of gestation, the rate of early-onset PE was much higher in oocyte-donation pregnancies, reaching 6.7% (29/431), than the expected rate of 0.5% of the cohort of reference. The mean early PE rate was 4.1% (10/242) in singletons and 10.1% (19/189) in twin pregnancies. According to maternal age, the rate of early PE was 1.16% and 3.12% at 30 years, and 4.98% and 13.14% at 49 years in single and twin pregnancies obtained after oocyte donation, respectively. CONCLUSION: Pregnancies obtained after oocyte donation delivering after 24 weeks had a higher risk of early-onset PE requiring delivery before 34 weeks of gestation, than the general population. The risk is directly correlated with the increase of maternal age and is also higher in twin pregnancies.

Delay in maternal transcript degradation in ovine embryos derived from low competence oocytes.

Oocytes from prepubertal animals have a reduced ability to undergo embryo development and produce viable offspring. The present work used an ovine model consisting of oocytes derived from adult and prepubertal donors to assess the molecular status of oocytes and preimplantation embryos with different developmental competence. The lower potential of oocytes of young donors was confirmed in terms of in vitro developmental capabilities and kinetics. A panel of genes including maternal effect (DPPA3, GDF9, NMP2, ZAR1) and housekeeping genes (ACTB, RPL19, SDHA, YWHAZ, ATP1A1), genes involved in DNA methylation (DNMT1, DNMT3A, DNMT3B), genomic imprinting (IGF2R), pluripotency (NANOG, POU5F1) and cell cycle regulation (CCNB1, CDK1, MELK) was relatively quantified. Temporal analysis during oocyte maturation and preimplantation embryo development evidenced patterns associated with donor age. With a few gene-specific exceptions, the differential model showed a reduced transcript abundance in immature prepubertal oocytes that completely reversed trend after fertilization, when higher mRNA levels were consistently observed in early embryos, indicating a delay in maternal transcript degradation. We propose that the molecular shortage in the prepubertal oocyte may affect its developmental potential and impair the early pathways of maternal mRNA clearance in the embryo. While confirming the different potential of oocytes derived from adult and prepubertal donors, our work showed for the first time a consistent delay in maternal transcript degradation in embryos derived from low competence oocytes that interestingly recalls the delayed developmental kinetics. Such abnormal transcript persistence may hinder further development and represents a novel perspective on the complexity of developmental competence.

Revisiting the association between smoking and female fertility using the oocyte donation model.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Is active smoking among donors, recipients and male partners associated with oocyte donation cycle outcomes, in donors and recipients? DESIGN: Retrospective cohort over a 4-year period including 4747 oocyte recipients and partners, and 3101 oocyte donors. All oocyte donation cycles were carried out between 2010 and 2014, and for whom donor, recipient and male partner smoking status at the time of treatment were known. RESULTS: Ovarian response was significantly reduced in oocyte donors who smoked compared with those who did not: 13.9 (SD 6.7) mature oocytes in heavy smokers versus 14.8 (SD 7.6) in non-smokers (P = 0.020). Nevertheless, biochemical, clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates and live birth rates were not affected by the degree of smoking among donors, recipients or recipients' partners. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that smoking is not associated with compromised oocyte quality or altered uterine receptivity in oocyte donation cycles.

Low estradiol responses in oocyte donors undergoing gonadotropin stimulation do not influence clinical outcomes.

PURPOSE: To examine the effect of low and very low estradiol responses in oocyte donors receiving gonadotropins on clinical outcomes of donor in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles and to identify possible mechanisms responsible for low estradiol response. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of oocyte donors undergoing antagonist IVF cycles with progression to oocyte retrieval between January 2010 and December 2016 at a single urban academic fertility center. Oocyte yield, fertilization rate, blastocyst rate, percentage of normal embryos on preimplantation genetic screening (PGS), pregnancy outcomes, and follicular fluid steroid profiles were compared between donors with normal estradiol response and those with low estradiol response. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-six antagonist oocyte donor IVF cycles were identified: 42 cycles had a normal estradiol response (NE2), defined as peak serum estradiol (E2) of over 200 pg/mL per retrieved oocyte; 140 cycles had an intermediate estradiol response (iE2), defined as peak serum E2 between 100 and 200 pg/mL per retrieved oocyte; 110 cycles had a low estradiol response (LE2), defined as peak serum E2 between 50 and 100 pg/mL per retrieved oocyte; and 74 cycles had a very low estradiol response (vLE2), defined as peak serum E2 less than 50 pg/mL per retrieved oocyte. LE2 cycles resulted in a greater number of mature oocytes (22.4 vs. 13.6, p < 0.017), and fertilizations versus NE2 donors (18.5 vs. 10.7, p < 0.017), although the number of transferred or cryopreserved blastocysts were similar between groups (8.6, 6.9 vs. 4.8, p = 0.095, p = 1). The percentage of chromosomally normal embryos after PGS was similar between LE2, vLE2, and NE2 cycles (66.4, 71.8 vs. 63.1%, p = 0.99, p = 1). Pregnancy outcomes were similar between LE2, vLE2, and NE2 cycles. Serum AMH obtained on the day of peak E2 was similar to baseline serum AMH and did not differ between LE2 versus NE2 cycles. Follicular fluid E2 levels paralleled serum E2 levels and were lower in LE2 cycles versus NE2 cycles. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of very low E2 responses in donors appears to be high (20.2%). In contrast to autologous IVF cycles, LE2 does not portend poor outcomes in oocyte donors.

Variants in the CYP19A1 gene can affect in vitro embryo production traits in cattle.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to associate DNA variants in promoter and exon flanking regions of the CYP19A1 gene with in vitro embryo production traits in cattle. The role of transcription factor binding sites created or lost due to DNA sequence variation and their possible effect on gene expression was also evaluated. METHODS: We collected date from Gyr dairy oocyte donor cows (Bos taurus indicus) at a commercial in vitro embryo production farm and analyzed the genotype-phenotype association with in vitro production traits. Using Sanger sequencing and web-based software, we assessed important CYP19A1 gene regions in oocyte donor cows and analyzed the effects of variants on the transcription factor binding sites. RESULTS: Two SNP mutations significantly associated with oocyte production, oocyte viability, embryo development, and pregnancies were found (T > C in the untranslated exon 1 flanking region ([GenBank: AJ250379.1]: rs718446508 T > C), and a T > C in the 5'-upstream region (1.1 promoter) ([GenBank: AC_000167.1]: rs41651668 T > C). Six new transcription factor binding sites were created. A binding site for transcription factors associated with the development of the placenta and embryo implantation was eliminated due to variations in the DNA sequence identified. CONCLUSIONS: The CYP19A1 gene contributes to genetic variation of in vitro embryo production traits in cattle. The complexity of the physiological phenomena related to estrogen pathways and their influence on reproduction in cattle allow indication of the mutations evaluated here as possible genetic markers for embryo production traits, which should be validated in the next steps of marker-assisted selection.

Reproductive outcomes in recipients are not associated with oocyte donor body mass index up to 28 kg/m2: a cohort study of 2722 cycles.

The effect of increasing donor body mass index (BMI) on clinical pregnancies was retrospectively analysed in a cohort of consecutive 2722 donor oocyte IVF cycles. The relationship between donor BMI and clinical pregnancies was assessed after adjusting for recipient BMI. Clinical pregnancy rates and live birth rates (LBR) were no different with increasing donor BMI (up to donor BMI ≤28 kg/m2). The odds of pregnancy did not vary with donor BMI. Compared with donor BMI quartile 1, OR 95% CI of clinical pregnancy was 1.01 (0.82 to 1.25), 1.01 (0.82 to 1.25) and 0.90 (0.73 to 1.12) for quartiles 2, 3 and 4 respectively. A statistically significant reduction of cumulative LBR (P = 0.036) and LBR (P = 0.011) was observed in the results of donation cycles according to recipient BMI quartiles. A reduced odds of clinical pregnancy was observed with increasing recipient BMI. Compared with recipient BMI quartile 1, OR 95% CI of clinical pregnancy was 0.84 (0.68 to 1.03), 0.79 (0.63 to 00.97) and 0.78 (0.63 to 0.971) for quartiles 2, 3 and 4, respectively. A negative effect on oocyte donation cycle outcomes with increased donor BMI was not found after adjusting oocyte donor and recipient BMI.

A man-made disease: Fetal neonatal alloimmune thrombocytopenia due to incompatibility between oocyte donor and gestational mother.

The incompatibility causing fetal and neonatal alloimmune thrombocytopenia (FNAIT) results from a fetus inheriting a paternal human platelet antigen (HPA), which is different from the maternal HPA. We present a unique case of FNAIT in a pregnancy involving an oocyte recipient mother with Turner syndrome. This is the first report of FNAIT in which the suggested mechanism involves antibodies produced by a gestational mother against the incompatible HPA of the oocyte donor.

Short- and long-term health consequences and current satisfaction levels for altruistic anonymous, identity-release and known oocyte donors.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the short- and long-term health consequences and current satisfaction of altruistic oocyte donors? SUMMARY ANSWER: Donating oocytes in the majority (>90%) of donation cycles is not associated with harmful long-term general or reproductive health effects. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Knowledge of long-term health effects of oocyte donation on donors is sparse and follow-up studies have usually been carried out on commercial donors. Thus far, no major long-term harmful effects have been demonstrated. Most studies have reported a high level of donor satisfaction, but also less favorable experiences have been published. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION: A retrospective cross-sectional survey of all women who had donated oocytes between 1990 and 2012 at three fertility clinics was carried out in spring 2013. A self-administered questionnaire was sent out to a total of 569 former oocyte donors. PARTICIPANTS, SETTING, METHODS: In all, 428 past donors answered the questionnaire assessing donor's demographic characteristics, short- and long-term medical and psychological experiences and satisfaction related to donations. Of the donors, 87% (371/428) were unknown and 13% (57/428) were known to the recipient. The mean follow-up time after the donation was 11.2 years (range from 0.5 to 23 years) and the mean age of the respondents was 42 years at the time of the study. To learn whether the demographic profile of donors was affected by the Finnish Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) Act of 2007, we divided the 428 respondents into two groups: (i) women whose first donation took place between 1990 and 2007 (79% of the respondents) and (ii) women whose first donation took place between 2008 and 2012 (21% of the respondents). Before 2008, donors were non-identifiable (anonymous) but after 2008 persons born as a result of gamete donation could, from the age of 18, receive on request information identifying the donor. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The response rate was 75% (428/569). The mean age of the donors did not differ between the two time periods, but there was a higher proportion of donors in the youngest age group (20-24 years) and more childless donors (P < 0.05) after 2008 than between 1990 and 2007. Immediate complications occurred in 7.2% (42/582) of the donation cycles and the most common complication was ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in 5.0% (29/582) of the treatments. There were no reports of ovarian or uterine cancer and only one case of breast cancer. After the donation, 11.5% of the donors experienced unsuccessful attempts to become pregnant. Almost all donors (99%) were satisfied or very satisfied with their decision to donate and 95% would warmly recommend it to other women. There were no differences between the known and unknown donors in this respect, or between the two time periods (before or after the ART Act in 2008). Four donors (1%) had regretted donation, and 7% would have wanted to have more support before and 14% after the donation. LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION: Although the response rate was high, 25% of all former donors in the three participating clinics could not be included due to lack of response. The results are based on self-reported assessment of the experiences of former donors, and it is not possible to estimate the influence of recall bias. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: To our knowledge, this is the largest study of health consequences and satisfaction levels on oocyte donors. Data from this study can be used to inform donor candidates about the medical aspects involved in the treatment and it provides information on how to support these women during and after the donation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was supported by grants from the Medical Society Life and Health, and from the Otto A. Malm Foundation. There are no competing interests to report.

Reproductive outcomes in oocyte donation cycles are associated with donor BMI.

STUDY QUESTION: When adjusting for recipient BMI, is donor body mass index (BMI) associated with IVF outcomes in donor oocyte IVF cycles? SUMMARY ANSWER: Increasing oocyte donor BMI is associated with a reduction in clinical pregnancy and live birth rates. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Increased BMI has been associated with suboptimal reproductive outcomes, particularly in assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles. However, it remains unclear if this association implies an effect of BMI on oocyte quality and/or endometrial receptivity. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A retrospective cohort study of two hundred and thirty five consecutive fresh donor oocyte IVF cycles from 1 January 2007 through 31 December 2013 at the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Fertility Center. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Analyses included a total of 202 oocyte donors and 235 total cycles. Following adjustments for recipient BMI, the relationship between donor BMI (categorized into quartiles) and IVF outcomes was assessed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In the entire (anonymous and known) donor population, a reduced odds of clinical pregnancy (P-trend = 0.046) and live birth (P-trend = 0.06) was observed with increasing BMI quartile. Compared with quartile 1 (BMI 17.8-21.1), odds ratio (OR) (95% CI) of clinical pregnancy was 0.9 (0.4-2.0), 0.5 (0.2-1.1) and 0.5 (0.2-1.1), and OR of live birth was 1.1 (0.5-2.6), 0.6 (0.3-1.2) and 0.6 (0.3-1.2) for quartiles 2 through 4 respectively. In anonymous donors only, the odds of clinical pregnancy (P-trend = 0.02) and live birth (P-trend = 0.03) also declined as BMI quartile increased. Compared with quartile 1 (BMI 17.8-21.1), odds ratio (OR) (95% CI) of clinical pregnancy was 0.7 (0.3-1.7), 0.5 (0.2-1.1) and 0.4 (0.1-0.9), and OR of live birth was 0.9 (0.4-2.2), 0.5 (0.3-1.2) and 0.4 (0.2-1.1) for quartiles 2 through 4 respectively. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Limitations include the retrospective design, sample size and data from a single institution. Clinical application may not be limited to oocyte donors, though caution should be used prior to applying these principles to the general population. Data should not be interpreted to mean that all oocyte donors should be restricted to a BMI of less than 21.2 kg/m(2). WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Following adjustments for the respective BMI of the oocyte donor and recipient, this study demonstrates an association of preconception BMI with subsequent IVF outcomes. The observations of this study are consistent with prior animal studies, suggest a possible effect of BMI at the oocyte level prior to fertilization and implantation, and warrant further investigation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: None.

Psychiatric Symptoms Associated with Oocyte-Donation.

Oocyte-donation is generally safe but may exacerbate psychiatric symptoms in some women. In this prospective study 63 oocyte-donating women and, as a control group, 63 women providing their own oocytes for in vitro fertilization (in couples with male infertility) were evaluated pre- and post-ovulation-induction in regard to hypochondriasis, anxiety, social impairment, and depression. The mean hypochondriasis score for oocyte-donators was significantly lower than for women providing their own oocytes, prior to ovulation-induction (5.03 vs. 6.59). However, after ovulation-induction and oocyte retrieval this score rose to 6.66 among oocyte-donators, whereas it remained essentially unchanged among women providing their own oocytes (6.66). The mean anxiety score for oocyte-donating women also rose following this procedure, from 5.87 to 7.65. Depression scores for both groups remained similar, before and after the procedure. Results showed that at the beginning of the ARP donating women have the same conditions as own oocyte women regarding depression and anxiety but after the egg harvesting they would suffer more damages regarding hypochondriasis and anxiety aspects.

Live birth following IVF/ICSI using oocytes from donor who was conceived via IVF: a case report.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to report a case of live birth following donor oocyte in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) in which the oocyte donor herself was conceived via IVF. To our knowledge, such a case has not been previously reported. METHODS: Retrospective chart review; this case is reported after chart review of a successful outcome. RESULTS: A 42 year-old woman, with diminished ovarian reserve, and her husband desired to conceive. She underwent a fresh IVF/ICSI cycle with her own oocytes, which unfortunately was not fruitful in terms of pregnancy or cryopreserved embryos. The couple was counseled regarding the option of donor oocytes, and they elected to proceed with a fresh cycle of donor oocyte IVF/ICSI. The couple selected an anonymous oocyte donor from a donor agency who was a first-time oocyte donor and, interestingly, was conceived via IVF herself. The fresh donor oocyte/IVF/ICSI cycle did not result in pregnancy; however, two supernumerary blastocysts were cryopreserved for future cycles. The recipient's subsequent frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) resulted in a singleton gestation and live birth. CONCLUSIONS: An oocyte donor who was conceived via IVF had good ovarian response to stimulation, a good number of oocytes retrieved, and the formation and cryopreservation of blastocysts which, in a subsequent FET cycle, resulted in pregnancy and live birth for a recipient couple. To our knowledge, this is the first case reported of live birth with the use of donor oocytes from an oocyte donor who herself was conceived via IVF.