Reproductive Outcomes in Lesbian Couples Undergoing Reception of Oocytes from Partner Versus Autologous In Vitro Fertilization/Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection

A systematic review of reproductive technologies for shared conception in same-sex female couples

Reciprocal in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intravaginal culture (IVC) are two technologies that allow same-sex female couples to jointly contribute biologically to a pregnancy. This systematic review aimed to synthesize the clinical outcomes of each method including live birth rate, clinical pregnancy rate, embryo quality, and perinatal complications. A dual-reviewer protocol identified eight studies on reciprocal IVF and ten studies on IVC. In retrospective studies reporting on a total of 1,405 reciprocal IVF cycles, reciprocal IVF has demonstrated similar cycle and pregnancy outcomes to autologous IVF. One study that reported on pregnancy complications found a comparable rate of hypertensive disease in pregnancy between patients undergoing reciprocal IVF and intrauterine insemination. However, a lack of prospective studies on reciprocal IVF limits the generalizability of these results. Overall, small prospective and retrospective studies reporting on a total of 776 IVC cycles show that IVC offers good cycle and pregnancy outcomes, comparable to IVF. However, randomized prospective studies reported that the rate of quality embryo creation in IVC may be lower than in IVF. Although both reciprocal IVF and IVC show promise for same-sex female couples and the larger lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, asexual, and other sexual or gender minorities community, this review has highlighted the need for larger, prospective, more diverse studies on methods of shared biological contribution for family building.

Mapping the scientific literature on obstetric and perinatal health among sexual and gender minoritized (SGM) childbearing people and their infants: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests sexual and gender minoritized (SGM) childbearing individuals and their infants experience more adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes compared to their cisgender, heterosexual counterparts. This study aimed to comprehensively map obstetric and perinatal physical health literature among SGM populations and their infants and identify knowledge gaps.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science Core Collection were systematically searched to identify published studies reporting obstetric and perinatal outcomes in SGM individuals or their infants. Study characteristics, sample characteristics, and outcome findings were systematically extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 8,740 records; 55 studies (1981-2023) were included. Sexual orientation was measured by self-identification (72%), behavior (55%), and attraction (9%). Only one study captured all three dimensions. Inconsistent measures of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) were common, and 68% conflated sex and gender. Most (85%) focused on sexual minorities, while 31% addressed gender minorities. Demographic measures employed varied widely and were inconsistent; 35% lacked race/ethnicity data, and 44% lacked socioeconomic data. Most studies (78%) examined outcomes among SGM individuals, primarily focusing on morbidity and pregnancy outcomes. Pregnancy termination was most frequently studied, while pregnancy and childbirth complications (e.g., gestational hypertension, postpartum hemorrhage) were rarely examined. Evidence of disparities were mixed. Infant outcomes were investigated in 60% of the studies, focusing on preterm birth and low birthweight. Disparities were noted among different sexual orientation and racial/ethnic groups. Qualitative insights highlighted how stigma and discriminatory care settings can lead to adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Frequent conflation of sex and gender and a lack of standardized SOGI measures hinder the comparison and synthesis of existing evidence. Nuanced sociodemographic data should be collected to understand the implications of intersecting identities. Findings on perinatal health disparities were mixed, highlighting the need for standardized SOGI measures and comprehensive sociodemographic data. The impact of stigma and discriminatory care on adverse outcomes underscores the need for inclusive healthcare environments. Future research should address these gaps; research on SGM perinatal outcomes remains urgently lacking.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The review protocol was developed a priori in February 2023, registered on Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5DQV4 ) and published in BMJ Open ( https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/13/11/e075443 ).

Queering the genome: ethical challenges of epigenome editing in same-sex reproduction

In this article, I explore the ethical dimensions of same-sex reproduction achieved through epigenome editing-an innovative and transformative technique. For the first time, I analyse the potential normativity of this disruptive approach for reproductive purposes, focusing on its implications for lesbian couples seeking genetically related offspring. Epigenome editing offers a compelling solution to the complex ethical challenges posed by traditional gene editing, as it sidesteps genome modifications and potential long-term genetic consequences. The focus of this article is to systematically analyse the bioethical issues related to the use of epigenome editing for same-sex reproduction. I critically assess the ethical acceptability of epigenome editing with reproductive purposes from multiple angles, considering harm perspectives, the comparison of ethical issues related to gene and epigenome editing, and feminist theories. This analysis reveals that epigenome editing emerges as an ethically acceptable means for lesbian couples to have genetically related children. Moreover, the experiments of a reproductive use of epigenome editing discussed in this article transcend bioethics, shedding light on the broader societal implications of same-sex reproduction. It challenges established notions of biological reproduction and prompts a reevaluation of how we define the human embryo, while poses some issues in the context of gender self-identification and family structures. In a world that increasingly values inclusivity and diversity, this article aims to reveal a progressive pathway for reproductive medicine and bioethics, as well as underscores the need for further philosophical research in this emerging and fertile domain.

IVF with reception of oocytes from partner in lesbian couples: a systematic review and SWOT analysis

The growing utilization of assisted reproductive technology (ART) by the LGBTQ+ community, especially among lesbian couples, challenges societal norms and promotes inclusivity. The reception of oocytes from partner (ROPA) technique enables both female partners to have a biological connection to their child. A systematic review was conducted of the literature on ROPA IVF to provide the latest data and a SWOT analysis was subsequently performed to understand the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats associated with ROPA IVF. Publications from 2000 to 2023 with relevant keywords were reviewed and 16 records were included. Five studies provided clinical information on couples who used ROPA IVF. ROPA IVF provides a unique opportunity for a biological connection between the child and both female partners and addresses concerns related to oocyte donation and anonymity. Weaknesses include limited cost-effectiveness data and unresolved practical implications. Opportunities lie in involving both partners in parenthood, advancing ART success rates and mitigating risks. Threats encompass increased pregnancy complications, ethical concerns, insufficient safety data, legal or cultural barriers, and emotional stress. In conclusion, ROPA IVF offers a promising solution for lesbian couples seeking to create a family in which both partners want to establish a biological connection with their child.

Shared IVF among female couples: clinical outcomes of the Reception of Oocytes from the Partner (ROPA) method

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the population undergoing the ROPA (Reception of Oocytes from Partner) method and what are the outcomes of the technique?

DESIGN

Case series of all ROPA treatments carried out between 2011 and 2020 in 18 fertility clinics in Spain. Demographic characteristics, cycle features, laboratory and clinical outcomes, and the intentions regarding the disposition of surplus embryos were analysed.

RESULTS

Donor patients were on average 3.5 years younger than recipients (P = 0.001). No significant differences were found in body mass index or anti-Müllerian hormone. In 13% of cases, fertility issues were found: poor ovarian reserve (6.8%); endometriosis (2.9%); and polycystic ovary syndrome (2.2%). Including cases of advanced age (38 years old or older), more than one-half of couples (53.6%) had some condition that could affect fertility. Mean number of mature oocytes per cycle was 10 (+/- 5.7), and fertilization rate was 74.5% (+/- 18.8). Mean number of viable embryos was 3.2 (+/- 1.5). Surplus embryos were cryopreserved in 50.4% of cycles. Outcomes after embryo transfers from ROPA, and subsequent frozen cycles were as follows: positive pregnancy test (61.0%), clinical pregnancy (54.1%) and miscarriage rate (16.1%). Other outcomes were live birth rate per embryo transfer (44.7%); multiple pregnancy rate (5.4%); per cumulative ROPA cycle (48.6%); and per couple (61.6%).

CONCLUSION

The outcomes of the ROPA method are reassuring. About one-half of the ROPA cycles resulted in a live birth and one-quarter of the cycles had surplus embryos after achieving a live birth. Main neonatal outcomes were also reassuring.

Lesbian shared IVF: the ROPA method: a systematic review

The ROPA (Reception of Oocytes from PArtner) method, also known as lesbian shared IVF (in vitro fertilization), is an assisted reproduction technique for female couples, in which one of the women provides the oocytes (genetic mother) and the other receives the embryo and gestates (gestational mother). As a double parented method, it is the only way lesbian women may biologically share motherhood. This is a narrative review of data concerning ROPA published in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. A total of 35 articles were included, 10 about motivations for undergoing ROPA, 13 about ethics or legislation, 4 about motherhood, and 8 studies reporting clinical outcomes. Despite being used for more than a decade, there is a paucity of data regarding this technique in scientific literature. Most women choose this technique to share biological motherhood, but medical issues may also justify its use. Many ethical and legal issues are still to be solved. Despite the small number of studies, data regarding the outcomes of this technique and the resulting motherhood are reassuring.

LGBTQ-parent families: Diversity, intersectionality, and social context

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and trans (LGBTQ) parents become parents in a variety of ways, including via reproductive technologies, through foster care and adoption, and in the context of different-gender relationships. This review addresses research developments over the past 5-6 years, revealing that LGBTQ people continue to face barriers in becoming parents, especially those who are trans, of color, and have limited financial means. Bisexual and trans parents are increasingly centered in research, and have unique experiences of parenthood related to navigating (in)visibility and stigma in various contexts. Recent work has documented the impacts of sociopolitical events (e.g., COVID-19, the Trump presidency) on LGBTQ parent families, particularly those with multiply marginalized statuses. Likewise, an increasingly intersectional lens has exposed how axes of privilege and oppression impact LGBTQ parents' sense of belongingness in various contexts and social groups. Finally, recent work has continued to document the powerful role of context and family processes in the lives and adjustment of youth raised by LGBTQ parents. More research is needed on LGBTQ parents with marginalized identities that have been poorly represented in the literature, such as nonbinary parents and parents with disabilities.

Donor sperm recipients: fertility treatments, trends, and pregnancy outcomes

Purpose

To report fertility treatment use and outcomes among patients who use donor sperm for intrauterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilization (IVF), and reciprocal IVF (co-IVF).

Methods

This is a retrospective review of patients who used donor sperm at an urban, southeastern academic reproductive center between 2014 and 2020.

Results

Among the 374 patients presenting for care, 88 (23.5%) were single, 188 (50.3%) were in a same-sex female partnership, and 98 (26.2%) had a male partner with a diagnosis of male factor infertility. Most patients did not have infertility (73.2%). A total of 1106 cycles were completed, of which there were 931 IUI cycles, 146 traditional IVF cycles, and 31 co-IVF cycles. Live birth rates per cycle were 11% in IUI, 42% in IVF, and 61% in co-IVF. Of all resulting pregnancies, hypertensive disorders were most commonly experienced (18.0%), followed by preterm delivery (15.3%), neonatal complications (9.5%), gestational diabetes (4.8%), and fetal growth restriction (4.8%). Of the 198 infants born, fifteen (8.3%) required admission to the neonatal intensive care unit and three (1.7%) demised. Pregnancy and neonatal complications were more likely to occur in older patients and patients with elevated body mass index.

Conclusion

The use of donor sperm for fertility treatment is increasing. These data show reassuring live birth rates; however, they also highlight the risks of subsequent pregnancy complications. With the expansion of fertility treatment options for patients, these data assist provider counseling of patients regarding anticipated cycle success rates and possible pregnancy complications.

Similar reproductive outcomes between lesbian-shared IVF (ROPA) and IVF with autologous oocytes

PURPOSE

To compare reproductive outcomes of the ROPA method (reception of oocytes from partner) to IVF with autologous oocytes. To study the impact of the absence of a genetic link between the embryo and its recipient in reproductive outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective multicentric cohort study performed from January 2011 to December 2020 in 18 fertility clinics in Spain. A total of 99 ROPA (73 couples) and 2929 non-ROPA cycles (2334 couples or single patients) of women younger than 38 years old with no known female fertility disorder were included. Clinical outcomes were compared between both groups and included positive pregnancy test, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, pre-term birth, live birth, weeks of gestation at birth, and newborn weight at birth.

RESULTS

No differences were found between groups in clinical outcomes. The total clinical pregnancy rates per embryo transfer were 57% and 50.2% (p = 0.15) and the live-birth rates were 46.1% and 40.9% (p = 0.14) for the ROPA and non-ROPA groups, respectively. When adjusted to age and BMI of donors and recipients, there were also no differences in live-birth rates between both groups. The cumulative live-birth rate per ROPA cycle was 73.7% and the cumulative live-birth rate per couple was 78.3%.

CONCLUSION

Clinical outcomes following the ROPA method and IVF with autologous oocytes were found to be similar. These findings suggest no impact of the absence of genetic ties between the embryo and the uterus on reproductive treatments' outcomes. Data regarding the outcomes of the ROPA method are reassuring.

The Pathway of Female Couples in a Fertility Clinic

OBJECTIVE

 The present study aims to describe the main characteristics of female couples resorting to a fertility clinic, to understand whether these patients have clear previous plans concerning procreation and how they end up completing their family planning, and to briefly describe the main outcomes of the recepción de ovocitos de pareja (ROPA, in the Spanish acronym: in English, reception of partner's oocytes) method.

METHODS

 This is a descriptive retrospective study of the pathway and outcomes of female couples in a fertility clinic during a 2-year period.

RESULTS

 A total of 129 couples were treated. Only one third of the couples had no condition potentially affecting fertility or advanced age. Most couples were decided to undergo artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization and the majority kept their plans, as opposed to 38% of the couples who decided to the ROPA method (lesbian shared in vitro fertilization) who changed plans. Live birth rates per treatment (including frozen embryo transfers) for artificial insemination, 58% for in vitro fertilization, 80% for treatments with donated oocytes or embryos, and 79% for ROPA. Four in five couples achieved live births.

CONCLUSION

 The present study highlights the importance of a thorough medical workup in same-sex couples resorting to assisted reproduction. Despite the higher-than-expected rates of fertility disorders, the outcomes were good. Most couples end up in a single parented method. Furthermore, the results of the ROPA method are reassuring.