Sexual orientation of women does not affect outcome of fertility treatment with donated sperm

[First French data on sperm donation requests from female couples]

OBJECTIVE

The new bioethics law, enacted on August 2, 2021, has expanded access to medically assisted reproduction (MAR) with sperm donation to unmarried women and female couples. The implementation of this law led to a significant influx of sperm donation requests at French sperm banks. This major development in the field of ART in France, and in French society as a whole, prompted us to focus specifically on the requests from female couples.

METHOD

A retrospective, single-center study was conducted at a gamete donation center in Paris. The data of women in same-sex couples who attended a first consultation with a biologist between October 1, 2021, and October 31, 2022, were analyzed and compared to those of women in heterosexual couples who also requested MAR with sperm donation during the same period. The ART attempts and their outcomes were analyzed up until May 31, 2024.

RESULTS

A total of 117 women in same-sex couples and 75 women in heterosexual couples were included in the study. The profiles in terms of age, ovarian reserve, and history of gynecological conditions did not differ between the two groups. The only observed differences were related to lifestyle, particularly alcohol consumption, which was slightly higher among women in same-sex couples. Additionally, women in same-sex couples appeared to belong more frequently to the category of intermediate professions, but no differences were observed concerning other occupational categories. Regarding the outcomes of ART attempts, cumulative rates of early and ongoing pregnancies were not different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

This study thus provides an initial insight into the profile and outcomes for women in same-sex couples who received ART with sperm donation shortly after the enactment of the bioethics law in France. The similarity in profiles and ART outcomes between women in same-sex couples and those in heterosexual couples supports the approach of offering similar medical care, regardless of the couple's configuration.

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.

Therapeutic donor insemination for LGBTQ+ families: a systematic review

IMPORTANCE

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer+ (LGBTQ+) families deserve evidence-based care within environments designed for their unique needs; however, care provided in fertility clinics has been reported to fall short, most notably for assigned female at birth recipients of therapeutic donor insemination (TDI).

OBJECTIVE

To identify the aspects of routine infertility care that are clinically appropriate for this unique patient population, specifically those seeking pregnancy with donor sperm. The research question was posed, "What screening and treatment protocols are supported by the evidence regarding TDI care for LGBTQ+ families?"

EVIDENCE REVIEW

High quality, prospective studies specific to and/or inclusive of this patient population in assisted reproductive care contexts is limited, however evidence regarding age-informed prognosis, screening guidelines, treatment outcomes, insemination timing, number of inseminations per cycle, when to refer, and safety of the procedure were found.

FINDINGS

Findings indicate that compared with routine infertility care protocols, a low-tech, low-intervention model of care for ovulatory LGBTQ+ individuals renders equal or higher success rates without increasing risk.

CONCLUSION

Given the current evidence, TDI for LGBTQ+ families can, with support and training, be provided appropriately in a variety of contexts, including community-based and primary care settings as well as in fertility clinics.

RELEVANCE

This review establishes the current state of the evidence supporting TDI for LGBTQ+ families, expanding access to care for recipients as well as their care providers and outlining areas for further study.

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 ).

Assisted Reproductive Technology Results Using Donor or Partner Sperm: A Danish Nationwide Register-Based Cohort Study

This was a nationwide cohort study based on Danish health registers focusing on assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatments in women using donor or partner sperm from 2007 to 2017. Women using donor sperm were subdivided into groups based on relationship status: women with male partners, single women, or women with female partners. The live birth adjusted odds ratios (aORs) after the IUI treatments in women using donor sperm compared with women using partner sperm were 1.48 (95% CI: 1.38–1.59) in women with male partners using donor sperm, 1.20 (95% CI: 1.13–1.28) in single women, and 1.46 (95% CI: 1.32–1.62) in women with female partners. The live birth aORs after IVF treatments in women using donor sperm compared with women using partner sperm were 1.16 (95% CI: 1.02–1.32) in women with male partners using donor sperm, 0.88 (95% CI: 0.80–0.96) in single women, and 1.20 (95% CI: 1.00–1.44), in women with female partners. The use of donor sperm was associated with a higher chance of a live birth after the IUI treatments, but there was no difference after the IVF treatments. Our study invites healthcare professionals to increase their attention toward the different needs and fertility issues of all women attending fertility clinics.

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.

Provision of fertility services to women in same-sex relationships at Catholic and non-Catholic clinics in the United States

INTRODUCTION

This study addressed deficient information on the provision of infertility care in obstetrics and gynecology clinics. We additionally evaluated the availability of these services based on clinic affiliations or stated sexual orientation.

METHODOLOGY

We performed a national cross-sectional "mystery caller" survey of 293 general obstetrics and gynecology clinics in 2017-2018. We matched clinics identified by web-based search engine in a 1:1 ratio by Catholic hospital affiliation, after determining number of clinics based on state-population densities. A standard call script included questions regarding provision of infertility services, ovulation induction methods, and information about the caller's sexual orientation. We performed descriptive frequencies and compared responses based on hospital affiliations.

RESULTS

Of the 293 clinics included, 49% were affiliated with Catholic and 17% with academic hospitals. The majority offered infertility care (85%, 248/293), and of these 97% (240/248) offered ovulation induction. Only 3% (6/240) reported they would not provide to women in same-sex relationships. Most clinics not offering infertility evaluations (43/45, 96%) cited it was outside of their scope of care and of these 33% (15/45) did not provide information for self-referral. Clinics affiliated with academic (aOR 0.23) or Catholic (aOR 0.34) hospitals were less likely to provide evaluations. Those with academic affiliation were more likely to provide information for self-referral (aOR 19.2).

DISCUSSION

Most general obstetrics and gynecology practices offered appointments for infertility evaluation and ovulation induction. Clinics rarely denied services to women reporting a same-sex partnership, regardless of hospital affiliation. These findings provide reassurance to same-sex couples seeking fertility care.

Live birth, cumulative live birth and perinatal outcome following assisted reproductive treatments using donor sperm in single women vs. women in lesbian couples: a prospective controlled cohort study

Purpose

Assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatments with donor sperm have been allowed for women in lesbian relationships (WLR) since 2005 in Sweden, but for single women (SW), these became approved only recently in 2016. This study was conducted to compare the outcomes of ART treatments in SW vs. WLR.

Methods

This is a prospective controlled cohort study of 251 women undergoing intrauterine insemination (D-IUI) or in vitro fertilization (D-IVF) using donor sperm between 2017 and 2019 at the department of Reproductive Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital. The cohort comprised 139 SW and 112 WLR. The main outcomes included differences in live birth rate (LBR) and cumulative live birth rate (cLBR) between the groups. The SW underwent 66 D-IUI and 193 D-IVF treatments and WLR underwent 255 D-IUI and 69 D-IVF treatments. Data on clinical characteristics, treatment protocols and clinical outcomes were extracted from the clinic’s electronic database. The outcomes of D-IUI and D-IVF were separately assessed.

Results

The cohort of SW was significantly older than WLR (37.6 vs. 32.4 years, P < 0.001), and more commonly underwent IVF at first treatment (83% vs. 29%, P < 0.000). Conversely, WLR underwent more frequently D-IUI as a first treatment (71% vs. 17% of SW, P < 0.001) and more often in the natural cycle (89.9% vs. 70.8%, P = 0.019), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the main outcome LBR between the two groups, or between the two different types of treatment, when adjusted for age. Perinatal outcomes and cLBR were also similar among the groups.

Conclusions

SW were, on average, older than WLR undergoing treatment with donor sperm. No significant differences were seen in the LBR and cLBR when adjusted for age between the two groups and between the two types of treatment (D-IVF vs. D-IUI).

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NTC04602962.

Pregnancy success rates for lesbian women undergoing intrauterine insemination

Objective

To compare the pregnancy outcomes of lesbian women undergoing donor sperm intrauterine insemination (IUI) with that of heterosexual women undergoing IUI using partner or donor sperm.

Design

Retrospective cohort analysis.

Setting

Two academic fertility practices.

Patient(s)

All IUI cycles between 2007 and 2016.

Intervention(s)

None.

Main outcome measure(s)

Primary outcomes included clinical pregnancy (CP) rates and live birth/ongoing pregnancy (LB) rates. The baseline characteristics and cycle characteristics were compared between the two groups using absolute standardized differences (ASDs). To account for the correlation between cycles per patient, a generalized estimating equation method for multivariable logistic regression was used.

Results

A total of 11,870 IUI cycles were included, of which 393 were in lesbian women using donor sperm and 11,477 were in heterosexual women with infertility using either partner or donor sperm. The CP rates were similar between the lesbian and heterosexual groups (13.2% vs. 11.1%, respectively, ASD = 0.06). In addition, the LB rates were similar between the two groups (10.4% vs. 8.3%, respectively, ASD = 0.10). After implementing the generalized estimating equation in a multivariable logistic regression, the lesbian group had an overall higher odds of CP (adjusted odds ratio 1.40, 95% confidence interval: [1.04–1.88]) and LB (adjusted odds ratio 1.59, 95% confidence interval [1.15–2.20]) compared with the heterosexual group. The clinical miscarriage rate was higher in the heterosexual group compared with that in the lesbian group (23.8% vs. 15.4%, respectively, ASD = 0.21).

Conclusion

Although the unadjusted rates were similar between the two groups, the adjusted CP and LB odds were significantly higher for lesbian women undergoing IUI for procreative management than those for heterosexual women undergoing IUI for infertility.

Sexual Identity and Birth Outcomes: A Focus on the Moderating Role of Race-ethnicity

Race-ethnic disparities in birth outcomes are well established, and new research suggests that there may also be important sexual identity disparities in birth weight and preterm birth. This study uses the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health and is the first to examine disparities in birth outcomes at the intersection of race-ethnicity and sexual identity. We use ordinary least sqaures and logistic regression models with live births (n = 10,318) as the unit of analysis clustered on mother ID (n = 5,105), allowing us to adjust for preconception and pregnancy-specific perinatal risk factors as well as neighborhood characteristics. Results show a striking reversal in the effect of lesbian or bisexual identity on birth outcomes across race-ethnicities: For white women, a bisexual or lesbian identity is associated with better birth outcomes than their white heterosexual counterparts, but for Black and Latina women, it is associated with worse birth outcomes than their heterosexual peers.

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

Purpose: This study aimed to compare reproductive outcomes after Reception of Oocytes from Partner (ROPA; also called reciprocal in vitro fertilization) with those after in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) with autologous oocytes, in lesbian couples. Methods: This was a retrospective matched cohort study of couples performing a first cycle of either ROPA (n = 60) or autologous IVF/ICSI (n = 120) between February 2012 and May 2018. Couples were matched 1:2 by age of the oocyte provider, day of embryo transfer (ET), and number of embryos transferred. Pregnancy and live birth rates after the first ET and cumulative results after all subsequent ETs performed until June 2019 were evaluated. Results: Reproductive outcomes were significantly better after ROPA at first ET: biochemical pregnancy 70.0% versus 47.5% (p = 0.004), clinical pregnancy 60.0% versus 40.0% (p = 0.011), ongoing pregnancy 60.0% versus 36.7% (p = 0.003), and live birth 57.1% versus 29.8% (p = 0.001). After adjusting for age, body mass index, and number of mature oocytes, we still observed a significant improvement across all outcomes in ROPA (live birth rate odds ratio [OR]: 3.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42-6.57). Cumulative pregnancy and live birth rates were also higher after ROPA (live birth 66.1% vs. 43.4% [p = 0.005]). The adjusted analysis result for cumulative live birth was OR: 2.51, 95% CI: 1.14-5.54. Conclusion: When medically indicated, ROPA can potentially improve reproductive outcomes for lesbian couples through the possibility of selecting the best combination between two oocyte providers and two gestational mothers, provided that both women wish to participate in the pregnancy plan.

Reproductive outcomes of women aged 40 and older undergoing IVF with donor sperm

STUDY QUESTION

Do women ≥40 years old without a male partner who utilize donor sperm have the same reproductive outcomes as those who utilize their partner's sperm?

SUMMARY ANSWER

After controlling for relevant confounders, women ≥40 years old using donor sperm for IVF have significantly higher odds of having a live birth compared to those utilizing their partner's sperm.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Women who are unpartnered or in same-sex relationships are by definition not infertile, but may choose to conceive using donor sperm. It is not known how IVF outcomes are affected with the use of donor sperm compared to women utilizing their partner's sperm, particularly at very advanced maternal ages.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This is a retrospective cohort study conducted at a university-affiliated center of women undergoing IVF with fresh embryo transfer between 2008 and 2018.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Patients were divided into two groups based on the ejaculated sperm source utilized: donor or partner sperm. Live birth rate was the primary outcome. Pregnancy rate was the secondary outcome. Multivariable logistic regression was performed and adjusted for age, the developmental stage of the embryo, and the number of embryos transferred. Unadjusted odds ratio (OR) and adjusted OR (aOR) with 95% CI for pregnancy and live birth were estimated. Statistical significance was denoted by P < 0.05.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of 3910 cycles in women ≥40 years old were analyzed, of which 307 utilized donor sperm and 3603 utilized their partner's sperm to conceive. In the univariate analysis, patients utilizing donor sperm were found to have similar pregnancy rates as those utilizing partner sperm (41.0 vs 39.8%, OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.75-1.20). After adjusting for age, the number of embryos transferred and the developmental stage of the embryos, the model estimates did not vary (aOR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.95-1.56). Similarly, the univariate analysis for live birth did not demonstrate a difference between groups (19.2 vs 17.8%, OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.67-1.22). However, after a similar adjustment was made for confounders, the use of donor sperm was associated with statistically significant increased odds of live birth (aOR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.01-1.88).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

As with any retrospective study, the potential for residual confounding exists, despite attempts to control for this with regression modeling.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Women ≥40 years old who are unpartnered or in same-sex relationships can be counseled that their odds of a live birth are slightly better than women in heterosexual relationships utilizing their partner's sperm. These findings serve to further refine and individualize counseling on the expected IVF outcomes for women in this population.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No funding was sought for this study. The authors declare no competing interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Lesbian Women Undergoing Assisted Reproduction: Diverse, But Not Different

The use of assisted reproduction among women in relationships with other women has increased in the United States over the past decade as a result of increased legal access and social acceptance. Despite this shift, limited studies currently exist to guide optimal fertility care for this growing patient population of women seeking assisted reproduction. In this Commentary, assisted reproduction will be meant to include ovulation induction, intrauterine insemination (IUI), and in vitro fertilization (IVF). Conflicting studies suggest that self-identified lesbian women may demonstrate an increased prevalence of polycystic ovarian syndrome. Most available studies find that a woman's sexual orientation does not affect the outcome of fertility treatment. Self-identified lesbian women undergoing donor sperm IUI and IVF have similar pregnancy and live-birth rates as heterosexual women. Better evidence regarding patient demographics and comorbidities, underlying etiologies of subfertility, and assisted reproductive outcomes among women building families with other women is needed to optimize care.

Does ovarian stimulation benefit ovulatory women undergoing therapeutic donor insemination?

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical and ongoing pregnancy after natural cycle (NC) intrauterine insemination (IUI) versus ovarian stimulation (OS) IUI in ovulatory women undergoing therapeutic donor insemination (TDI).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

Single infertility center.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 76,643 IUI cycles in patients treated with intrauterine insemination were examined. Women undergoing TDI in the absence of diagnosed female factor infertility were included.

INTERVENTION(S)

NC TDI or OS TDI with either clomiphene citrate or letrozole.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Clinical and ongoing pregnancies were analyzed by generalized estimating equations adjusting for age, body mass index, total motile sperm at time of insemination and cycle number. Ongoing multiple gestations were examined as a secondary outcome.

RESULT(S)

Six thousand one hundred ninety-two TDI cycles from 2,343 patients (711 patients without repeated IUI cycles) met inclusion criteria and were available for analysis (3,837 NC and 2,355 OS). There was no difference in mean age between the two groups (NC, 34.2 years vs. OS, 34.3 years). Probability of clinical and ongoing pregnancy was higher in the OS cohort compared with the NC cohort (OS, 22.4% vs. NC, 18.7% and OS, 15.4% vs. NC, 14.9%, respectively). However, OS significantly increased ongoing multiple gestations (OS, 10.8% vs. NC, 2.4%).

CONCLUSION(S)

Ovarian stimulation in TDI cycles resulted in a <4% increase in clinical and <1% increase in ongoing pregnancy, and more than fourfold increase in ongoing multiple gestations. Natural cycle IUI should be considered as a first-line treatment for ovulatory women who need donor insemination.

Donor IUI is equally effective for heterosexual couples, single women and lesbians, but autologous IUI does worse

STUDY QUESTION

Are there differences in the clinical outcomes of IUI among different populational groups (heterosexual couples, single women and lesbian couples)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The outcome of donor IUI (D-IUI) is similar in all populational groups and better than that seen with autologous insemination.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

A vast body of literature on clinical outcome is available for counselling heterosexual couples regarding decisions related to ART. The reproductive potential of single women, lesbian couples and heterosexual couples who need donor semen is assumed to be better, but there is a scarcity of data on their ART performance to actually confirm it.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

In this retrospective multicentric cohort study, a total of 7228 IUI treatment cycles performed in 3807 patients between January 2013 and December 2016 in 13 private clinics belonging to the same reproductive medicine group in Spain were included. Patients with previous IUI attempts were excluded from the study. Only 1.9% of cycles were lost to follow-up.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

A total of 5318 D-IUI cycles were performed in three different populational groups: heterosexual couples (D-HC, 1167 cycles), single women (SW, 2839 cycles) and lesbian couples (LC, 1312), while a total of 1910 autologous IUI cycles were performed in heterosexual couples (A-HC). This last one was considered the control group and was composed of cycles performed in couples with a male partner with sperm parameters equivalent to those requested from donors. In order to identify factors with an impact on clinical outcome, a multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed. Regarding live birth rate (LBR), mixed effect models were employed to control for the fact that different patients were submitted to different numbers of treatments.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Parameters that were significant to the primary outcome (LBR) according to the multivariate analysis were the populational group (D-HC, SW, LC and A-HC) to which the patient belonged, female age and a diagnosis of low ovarian reserve. At the age range of good prognosis (≤37 years), LBR was similar in all groups that underwent D-IUI (18.8% for D-HC, 16.5% for SW and 17.6% for LC) but was significantly lower in the autologous IUI (A-HC) group (11%). For all these significant findings, the strength of the association was confirmed by P values <0.001. From 38 years of age on, no significant differences were observed among the populational groups studied, and for all of them, LBR was below 7% from 40 years of age on.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

To the best of our knowledge, a smoking habit was the only known factor with a potential effect on ART outcome that could not be controlled for, due to the unavailability of this information in a significant percentage of the clinical files studied. Our study was not capable of precisely quantifying the impact of a diagnosis of low ovarian reserve on the LBR of both IUI and D-IUI, due to the number of cycles performed in patients with such diagnosis (n = 231, 3.2% of the total).

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

For the first time, a comparison among D-HC, SW, LC and A-HC was performed in a study with a robust sample size and controlling for potential sources of bias. There is now sound evidence that equivalent clinical outcome is seen in the three groups treated with donor semen (D-HC, SW and LC). Specifically, regarding the comparison between SW and LC, our findings rule out differences in LBR proposed by previous publications, with very similar clinical outcomes within the same age ranges. At age ranges of good prognosis (≤37 years), reproductive performance of D-IUI is significantly better than that seen in heterosexual couples undergoing autologous IUI, even when only cases of optimal sperm quality are considered in this last group. This finding is in agreement with the concept that, as a group, A-HC are more prone to have female factor infertility, even when their infertility assessment finds no contraindication to IUI. Age affects all these groups equally, with none of them reaching a 7% LBR after the age of 40 years. Our findings will be useful for the counselling of patients from the different populations studied here about ART strategies.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

None.

Double intrauterine insemination (IUI) of no benefit over single IUI among lesbian and single women seeking to conceive

PURPOSE

To explore clinical benefit of performing two intrauterine inseminations (IUI) 24 h apart-a double IUI vs. a single IUI among lesbian and single women.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study using electronic medical record review during a 17-year period (11/1999-3/2017). A total of 11,396 patients at a single academic-affiliated private practice were included in this study. All cycles with a single or double IUI were included. A sub-analysis of first cycles only (n = 10,413) was also performed. Canceled IVF cycles converted to IUI were excluded. T tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used for continuous data, and chi-square for categorical data. Multivariable logistic regression controlled for patient age, day 3 follicle-stimulating hormone (D3 FSH), body mass index (BMI), peak estradiol (E2), and post-wash total motile sperm counts to model the association between IUI number and ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) according to sperm source (autologous vs. donor). Generalized estimating equations and mixed effect models accounted for multiple cycles from the same woman. Adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with 95% CI was determined. Sub-analyses of sexual orientation and partner status were performed to compare heterosexual couples with proven infertility to women with lesbian and single women.

RESULTS

During the study period, 22,452 cycles met inclusion criteria (single IUI 1283 vs. double IUI 21,169). Mean patient age and BMI were similar between groups. For couples using autologous sperm, OPR was significantly higher with double IUI (12.0% vs. 14.1%; p = 0.0380). A similar increase was observed for donor sperm OPR among heterosexual couples (14.4% vs. 16.2%), though this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.395). A sub-analysis restricted to donor sperm demonstrates a clinical benefit of second IUI in heterosexual couples, 8.5% vs. 17.6% OPR (AOR 2.94; CI 1.00-10.99; p = 0.0496). When lesbian and single patients were evaluated, there was no difference (17.2% vs. 15.2%; AOR 0.99; CI 0.59-1.70; p = 0.0958).

CONCLUSIONS

Double IUI is associated with a significantly higher OPR for heterosexual couples using an autologous or donor sperm source. The benefit of a second IUI is less clear in patients with undocumented fertility status using donor sperm, such as single and lesbian women.

Understanding the Reproductive Experience and Pregnancy Outcomes of Lesbian Women Undergoing Donor Intrauterine Insemination

PURPOSE

The study purpose was to evaluate the reproductive experience, specifically cycle characteristics and treatment outcomes, of lesbian women. In addition, we aimed to determine whether there are differences in pregnancy outcomes when comparing lesbian women undergoing ovulation induction (OI) versus natural cycles with donor intrauterine insemination (IUI), as well as lesbian and heterosexual women undergoing the same assisted reproductive technology treatment.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study including women who underwent an IUI with cryopreserved sperm between 2006 and 2018. The primary outcome of interest was clinical pregnancy (CP) rate.

RESULTS

A total of 216 lesbian women (451 natural cycles and 441 OI cycles) and 584 heterosexual women (1177 natural cycles and 1238 OI cycles) were included in the study. Thirty percent of lesbian women had a hysterosalpingogram as part of their initial workup. Approximately 40% of lesbian women who underwent OI/IUI had previously undergone at least one natural cycle/IUI. There was no significant difference in CP rate when comparing lesbian women and heterosexual women undergoing natural or OI/IUI, or when comparing lesbian women who underwent natural versus OI/IUI cycles. However, there was a significantly higher multiple gestation rate among lesbian women undergoing OI compared with those undergoing natural cycles (11.8% vs. 0%, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

This large study showed that while pregnancy outcomes were similar between groups, the multiple gestation rate was higher in lesbian women undergoing OI compared with lesbian women undergoing natural cycles.

Biological origins of sexual orientation and gender identity: Impact on health

Gynecologic Oncologists are sometimes consulted to care for patients who present with diverse gender identities or sexual orientations. Clinicians can create more helpful relationships with their patients if they understand the etiologies of these diverse expressions of sexual humanity. Multidisciplinary evidence reveals that a sexually dimorphic spectrum of somatic and neurologic anatomy, traits and abilities, including sexual orientation and gender identity, are conferred together during the first half of pregnancy due to genetics, epigenetics and the diversity of timing and function of sex chromosomes, sex-determining protein secretion, gonadal hormone secretion, receptor levels, adrenal function, maternally ingested dietary hormones, fetal health, and many other factors. Multiple layers of evidence confirm that sexual orientation and gender identity are as biological, innate and immutable as the other traits conferred during that critical time in gestation. Negative social responses to diverse orientations or gender identities have caused marginalization of these individuals with resultant alienation from medical care, reduced self-care and reduced access to medical care. The increased risks for many diseases, including gynecologic cancers are reviewed. Gynecologic Oncologists can potentially create more effective healthcare relationships with their patients if they have this information.

Lesbian and bisexual women's likelihood of becoming pregnant: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Few data exist regarding pregnancy in lesbian and bisexual (LB) women.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the likelihood of LB women becoming pregnant, naturally or assisted, in comparison with heterosexual women SEARCH STRATEGY: Systematic review of papers published 1 January 2000 to 23 June 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies contained details of pregnancy rates among LB women compared with heterosexual women. No restriction on study design.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Inclusion decisions, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted in duplicate. Meta-analyses were carried out, with subgroups as appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 6859 papers identified, 104 full-text articles were requested, 30 papers (28 studies) were included. The odds ratio (OR) of ever being pregnant was 0.19 (95% CI 0.18-0.21) in lesbian women and 1.22 (95% CI 1.15-1.29) in bisexual women compared with heterosexual women. In the general population, the odds ratio for pregnancy was nine-fold lower among lesbian women and over two-fold lower among bisexual women (0.12 [95% CI 0.12-0.13] and 0.50 [95% CI 0.45-0.55], respectively). Odds ratios for pregnancy were higher for both LB adolescents (1.37 [95% CI 1.18-1.59] and 1.98 [95% CI 1.85, 2.13], respectively). There were inconsistent results regarding abortion rates. Lower rates of previous pregnancies were found in lesbian women undergoing artificial insemination (OR 0.17 [95% CI 0.11-0.26]) but there were higher assisted reproduction success rates compared with heterosexual women (OR 1.56 [95% CI 1.24-1.96]).

CONCLUSIONS

Heterosexuality must not be assumed in adolescents, as LB adolescents are at greater risk of unwanted pregnancies and terminations. Clinicians should provide appropriate information to all women, without assumptions about LB patients' desire for, or rejection of, fertility and childbearing.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Review of likelihood of LB women becoming pregnant: LB teenagers at greater risk of unwanted pregnancies.

Lesbian and bisexual women's gynaecological conditions: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the gynaecological health of lesbian and bisexual (LB) women.

OBJECTIVES

To examine differences in incidence and/or prevalence of gynaecological conditions in LB compared with heterosexual women.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The systematic review protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO-CRD42015027091) and searches conducted in seven databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Comparative studies published 2000-2015, reporting any benign (non-infectious) and/or malignant gynaecological conditions with no language or setting restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Inclusions, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted in duplicate. Meta-analyses of condition prevalence rates were conducted where ≥3 studies reported results.

MAIN RESULTS

From 567 records, 47 full papers were examined and 11 studies of mixed designs included. No studies directly addressing the question were found. Two chronic pelvic pain studies reported higher rates in bisexual compared with heterosexual women (38.5 versus 28.2% and 18.6 versus 6.4%). Meta-analyses showed no statistically significant differences in polycystic ovarian syndrome, endometriosis and fibroids. There was a higher rate of cervical cancer in bisexual than heterosexual women [odds ratio (OR) = 1.94; 95% CI 1.46-2.59] but no difference overall (OR = 0.76; 95% CI 0.15-3.92). There was a lower rate of uterine cancer in lesbian than heterosexual women (OR = 0.28; 95% CI 0.11-0.73) and overall (OR = 0.36; 95% CI 0.13-0.97), but no difference in bisexual women (OR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.06-3.07).

CONCLUSIONS

More bisexual women may experience chronic pelvic pain and cervical cancer than heterosexual women. There is no information on potential confounders. Better evidence is required, preferably monitoring sexual orientation in research using the existing validated measure and fully reporting results.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Lesbians have less uterine cancer than heterosexual women; bisexuals have more pelvic pain and cervical cancer.

Sperm DNA fragmentation in cryopreserved samples from subjects with different cancers

Sperm cryopreservation is widely used by cancer patients undergoing chemo- or radiotherapy. Evidence suggests that IVF outcome with cryopreserved spermatozoa from cancer patients is less successful. To determine whether sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) is involved in the lower fertilising ability of cryopreserved spermatozoa of cancer patients, SDF was evaluated in thawed spermatozoa from 78 men affected by different cancers and 53 men with non-cancer pathologies. SDF was assessed by the terminal deoxyribonucleotidyl transferase-mediated dUTP–digoxigenin nick end-labelling (TUNEL), propidium iodide (PI), flow cytometry procedure, which allows determination of two different cell populations (PIbrighter and PIdimmer) and thus to determine the percentage of DNA fragmented sperm in both. PIdimmer spermatozoa are totally unviable, whereas PIbrighter spermatozoa with SDF may be motile and morphologically normal, having higher biological relevance in the reproductive process. We found that the proportion of DNA fragmented PIbrighter cells was significantly higher in thawed spermatozoa from cancer than non-cancer patients. Moreover, a positive correlation was found between the degree of DNA fragmentation and sperm motility in the PIbrighter population of spermatozoa from cancer patients that wasn’t seen in non-cancer patients. The results of the present study suggest that higher SDF levels may contribute to the lower IVF success of cryopreserved spermatozoa from cancer patients and that evaluation of SDF could complement genetic counselling as part of the routine management of cancer patients who seek fertility preservation.

Chromosomal instability in mammalian pre-implantation embryos: potential causes, detection methods, and clinical consequences

Formation of a totipotent blastocyst capable of implantation is one of the first major milestones in early mammalian embryogenesis, but less than half of in vitro fertilized embryos from most mammals will progress to this stage of development. Whole chromosomal abnormalities, or aneuploidy, are key determinants of whether human embryos will arrest or reach the blastocyst stage. Depending on the type of chromosomal abnormality, however, certain embryos still form blastocysts and may be morphologically indistinguishable from chromosomally normal embryos. Despite the implementation of pre-implantation genetic screening and other advanced in vitro fertilization (IVF) techniques, the identification of aneuploid embryos remains complicated by high rates of mosaicism, atypical cell division, cellular fragmentation, sub-chromosomal instability, and micro-/multi-nucleation. Moreover, several of these processes occur in vivo following natural human conception, suggesting that they are not simply a consequence of culture conditions. Recent technological achievements in genetic, epigenetic, chromosomal, and non-invasive imaging have provided additional embryo assessment approaches, particularly at the single-cell level, and clinical trials investigating their efficacy are continuing to emerge. In this review, we summarize the potential mechanisms by which aneuploidy may arise, the various detection methods, and the technical advances (such as time-lapse imaging, "-omic" profiling, and next-generation sequencing) that have assisted in obtaining this data. We also discuss the possibility of aneuploidy resolution in embryos via various corrective mechanisms, including multi-polar divisions, fragment resorption, endoreduplication, and blastomere exclusion, and conclude by examining the potential implications of these findings for IVF success and human fecundity.

Fertility-related research needs among women at the margins

Fertility-related research encompasses fertility intentions, preconception care, research amongst pregnant women, and post-partum outcomes of mothers and children. However, some women remain under-represented within this domain of study. Women frequently missing within fertility-related research include those who are already the most vulnerable to health disparities, including female sex workers, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender women, women living with HIV, and women who use drugs. Yet characterization of the needs of these women is important, given their unique fertility-related concerns, including risks and barriers to care emanating from social stigmas and discrimination. This synthesis provides an overview of fertility-related evidence, highlighting where there are clear research gaps among marginalized women and the potential implications of these data shortfalls. Overall, research among marginalized women to date has addressed pregnancy prevention and in some cases fertility intentions, but the majority of studies have focused on post-conception pregnancy safety and the well-being of the child. However, among female sex workers specifically, data on pregnancy safety and the well-being of the child are largely unavailable. Within each marginalized group, preconception care and effectiveness of conception methods are consistently understudied. Ultimately, the absence of epidemiologic, clinical and programmatic evidence limits the availability and quality of reproductive health services for all women and prevents social action to address these gaps.

Deficiencies in reporting results of lesbians and gays after donor intrauterine insemination and assisted reproductive technology treatments: a review of the first emerging studies

At a time when increasing numbers of lesbians and gays consider parenthood using reproductive assistance in infertility centers, the present review aims to summarize the results obtained so far by lesbians after intrauterine insemination (IUI) and in-vitro fertilization (IVF) using donor spermatozoa (D-IUI and D-IVF, respectively) and gays entering into gestational-surrogacy programs. Data show that gays display normal semen parameters and lesbians exhibit no specific causes of female infertility except perhaps for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and some PCOS-related factors. Pair-bonded lesbians entering into D-IUI programs, tend to have higher pregnancy and delivery percentages following spontaneous or induced ovulation than single or pair-bound heterosexual women. The only single study reporting success percentages of lesbians after D-IVF provides, however, puzzling results. In particular, pair-bonded lesbians have lower pregnancy and live-birth percentages than pair-bonded heterosexual women in fresh D-IVF cycles but percentages are similar in frozen/thawed D-IVF cycles. Like in lesbians after D-IUI, surrogate women recruited by pair-bonded gays/single men tend to have higher pregnancy percentages and lower miscarriage percentages than surrogate women recruited by heterosexual couples. Notably, all the reports reviewed in the present study are methodologically flawed because of sampling bias, small sample sizes and inadequate use of statistical methods to control for the effects of influential covariates including age, smoking habits, previous gynecological problems, hormonal stimulation type and protocol, and number of prior treatment types and pregnancies/deliveries. Clinicians, reproductive biologists and editors of fertility/infertility journals should make efforts to prevent these deficiencies in future data reporting.