The COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on the Outcome of Medically Assisted Reproduction Pregnancies

Assisted Reproductive Technology During COVID-19: A Population-Based Study Of Pregnancy Outcomes

We assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the pregnancy outcomes of patients who used assisted reproductive technology. We conducted a population-based cohort study of 443,101 patients who conceived naturally or with assisted reproductive technology between December 2015 and July 2021 and had a delivery in hospitals of Quebec, Canada. The main exposure measure was use of assisted reproductive technology before or during the pandemic. Outcomes included preeclampsia, preterm birth, and other pregnancy complications. We used adjusted log-binomial regression models to estimate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association of assisted reproductive technology with adverse pregnancy outcomes compared with natural conception before vs. during the pandemic. In secondary analyses, we examined the association of COVID-19 infection with pregnancy outcomes among women who used assisted reproductive technology. Compared with natural conception, assisted reproductive technology was associated with an increased risk of preeclampsia (RR 1.43; 95% CI 1.21-1.68), preterm birth (RR 2.07; 95% CI 1.84-2.33), and low birth weight (RR 1.94; 95% CI 1.72-2.20) during the pandemic. However, the same risks were also present before the pandemic. Compared with no infection, COVID-19 infection was not associated with adverse outcomes among women who conceived with assisted reproductive technology. This study suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic did not significantly impact the pregnancy outcomes of women who underwent assisted reproductive procedures in Quebec. The findings are reassuring for patients concerned about the potential reproductive effects of the pandemic.

The association between COVID-19 and infertility: Mendelian randomization analysis

Since December 2019, COVID-19 has triggered a global pandemic. The association of COVID-19 with the long-term reproductive situation of women and males is not clear. Thus, our aim was to assess the causal association between COVID-19 and infertility using Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis based on the OpenGWAS database. Two-sample MR analysis was conducted using one genome-wide association study (GWAS) on COVID-19 and infertility in individuals of European ancestry. The summary data of genetic variation come from the GWAS in European populations. We applied several MR methods, including MR Egger, weighted median, inverse variance weighted, simple mode, weighted mode, to test causal relationships. After observing the statistical analysis results of MR, we conducted sensitivity analysis to test robustness. After gene prediction, it was found that there was no clear causal relationship between COVID-19 and male infertility in MR analysis [OR 0.4702 (95% CI, 0.1569-1.4093), P = .178]. Moreover, COVID-19 was not associated with female infertility [OR 0.9981 (95% CI, 0.763-1.544), P = .646]. Sensitivity analysis showed that the MR results were robust [level pleiotropy, male: (MR-Egger, intercept = 0.1967434; se = 0.1186876; P = .2392406); female: (MR-Egger, intercept = -0.05902506; se = 0.05362049; P = .3211367)]. To further validate the impact of COVID-19 on infertility, we added a covariate (sex hormone binding global levels, abortion) to the MR analysis, which is a multivariate MR analysis. According to univariate and multivariate MR analyses, the evidence does not support that COVID-19 is a causal risk factor for infertility in European population. This information can provide information for doctors in reproductive centers when managing infertility patients.

Assisted reproduction after SARS-CoV-2-infection: results of a single-center cohort-study

PURPOSE

The effects of SARS-CoV-2 infections on the outcome of assisted reproduction techniques (ART) were studied in a retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

The outcome of 1581 treatment cycles with embryo transfer at a university fertility center in Germany was compared in years before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. For 335 treatment cycles in 2022 a detailed analysis was carried out depending on infection and immunization status of both partners.

RESULTS

ART cycles did not differ in most of the parameters examined between 2018-2022. In spite of comparable clinical pregnancy rates, there was a significantly higher miscarriage rate at 34.6% (27/78) in 2022, compared to 19.7% (29/147) in the pre-pandemic years of 2018-2019 (p = 0.014). In 37.0% of the treatment cycles (124/335) 2022 at least one partner reported a SARS-CoV-2-Infection 6 months before ART, mostly with the virus variant Omicron. Clinical pregnancy rates were lower in cycles without infection. Comparing women with confirmed infection to no infection, a significantly higher risk of miscarriage was seen (62.5% vs. 26.2%, p = 0.009). In treatment cycles of partners with basic immunization against SARS-CoV-2 a statistically significant increase of pregnancy rates was seen comparing to cycles with both unvaccinated partners (p = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

The results indicate a negative impact of SARS-CoV-2-infections up to 6 months on ART treatment, in particular an increased risk of miscarriage. Vaccination was associated with a better outcome of ART treatment.

Intravenous immunoglobulin use in patients with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss

PROBLEM

Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) affects up to 4% of couples attempting to conceive. RPL is unexplained in over 50% of cases and no effective treatments exist. Due to the immune system's pivotal role during implantation and pregnancy, immune-mediated RPL may be suspected and immunomodulatory treatments like intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) have been administered but remain controversial. The goal of our study was to evaluate our center's 6 year-outcomes and to develop a framework for IVIg use in RPL.

METHOD OF THE STUDY

Retrospective, single-center cohort study. All patients having received IVIg for unexplained RPL at the McGill Reproductive Immunology Clinic (MRIC) from January 2014 to December 2020 were included if maternal age was <42 years, body mass index (BMI) < 35 kg/m² , non-smoker and having had ≥3 consecutive RPL despite previous treatment with aspirin and progesterone. IVIg 0.6-0.8 g/kg was given prior to conception and monthly during pregnancy until 16-20 weeks' gestation. We compared IVIg treated patient's outcomes to a separate "natural history cohort". This cohort was composed of patients consulting at the McGill recurrent pregnancy loss clinic and the MRIC over a 2-year period (January 2020 to December 2021) with similar inclusion criteria as the treatment cohort but did not receive IVIg or other immunomodulatory treatments. The association of IVIg with outcomes (compared to no IVIg) was evaluated among the groups of patients with primary RPL and secondary RPL. The primary outcome was live birth rate (LBR), secondary outcomes included IVIg safety, obstetrical, and neonatal complications.

RESULTS

Among 169 patients with unexplained RPL that were included in the study, 111 had primary RPL (38 exposed to IVIg and 83 controls) and 58 had secondary RPL (nine exposed to IVIG and 49 controls). Among patients with primary RPL (n = 111), the LBR was 64.3% (18/28) among patient exposed to IVIg compared to 43.4% (36/83) in controls (p = 0.079); regression analysis adjusting for BMI and number of previous miscarriages showed benefit favoring the use of IVIg (OR = 3.27, CI 95% (1.15-10.2), p = 0.03) when evaluating for live birth. In the subgroup of patients with ≥5 previous RPL and primary RPL (n = 31), IVIg was associated with higher LBR compared to control (10/15 (66.7%) vs. 3/16 (18.8%); p = 0.0113) but not the in the sub-group of patients with <5 miscarriages and primary RPL (8/13 (61.5%) vs. 33/67 (49.3%); p = 0.548). IVIG treatment did not improve LBR in patients with secondary RPL in our study (3/9 (33.3%) vs. 23/49 (47%); p = 0.495). There were no serious adverse events in the IVIg treatment group, obstetrical/neonatal complications were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

IVIg may be an effective treatment for patients with RPL if appropriately used in specific groups of patients. IVIg is a blood product and subject to shortages especially with unrestricted off-label use. We propose considering IVIg in well-selected patients with high order RPL who have failed standard medical therapy. Further mechanistic studies are needed to understand immune-mediated RPL and IVIg's mode of action. This will enable further refinement of treatment criteria and the development of standardized protocol for its use in RPL.

Fear of fertility side effects is a major cause for COVID-19 vaccine hesitance in infertile patients

Introduction

This study aims to investigate the acceptance, hesitance and attitudes of infertile female patients toward the COVID-19 vaccination.

Methods

An anonymous cross-sectional online survey was conducted between 28th of January to 10th of August 2022. The questionnaire consisted of 35 questions on demographics, COVID-19 vaccination status, prior concerns of the vaccinated participants and reasons for not vaccinating among unvaccinated participants, and factors influencing the decision not to vaccinate.

Results

Of 406 participants who answered all questions, 92.1% reported having received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, 7.9% were unvaccinated. Factors associated with the decision for vaccination were full time or part time employment (p = 0.05), high trust in the principle of vaccination (p < 0.001), high willingness for other vaccination during fertility treatment (p < 0.001) and risk factors for severe COVID-19 (p = 0.007). Concerns about directly occurring adverse effects after vaccination (42.0%), about impact on own fertility (21.9%) or on the fertility treatment (27.5%) were the main concerns beforehand of vaccinated participants. Correlations between fertility concerns and mistrust in the general principle of vaccination were found. Beside general health concerns, unvaccinated participants reported fears about fertility impairment as the most important arguments against a COVID-19 vaccination (median of 5.0 on a five-point-Likert scale).

Conclusion

Both vaccinated and unvaccinated participants stated having concerns and fears about side effects of the COVID-19 vaccination on their fertility. To increase patients' trust in medical recommendations, such as vaccination, to avoid mistrust in the medical system and to maintain patient's compliance, there should be additional educational services that address infertile patients and their needs.

Early coronavirus disease 2019 restrictive measures and changes in maternal characteristics, use of assisted reproductive technology, and stillbirth

BACKGROUND

The initial COVID-19 pandemic response-related effects on conceptions following the use of assisted reproductive technologies (ART), and on changes in the maternal characteristics of women who conceived during the early vs. pre-pandemic period, have been understudied.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of ART clinic closures in the United States (US) in March 2020 on the frequency of ART-conceived live births, multiple births and stillbirths; and to describe changes in the characteristics of women who conceived in the early pandemic period.

METHODS

Population-based cohort study including all births in the US from January 2015 to December 2020 (22,907,688 live births; 134,537 stillbirths). Interrupted time series (ITS) methodology was used to estimate rate ratios (RR) of expected versus observed rates in December 2020 (i.e., among births conceived mainly in March 2020). Demographic and clinical characteristics were compared between mothers who conceived in March 2020 versus March 2015-2019.

RESULTS

Overall, 1.1% of live births and 1.7% of stillbirths were conceived by ART. ART-conceived live births decreased by 57.0% in December 2020 (observed vs. expected RR 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40, 0.45), and these declines occurred in all subgroups of women. Multiple births also declined in December 2020. Stillbirth rates increased in December 2020 in ART-conceived births (RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.63, 3.92) but remained unchanged in the non-ART group. Maternal characteristics of women who conceived in the early pandemic versus pre-pandemic period differed and included an increased prevalence of pre-pregnancy obesity class 3 and chronic hypertension.

CONCLUSIONS

The early pandemic closure of ART clinics resulted in a substantial decline in ART-conceived live births and multiple births in December 2020 and an increase in the proportion of stillbirths among ART-conceived births. Women who conceived in the early pandemic period also had an increased prevalence of obesity and chronic hypertension.