Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1768459
Fertility Does not Quarantine: Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic Impacts on in Vitro Fertilization Clinical Pregnancy Rates
Fertilidade não fica em quarentena: impacto da pandemia COVID-19 nas taxas de gravidez clínica em fertilização in vitro
Abstract
Objective To understand the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinical pregnancy rates and analyze factors that may have influenced their outcome.
Methods This was a retrospective observational study conducted at a tertiary-care Brazilian fertility center. All fresh IVF and embryo warming cycles performed from March 11 to December 31, 2018–2021 were analyzed, and their data were used to calculate fertilization, embryo cleavage, cycle cancellation, embryo transfer (ET), and clinical pregnancy rates. Statistical tests were used to evaluate the alterations found. Logistic regression models were used to explore the association of the categorical variables with the observed clinical pregnancy rates. Data from 2018 and 2019 (prepandemic) and 2020 and 2021 (pandemic) were grouped.
Results A total of 756 cycles were analyzed (n = 360 prepandemic and n = 396 pandemic). The age group of the patients, fertilization rates, and cleavage rates did not have significant differences (p > 0.05). There was a reduction in the percentage of fresh IVF and an increase in embryo warming cycles (p = 0.005) during the pandemic. There was also an increase in fresh cycle cancellations (p < 0.001) and a reduction in ET rates (p < 0.001). The pandemic had a negative impact on clinical pregnancy rates (p < 0.001) especially due to the increase in fresh cycle cancellations (p < 0.001).
Conclusion Embryo warming cycles with subsequent frozen-thawed ET were presented as a viable alternative to continue assisted reproductive treatments against pandemic restrictions on fresh cycles, ensuring clinical pregnancy, albeit at a lower rate than that of the prepandemic period.
Resumo
Objetivo Compreender os impactos da pandemia de COVID-19 nas taxas de gravidez clínica em fertilização in vitro (FIV) e analisar fatores que possam ter influenciado seu resultado.
Métodos Foi realizado um estudo observacional retrospectivo em um centro brasileiro de reprodução assistida. Todos os ciclos de FIV com embriões frescos e descongelados realizados entre 11 de março e 31 de dezembro, 2018-2021 foram analisados, e seus dados utilizados para cálculo das taxas de fertilização, clivagem embrionária, cancelamento de ciclos, transferência de embriões (TE) e gravidez clínica. Testes estatísticos avaliaram significância das alterações encontradas e modelos de regressão logística exploraram associação das variáveis categóricas estudadas com as taxas de gravidez clínica observadas. Os dados de 2018 e 2019 (pré-pandemia) e 2020 e 2021 (pandemia) foram agrupados.
Resultados Foram analisados um total de 756 ciclos (n = 360 na pré-pandemia e n = 396 na pandemia). A faixa etária das pacientes e as taxas de fertilização e de clivagem não tiveram alterações significativas (p > 0,05). Na pandemia, houve redução da porcentagem de ciclos de FIV com embriões frescos e aumento dos com descongelamento (p = 0,005). Também foi notado aumento das taxas de cancelamentos de ciclos com embriões frescos (p < 0,001) e redução do número de TEs (p < 0,001). A pandemia exerceu impacto negativo na taxa de gravidez clínica (p < 0,001), especialmente devido ao aumento de cancelamentos dos ciclos a fresco (p < 0,001).
Conclusão Frente às limitações pandêmicas impostas aos ciclos com embriões frescos, os ciclos de descongelamento de embriões se apresentaram como alternativa viável à continuidade dos ciclos de FIV, garantindo gravidez clínica ainda que em taxas inferiores às do período pré-pandêmico.
Keywords
assisted reproductive techniques - fertilization in vitro - pregnancy - COVID-19 - SARS-CoV-2Palavras-chave
tecnologias de reprodução assistida - fertilização in vitro - gestação COVID-19 - SARS-CoV-2Contributions
Vieira F. A., Pasquini Neto R., and Pachniki J. P.A. contributed to the conception and design of the study. Vieira F. A. and Pasquini Neto R. performed data collection, statistical analysis, and prepared the manuscript. Morila M. C. G., Curimbaba J. B. and Pasquini D. S. assisted in the writing of the manuscript and edited the manuscript according to the journal's instructions for authors. Felchner P. C. Z., Wandresen G., and Pachniki J. P.A. helped in the interpretation of data and revised the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final content of the manuscript.
Publication History
Received: 28 July 2022
Accepted: 21 September 2022
Article published online:
27 April 2023
© 2023. Federação Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil
-
References
- 1 World Health Organization. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard [Internet]. 2022 [cited April 18, 2022]. Available from: https://covid19.who.int/
- 2 Hatmi ZN. A systematic review of systematic reviews on the COVID-19 pandemic. SN Compr Clin Med 2021; 3 (02) 419-436
- 3 Segars J, Katler Q, McQueen DB, Kotlyar A, Glenn T, Knight Z. et al; American Society for Reproductive Medicine Coronavirus/COVID-19 Task Force. Prior and novel coronaviruses, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), and human reproduction: what is known?. Fertil Steril 2020; 113 (06) 1140-1149
- 4 Silva LLSD, Lima AFR, Polli DA, Razia PFS, Pavão LFA, Cavalcanti MAFH. et al. Social distancing measures in the fight against COVID-19 in Brazil: description and epidemiological analysis by state. Cad Saude Publica 2020; 36 (09) e00185020
- 5 Marom Haham L, Youngster M, Kuperman Shani A, Yee S, Ben-Kimhy R, Medina-Artom TR. et al. Suspension of fertility treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic: views, emotional reactions and psychological distress among women undergoing fertility treatment. Reprod Biomed Online 2021; 42 (04) 849-858
- 6 Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority. Impact of COVID-19 on fertility treatment 2020 [Internet]. 2022 [cited Jun 25, 2022]. Available from: https://www.hfea.gov.uk/about-us/publications/research-and-data/impact-of-covid-19-on-fertility-treatment-2020/
- 7 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Patient management and clinical recommendations during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic [Internet]. 2020 [cited March 20, 2021]. Available from: https://www.asrm.org/news-and-publications/covid-19/statements/patient-management-and-clinical-recommendations-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic/
- 8 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Coronavirus Covid-19: ESHRE statement on pregnancy and conception [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Mar 20]. Available from: https://www.eshre.eu/Europe/Position-statements/COVID19/
- 9 Zaat T, Zagers M, Mol F, Goddijn M, van Wely M, Mastenbroek S. Fresh versus frozen embryo transfers in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 2 (02) CD011184
- 10 Ben-Kimhy R, Youngster M, Medina-Artom TR, Avraham S, Gat I, Haham LM. et al. Fertility patients under COVID-19: attitudes, perceptions and psychological reactions. Hum Reprod 2020; 35 (12) 2774-2783
- 11 Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, Chambers GM, Zegers-Hochschild F, Mansour R, Ishihara O. et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology: world report on assisted reproductive technology, 2011. Fertil Steril 2018; 110 (06) 1067-1080
- 12 Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority. Fertility treatment 2017: trends and figures [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2021 Apr 9]. Available from: https://www.hfea.gov.uk/media/2894/fertility-treatment-2017-trends-and-figures-may-2019.pdf
- 13 The World Counts. How many babies are born a day? [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.theworldcounts.com/stories/how-many-babies-are-born-each-day
- 14 Alviggi C, Esteves SC, Orvieto R, Conforti A, La Marca A, Fischer R. et al; POSEIDON (Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number) group. COVID-19 and assisted reproductive technology services: repercussions for patients and proposal for individualized clinical management. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2020; 18 (01) 45
- 15 Setti PEL, Cirillo F, Immediata V, Morenghi E, Canevisio V, Ronchetti C. et al. First trimester pregnancy outcomes in a large IVF center from the Lombardy County (Italy) during the peak COVID-19 pandemic. Sci Rep 2021; 11 (01) 16529
- 16 Ministério da Saúde.. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária.. Relatórios de produção de embriões – SisEmbrio [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Jun 25]. Available from: https://www.gov.br/anvisa/pt-br/centraisdeconteudo/publicacoes/sangue-tecidos-celulas-e-orgaos/relatorios-de-producao-de-embrioes-sisembrio
- 17 Anifandis G, Tempest HG, Oliva R, Swanson GM, Simopoulou M, Easley CA. et al. COVID-19 and human reproduction: A pandemic that packs a serious punch. Syst Biol Reprod Med 2021; 67 (01) 3-23
- 18 Madjunkov M, Dviri M, Librach C. A comprehensive review of the impact of COVID-19 on human reproductive biology, assisted reproduction care and pregnancy: a Canadian perspective. J Ovarian Res 2020; 13 (01) 140
- 19 Tavares R, Cunha G, Aguiar L, Duarte SC, Cardinot N, Bastos E. et al. Socioeconomic profile of couples seeking the public healthcare system (SUS) for infertility treatment. JBRA Assist Reprod 2016; 20 (03) 112-117
- 20 Machin R, Mendosa D, Augusto MHO, Monteleone PAA. Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Brazil: characterization of centers and profiles from patients treated. JBRA Assist Reprod 2020; 24 (03) 235-240
- 21 Rasmussen SA, Smulian JC, Lednicky JA, Wen TS, Jamieson DJ. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and pregnancy: what obstetricians need to know. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 222 (05) 415-426
- 22 Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address: ASRM@asrm.org. Fertility preservation and reproduction in patients facing gonadotoxic therapies: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2018; 110 (03) 380-386
- 23 Vander Borght M, Wyns C. Fertility and infertility: Definition and epidemiology. Clin Biochem 2018; 62: 2-10
- 24 Silva CJ, Cruz C, Torres DFM, Muñuzuri AP, Carballosa A, Area I. et al. Optimal control of the COVID-19 pandemic: controlled sanitary deconfinement in Portugal. Sci Rep 2021; 11 (01) 3451
- 25 Borio C. The Covid-19 economic crisis: dangerously unique. Bus Econ 2020; 55 (04) 181-190
- 26 Barra F, La Rosa VL, Vitale SG, Commodari E, Altieri M, Scala C. et al. Psychological status of infertile patients who had in vitro fertilization treatment interrupted or postponed due to COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2022; 43 (02) 145-152
- 27 Zarif Golbar Yazdi H, Aghamohammadian Sharbaf H, Kareshki H, Amirian M. Psychosocial consequences of female infertility in Iran: a meta-analysis. Front Psychiatry 2020; 11: 518961
- 28 Kotlyar AM, Grechukhina O, Chen A, Popkhadze S, Grimshaw A, Tal O. et al. Vertical transmission of coronavirus disease 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021; 224 (01) 35-53.e3