Dataset Information

Low Prognosis by the POSEIDON Criteria in Women Undergoing Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Multicenter and Multinational Prevalence Study of Over 13,000 Patients.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To estimate the prevalence of low-prognosis patients according to the POSEIDON criteria using real-world data.

Design

Multicenter population-based cohort study.

Settings

Fertility clinics in Brazil, Turkey, and Vietnam.

Patients

Infertile women undergoing assisted reproductive technology using standard ovarian stimulation with exogenous gonadotropins.

Interventions

None.

Main outcome measures

Per-period prevalence rates of POSEIDON patients (overall, stratified by POSEIDON groups and by study center) and the effect of covariates on the probability that a patient be classified as "POSEIDON".

Results

A total of 13,146 patients were included. POSEIDON patients represented 43.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 42.0-43.7) of the studied population, and the prevalence rates varied across study centers (range: 38.6-55.7%). The overall prevalence rates by POSEIDON groups were 44.2% (group 1; 95% CI 42.6-45.9), 36.1% (group 2; 95% CI 34.6-37.7), 5.2% (group 3; 95% CI 4.5-6.0), and 14.4% (group 4; 95% CI: 13.3-15.6). In general, POSEIDON patients were older, had a higher body mass index (BMI), lower ovarian reserve markers, and a higher frequency of female factor as the primary treatment indication than non-POSEIDON patients. The former required larger doses of gonadotropin for ovarian stimulation, despite achieving a 2.5 times lower number of retrieved oocytes than non-POSEIDON patients. Logistic regression analyses revealed that female age, BMI, ovarian reserve, and a female infertility factor were relevant predictors of the POSEIDON condition.

Conclusions

The estimated prevalence of POSEIDON patients in the general population undergoing ART is significant. These patients differ in clinical characteristics compared with non-POSEIDON patients. The POSEIDON condition is associated with female age, ovarian reserve, BMI, and female infertility. Efforts in terms of diagnosis, counseling, and treatment are needed to reduce the prevalence of low-prognosis patients.

SUBMITTER: Esteves SC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8006427 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceNumerous studies have documented the association of self-rated health (SRH) with chronic diseases. However, few studies have investigated its association with semen quality.ObjectiveTo examine the association of SRH with semen quality among men undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) in China.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study recruited male partners in couples undergoing ART treatment at the Center for Reproductive Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Wuhan, China. A total of 1262 men underwent 2 semen examinations and completed a questionnaire on SRH between December 2018 and January 2020. Data analysis was performed from November 20, 2022, to March 24, 2023.ExposureSRH, including overall physical and mental health, as well as reproductive-related physical and mental health specifically, were reported at baseline recruitment.Main outcomes and measuresSperm concentration, sperm progressive motility, sperm motility, and sperm count as semen quality parameters.ResultsThe study included 1262 men with a mean (SD) age of 32.79 (5.25) years and body mass index of 24.37 (3.68). Men with poorer SRH had lower semen quality (eg, sperm concentration among poor vs very good overall physical health: percentage variation, -14.67%; 95% CI, -23.62% to -4.66%). Among 4 components of SRH, a greater reduction in semen quality was estimated for reproductive-related SRH compared with overall SRH, whereas the greatest reduction was observed for reproductive-related physical SRH. In comparison with men with very good reproductive-related physical SRH, men with poor reproductive-related physical SRH had differences of -24.78% (95% CI, -32.71% to -15.93%) and -25.61% (95% CI, -33.95% to -16.22%) in sperm count and concentration, respectively, and regression coefficients of -9.38 (95% CI, -12.01 to -6.76) and -9.24 (95% CI, -11.82 to -6.66) for sperm motility and sperm progressive motility, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of Chinese men, poorer SRH was associated with lower semen quality, and reproductive-related physical SRH was the most pronounced indicator. Our findings suggest that SRH, especially reproductive-related physical SRH, was a good indicator of semen quality, which should inform public and clinical regulatory decisions.

Project description:BackgroundApproximately 1 in 7 couples experience subfertility, many of whom have lifestyles that negatively affect fertility, such as poor nutrition, low physical activity, obesity, smoking, or alcohol consumption. Reducing lifestyle risk factors prior to pregnancy or assisted reproductive technology treatment contributes to the improvement of reproductive health, but cost-implications are unknown.ObjectiveThe goal of this study was to evaluate reproductive, maternal pregnancy, and birth outcomes, as well as the costs of pre-conception lifestyle intervention programs in subfertile couples and obese women undergoing assisted reproductive technology.MethodsUsing a hypothetical model based on quantitative parameters from published literature and expert opinion, we evaluated the following lifestyle intervention programs: (1) Smarter Pregnancy, an online tool; (2) LIFEstyle, which provides outpatient support for obese women; (3) concurrent use of both Smarter Pregnancy and LIFEstyle for obese women; (4) smoking cessation in men; and (5) a mindfulness mental health support program using group therapy sessions. The model population was based on data from the Netherlands.ResultsAll model-based analyses of the lifestyle interventions showed a reduction in the number of in vitro fertilization, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, or intrauterine insemination treatments required to achieve pregnancy and successful birth for couples in the Netherlands. Smarter Pregnancy was modeled to have the largest increase in spontaneous pregnancy rate (13.0%) and the largest absolute reduction in potential assisted reproductive technology treatments. Among obese subfertile women, LIFEstyle was modeled to show a reduction in the occurrence of gestational diabetes, maternal hypertensive pregnancy complications, and preterm births by 4.4%, 3.8%, and 3.0%, respectively, per couple. Modeled cost savings per couple per year were €41 (US $48.66), €360 (US $427.23), €513 (US $608.80), €586 (US $695.43), and €1163 (US $1380.18) for smoking cessation, mindfulness, Smarter Pregnancy, combined Smarter Pregnancy AND LIFEstyle, and LIFEstyle interventions, respectively.ConclusionsAlthough we modeled the potential impact on reproductive outcomes and costs of fertility treatment rather than collecting real-world data, our model suggests that of the lifestyle interventions for encouraging healthier behaviors, all are likely to be cost effective and appear to have positive effects on reproductive, maternal pregnancy, and birth outcomes. Further real-world data are required to determine the cost-effectiveness of pre-conception lifestyle interventions, including mobile apps and web-based tools that help improve lifestyle, and their effects on reproductive health. We believe that further implementation of the lifestyle app Smarter Pregnancy designed for subfertile couples seeking assistance to become pregnant is likely to be cost-effective and would allow reproductive health outcomes to be collected.

Project description:BackgroundOvaleap® (follitropin alfa), a recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone, is a biosimilar medicinal product to Gonal-f® and is used for ovarian stimulation. The main objective of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of Ovaleap® compared to Gonal-f® in one treatment cycle in routine clinical practice.MethodsSafety of Ovaleap® Follitropin alfa in Infertile women undergoing superovulation for Assisted reproductive technologies (SOFIA) was a prospective cohort study conducted in six European countries. Eligible patients were infertile women undergoing superovulation for assisted reproductive technology, who were administered Ovaleap® or Gonal-f® for ovarian stimulation and were naïve to follicle stimulating hormone treatment. The recruitment ratio was 1:1. The primary endpoint was incidence proportion of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and the secondary endpoint was OHSS severity (Grades I, II, III). The effect of risk factors or potential confounders on the odds ratio for OHSS incidence as well as treatment effect on OHSS incidence was explored using univariate logistic regression. Pregnancy and live birth rates were also assessed.ResultsA total of 408 women who were administered Ovaleap® and 409 women who were administered Gonal-f® were eligible for analysis. The incidence proportion of OHSS was 5.1% (95% CI: 3.4, 7.7) in the Ovaleap® cohort and 3.2% (95% CI: 1.9, 5.4) in the Gonal-f® cohort. This difference in OHSS incidence proportion between the two cohorts was not statistically significant neither before (p = 0.159) nor after univariate adjustment for each potential confounder (p > 0.05). The incidence proportion of OHSS severity grades was similar in the two treatment groups (3.4% versus 2.0% for Grade I, 1.2% versus 1.0% for Grade II, and 0.5% versus 0.2% for Grade III, in the Ovaleap® and Gonal-f® cohorts, respectively), without a significant statistical difference (p = 0.865, for each grade). Among patients who had embryo transfer, clinical pregnancy rates were 33% and 31% and live birth rates were 27% and 26%, in the two cohorts, respectively.ConclusionsFindings from the SOFIA study indicate that the incidence proportions of OHSS and OHSS severity, as well as pregnancy and live birth rates, are similar between Ovaleap® and Gonal-f® treatments and corroborate the safety and effectiveness of Ovaleap® as a biosimilar to Gonal-f®.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Fertility rates in Europe are among the lowest in the world, which may be attributed to both biological and lifestyle factors. Cost and reimbursement of fertility treatments vary across Europe, although its citizens enjoy wide access to fertility care. Since few regional studies evaluating public support for fertility treatment exist, we conducted the Listening IVF and Fertility in Europe (LIFE) survey to ascertain public perception of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and gamete donation as a treatment for infertility among European men and women. METHODS AND FINDINGS:This survey was distributed via an online questionnaire to 8,682 individuals who were voluntary participants in an online research panel residing in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, or the UK. The survey covered items to determine respondents' beliefs regarding IVF and its success, the need for public funding, the use of IVF among modern families with different lifestyles, and the support for gamete donation. Results were analyzed by age, country of origin, sex, and sexual orientation. A total of 6,110 (70% of total) men and women responded. Among all respondents, 10% had undergone IVF treatment and 48% had considered or would consider IVF in case of infertility. Respondents estimated IVF mean success rate to be 47% and over half of respondents believed that availability of IVF would encourage people to delay conception. Although 93% of respondents believed that IVF treatment should be publicly funded to some extent, a majority believed that secondary infertility or use of fertility treatments allowing to delay parenthood should be financed privately. Survey respondents believed that the mean number of stimulated IVF cycles funded publicly should be limited 2 to 3 (average 2.4). 79% of respondents were willing to pay for IVF if needed with a mean amount of 5,400 € for a child brought to life through IVF. According to respondents, mean minimum and maximum ages for IVF should be 29 and 42 years old, respectively. The current survey showed support for egg and sperm donation (78%), for IVF in single women (61%) and for same-sex female couples (64%). When analyzing the results per group (i.e., sex, age, sexual orientation, and countries), youngest age groups, homosexuals, bisexuals, German respondents, and men had similar overall positive attitudes and beliefs toward IVF and opinions on public funding. Perceived limits to availability were stronger in women. CONCLUSION:Overall, the survey results demonstrate a positive attitude among respondents in an online panel toward IVF, gamete donation, and support for public funding for fertility treatment. These findings could potentially drive discussions between patients and prescribers to explore IVF treatment and among legislators and payers to support public funding for these procedures.