Dataset Information

Comparison of in vitro fertilization cycles in couples with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection versus noninfected couples through a retrospective matched case-control study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes in couples in which at least one partner is human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) positive with that of couples in which neither partner is HIV-positive.

Design

Retrospective matched case-control study.

Setting

Fertility center at Tenon Hospital, Paris, France.

Patients

A total of 179 IVF cycles in couples infected with HIV-1 and 179 IVF cycles in control couples.

Interventions

Ovarian stimulation, oocytes retrieval, IVF (standard and microinjection), embryo transfer, pregnancy, and live birth follow-up.

Main outcome measures

Live birth rate and IVF outcomes.

Results

The first comparison between HIV and non-HIV couples showed poorer outcomes in the HIV group (higher administered gonadotropin doses and longer stimulation periods, lower cumulative pregnancy and live birth rates, among other things). A subgroup analysis was performed in addition. No differences were found in the "men HIV" group compared with the controls. In contrast, poorer outcomes in the "women HIV" and "women and men HIV" groups were shown in terms of administered doses, duration of stimulation, and number of oocytes retrieved. For the "women HIV" group, lower cumulative clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were found.

Conclusion

The data suggested that couples with HIV-positive women have poorer medically assisted procreation outcomes than couples with non-HIV-infected women. Therefore, physicians should pay particular attention to couples with HIV-positive women.

SUBMITTER: Vianna CA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8655394 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe impact of body mass index (BMI) on in vitro fertilization (IVF) has been well acknowledged; however, the reported conclusions are still incongruent. This study aimed to investigate the effect of BMI on IVF embryos and fresh transfer clinical outcomes.MethodsThis retrospective cohort analysis included patients who underwent IVF/ICSI treatment and fresh embryo transfer from 2014 to March 2022. Patients were divided into the underweight group: BMI < 18.5 kg/m2; normal group: 18.5 ≤ BMI < 24 kg/m2; overweight group: 24 ≤ BMI < 28 kg/m2; and obesity group: BMI ≥ 28 kg/m2. A generalized linear model was used to analyze the impact of BMI on each IVF outcome used as a continuous variable.ResultsA total of 3465 IVF/ICSI cycles in the embryo part; and 1698 fresh embryo transplanted cycles from the clinical part were included. Available embryos rate (61.59% vs. 57.32%, p = 0.007) and blastocyst development rates (77.98% vs. 66.27%, p < 0.001) were higher in the obesity group compared to the normal BMI group. Also, the fertilization rate of IVF cycles in the obesity group was significantly decreased vs. normal BMI group (normal: 62.95% vs. 66.63% p = 0.006; abnormal: 5.43% vs. 7.04%, p = 0.037), while there was no difference in ICSI cycles. The clinical outcomes of overweight and obesity groups were comparable to the normal group. The gestational age of the obesity group was lower compared to the normal group (38.08 ± 1.95 vs. 38.95 ± 1.55, p = 0.011). The adjusted OR (AOR) of BMI for the preterm birth rate of singletons was 1.134 [(95% CI 1.037-1.240), p = 0.006]. BMI was significantly associated with live birth rate after excluded the PCOS patients [AOR: 1.042 (95% CI 1.007-1.078), p = 0.018]. In young age (≤ 35 years), clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate were positively correlated with BMI, AOR was 1.038 [95% CI (1.001-1.076), p = 0.045] and 1.037 [95% CI (1.002-1.074) p = 0.038] respectively.ConclusionBeing overweight and obese was not associated with poor IVF outcomes but could affect blastocyst formation. ICSI could help to avoid low fertilization in obese patients. Also, obesity was associated with increased rates of premature singleton births.

Project description:ImportanceThe likelihood of achieving a live birth with repeat in vitro fertilization (IVF) is unclear, yet treatment is commonly limited to 3 or 4 embryo transfers.ObjectiveTo determine the live-birth rate per initiated ovarian stimulation IVF cycle and with repeated cycles.Design, setting, and participantsProspective study of 156,947 UK women who received 257,398 IVF ovarian stimulation cycles between 2003 and 2010 and were followed up until June 2012.ExposuresIn vitro fertilization, with a cycle defined as an episode of ovarian stimulation and all subsequent separate fresh and frozen embryo transfers.Main outcomes and measuresLive-birth rate per IVF cycle and the cumulative live-birth rates across all cycles in all women and by age and treatment type. Optimal, prognosis-adjusted, and conservative cumulative live-birth rates were estimated, reflecting 0%, 30%, and 100%, respectively, of women who discontinued due to poor prognosis and having a live-birth rate of 0 had they continued.ResultsAmong the 156,947 women, the median age at start of treatment was 35 years (interquartile range, 32-38; range, 18-55), and the median duration of infertility for all 257,398 cycles was 4 years (interquartile range, 2-6; range, <1-29). In all women, the live-birth rate for the first cycle was 29.5% (95% CI, 29.3%-29.7%). This remained above 20% up to and including the fourth cycle. The cumulative prognosis-adjusted live-birth rate across all cycles continued to increase up to the ninth cycle, with 65.3% (95% CI, 64.8%-65.8%) of women achieving a live birth by the sixth cycle. In women younger than 40 years using their own oocytes, the live-birth rate for the first cycle was 32.3% (95% CI, 32.0%-32.5%) and remained above 20% up to and including the fourth cycle. Six cycles achieved a cumulative prognosis-adjusted live-birth rate of 68.4% (95% CI, 67.8%-68.9%). For women aged 40 to 42 years, the live-birth rate for the first cycle was 12.3% (95% CI, 11.8%-12.8%), with 6 cycles achieving a cumulative prognosis-adjusted live-birth rate of 31.5% (95% CI, 29.7%-33.3%). For women older than 42 years, all rates within each cycle were less than 4%. No age differential was observed among women using donor oocytes. Rates were lower for women with untreated male partner-related infertility compared with those with any other cause, but treatment with either intracytoplasmic sperm injection or sperm donation removed this difference.Conclusions and relevanceAmong women in the United Kingdom undergoing IVF, the cumulative prognosis-adjusted live-birth rate after 6 cycles was 65.3%, with variations by age and treatment type. These findings support the efficacy of extending the number of IVF cycles beyond 3 or 4.

Project description:Background and Objectives: Although considerable research has been devoted to examining the distinctions between fresh and frozen embryo transfer regarding obstetric outcomes and rates of pregnancy success, there is still a scarcity of thorough analyses that specifically examine neonatal outcomes. The objective of our study was to provide an in-depth analysis of neonatal outcomes that occur after the transfer of fresh and frozen embryos (ET vs. FET) in IVF/ICSI cycles. Materials and Methods: Multiple databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wiley, Scopus, Ovid and Science Direct) were searched from January 1980 to February 2024. Two reviewers conducted the article identification and data extraction, meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria. The methodological quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) or the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Results: Twenty studies, including 171,481 participants in total, were subjected to qualitative and quantitative analyses. A significant increase in preterm birth rates was noted with fresh embryo transfer compared to FET in the overall IVF/ICSI population (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.18-1.35, p < 0.00001), as well as greater odds of a low birth weight (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.27-1.48, p < 0.00001) and small-for-gestational-age infants in this group (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.63-2.00, p < 0.00001). In contrast, frozen embryo transfer can result in macrosomic (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.54-0.65, p < 0.00001) or large-for-gestational-age infants (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.60-0.69, p < 0.00001). No significant difference was observed regarding congenital malformations or neonatal death rates. Conclusions: This systematic review confirmed that singleton babies conceived by frozen embryo transfer are at lower risk of preterm delivery, low birthweight and being small for gestational age than their counterparts conceived by fresh embryo transfer. The data support embryo cryopreservation but suggest that elective freezing should be limited to cases with a proven indication or within the framework of a clinical study.