Reproduction and Fertility cover

 

 

Recently, fertility services have started resuming since COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, but there remains significant uncertainty in the way this care will be delivered in the United Kingdom. The objective of our study was to explore the impact of COVID-19 on individuals using fertility services in the United Kingdom. The study was conducted in two phases between May 2020 and July 2020: an online questionnaire involving 1212 participants and subsequent individual semi-structured telephone interviews with 15 participants. Through thematic analysis, we learned from the questionnaire findings that 74% of individuals identified as White British, 21% as Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) and 2.6% as male. Ninety-six per cent of individuals from the questionnaire explained that COVID-19 had a ‘negative impact’ on their fertility treatment, namely ‘delay in care’. Eighty-two per cent of participants discussed concerns about the ‘uncertainty’ they felt about fertility services; these included the ‘unknown impact of COVID-19 on pregnancy outcomes’, the ‘unknown impact on general gynaecology services’ and the ‘unknown impact of COVID-19 on fertility success’. Through semi-structured telephone interviews with 15 participants, we learned about the ‘cultural pressures’ individuals from BAME backgrounds faced in relation to care. Participants were mindful about the ‘pressures on the service’ when reopening, and therefore ‘advancing maternal age’, ‘socio-economic background’ and ‘previous unsuccessful fertility treatment’ were the main factors individuals considered important when ‘prioritising’ fertility care. Our findings can be used by fertility service providers to appreciate the patient perspective when considering the reopening of fertility services nationally and internationally.

Lay summary

The impact of COVID-19 on patients seeking or undergoing fertility treatment is not entirely known. Many patients have had their treatment postponed during the pandemic. As fertility services begin to recommence, it is important to understand how the pandemic has affected this group of patients. In addition, it is vital to appreciate and understand the patient’s voice in order to ensure services take into account the patients’ concerns as they begin to offer certain fertility treatments. Our study was conducted in two phases and involved an online questionnaire and individual interviews with people. We found that people were worried about services restarting and how care would be prioritised. People also discussed some of the perceived barriers to seeking fertility healthcare. Our findings highlight the importance of understanding the patient’s voice when recommencing fertility services.

Human sperm cryopreservation is characterised to this day by sub-optimal success rates. Interestingly, a traditional approach to improving post-thaw outcome has been to integrate standard sperm preparation techniques into freezing protocols as a means of selecting sperm with the highest fertilisation potential prior to insemination. However, no consensus has been reached yet regarding the optimal timing (before or after freezing) of this selection step. Following analysis of a total of 20 human semen samples, which were divided into two aliquots prepared by density gradient centrifugation either before or after freezing, this study demonstrated higher post-thaw total (P < 0.0001), progressively motile (P = 0.005) and vital (P < 0.0001) sperm counts for frozen-prepared semen samples. The present study suggests that direct insemination with frozen-prepared sperm with minimal intervening post-thaw processing might be a more advantageous approach to current clinical practices, particularly for donor and patient intrauterine insemination programmes. Further research into cryopreservation-induced coiled sperm tail morphology is also warranted.

Lay summary

Freezing and storing of sperm in liquid nitrogen (’sperm cryopreservation') is the current method of choice for preserving the fertility of a wide scope of men. Nevertheless, sub-optimal sperm survival is still associated with traditional cryopreservation methods, namely 'slow freezing', and may affect fertility treatment success rates. Interestingly, a widely applied approach for selecting high-quality sperm before treatment has been to incorporate 'sperm preparation' techniques, such as density gradient centrifugation, in slow freezing protocols. There is, however, an ongoing debate regarding which is the optimal timing of this selection step: before or after freezing. In this study, we collected 20 human semen samples which were divided into two portions and subjected to density gradient centrifugation either before or after freezing. Post-thaw semen analyses demonstrated significantly improved sperm counts (P < 0.05) when density gradient centrifugation was performed before freezing, thus suggesting this approach to be more advantageous for current clinical practices.

Lay summary

In IVF, eggs and sperm are added together for fertilisation to occur whereas ICSI involves injecting a single sperm into each egg. ICSI is very effective where sperm count or swimming is poor (male infertility) but is slightly riskier than IVF in terms of health problems in children, although these risks are small. However, the risk of no eggs fertilising is higher for IVF compared to ICSI and couples undertaking fertility preservation, for example, before cancer treatment, usually only have time for one attempt. Using fertility preservation treatment cycle data reported to Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), this study shows that ICSI results in higher number of fertilised eggs and embryos for storage or treatment compared to IVF. However, 19% of eggs are not used in ICSI treatment, so IVF appears to be better overall. Clinics should choose IVF or ICSI for fertility preservation depending on sperm characteristics rather than using ICSI for all.

Endometriosis is a chronic neuroinflammatory pain condition affecting ~180 million women worldwide. Surgical removal or hormonal suppression of endometriosis lesions only relieves pain symptoms in some women and symptomatic relapse following treatment is common. Identifying factors that contribute to pain is key to developing new therapies. We collected peritoneal fluid samples and clinical data from a cohort of women receiving diagnostic laparoscopy for suspected endometriosis (n=52). Peritoneal fluid immune cells were analysed by flow cytometry and data compared with pain scores determined using the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile Questionnaire (EHP-30) in order to investigate the association between peritoneal immune cells and pain symptoms. Pain scores were not different between women with or without endometriosis, nor did they differ according to disease stage; consistent with a poor association between disease presentation and pain symptoms. However, linear regression and correlation analysis demonstrated that peritoneal macrophage abundance correlated with severity of pelvic pain. CD14high peritoneal macrophages negatively correlated with pain scores whereas CD14low peritoneal macrophages were positively correlated, independent of diagnostic outcome at laparoscopy. Stratification by pain subtype, rather than endometriosis diagnosis, resulted in the most robust correlation between pain and macrophage adundance. Pain score strongly correlated with CD14high (p=0.007) and CD14low (p=0.008) macrophages in patients with non-menstrual pain and also in patients who reported dysmennorhea (CD14high p=0.021, CD14low p=0.019) or dysparunia (CD14high p=0.027, CD14low p=0.031). These results provide new insight into the association between peritoneal macrophages and pelvic pain which may aid identification of future therapeutic targets.

objective: Oocyte pick-up (OPU) is a painful, but essential part of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) that is usually performed under sedation and analgesia (SaA). Our aim was to study why some women decide to undergo OPU without SaA?

methods: This was a prospective study using patient questionnaires and the standardized 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) score. The patients were asked to assess the pain experienced during OPU using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The study sample was a convenience sample of 100 healthy women undergoing OPU at our unit with or without SaA.

Results: Women who chose to undergo OPU without SaA were significantly more likely to express fear of anesthesia. A high pain score (VAS≥6) was reported by significantly more patients who underwent OPU without SaA than with SaA. Yet, 98% of the patients who underwent OPU without SaA stated that in future IVF cycles, they would still choose to undergo OPU without SaA. More patients had high anxiety scores among those who underwent OPU with than without SaA.

Conclusions: Women who chose to undergo OPU without SaA reported more often fear of anesthesia. Although these women experienced significantly more pain during OPU, almost all of them suggested that they would still choose to undergo OPU without SaA. Increased anxiety, as expressed by higher GAD-7 scores, was not associated with a tendency to choose SaA during OPU. The option of OPU without SaA seems to be an acceptable option for selected women.

October 22, 2020

New Editorial Board members

 

Reproduction and Fertility has two new members who have joined the Editorial Board, Dr Channa Jayasena and Dr Mehdi Ommati.

 

May 7, 2020

Reproduction and Fertility – now open for submissions

 

In partnership with Bioscientifica, the Society for Reproduction and Fertility is pleased to announce the launch of their new fully open-access, peer-reviewed journal, Reproduction and Fertility.

Led by Co-Editors-in-Chief Andrew Horne and Norah Spears, Reproduction and Fertility will see vigorous yet rapid peer review of the latest basic, translational and clinical research in the field.

 

May 7, 2020

Article Publication Charge waived

 

In celebration of the launch of Reproduction and Fertility, Bioscientifica and the Society for Reproduction and Fertility are sponsoring the Article Publication Charge during the launch years of the journal*.

*The Society for Reproduction and Fertility and Bioscientifica reserve the right to withdraw this offer at any time.