Optimizing natural fertility: a committee opinion

Availability of Services Related to Achieving Pregnancy in U.S. Publicly Funded Family Planning Clinics

BACKGROUND

Recognizing that quality family planning services should include services to help clients who want to become pregnant, the objective of our analysis was to examine the distribution of services related to achieving pregnancy at publicly funded family planning clinics in the United States.

METHODS

A nationally representative sample of publicly funded clinics was surveyed in 2013-2014 (n = 1615). Clinic administrators were asked about several clinical services and screenings related to achieving pregnancy: basic infertility services, reproductive life plan assessment, screening for body mass index, screening for sexually transmitted diseases, provision of natural family planning services, infertility treatment, and primary care services. The percentage of clinics offering each of these services was compared by Title X funding status; prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated after adjusting for clinic characteristics.

RESULTS

Compared to non-Title X clinics, Title X clinics were more likely to offer reproductive life plan assessment (adjusted PR [aPR], 1.62; 95% CI, 1.42-1.84), body mass index screening for men (aPR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.01-1.21), screening for sexually transmitted diseases (aPRs ranged from 1.21 to 1.37), and preconception health care for men (aPR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.01-1.20). Title X clinics were less likely to offer infertility treatment (aPR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.40-0.74) and primary care services (aPR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.68-0.80) and were just as likely to offer basic infertility services, preconception health care services for women, natural family planning, and body mass index screening in women.

CONCLUSIONS

The availability of selected services related to achieving pregnancy differed by Title X status. A follow-up assessment after publication of national family planning recommendations is underway.

Observational Study of the Social Determinants of Health in Subfertile versus Nonsubfertile Women

CONTEXT

Subfertility affects about 15% of couples worldwide. There are several factors that affect subfertility called social determinants of health (SDH): biological factors as age, ethnic origin, and body mass index; behavioral factors as alcohol intake, smoking, coffee, dietary restriction, physical activity, and psychological state; and contextual factors as education, work activity, and income level.

AIMS

The aim of the study is to evaluate the distribution's relevance of the SDH in subfertile women versus nonsubfertile women.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

A prospective comparative study with two groups of women recruited over 1 year at hospital consultation: one group with subfertile women excluding women without a male partner or with a previous child and another one formed by primigravidae, excluding those receiving assisted reproduction techniques to become pregnant.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We compare the different factors between subfertile and nonsubfertile women one by one. Second, a multivariate analysis was conducted with logistic regression. In all cases, informed consent was obtained.

RESULTS

Regular physical exercise 3-4 times/week (odds ratio [OR]: 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.15-0.71) or healthy food products such as fish 1-2 times/week (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.17-0.95) were associated with nonsubfertile women.

CONCLUSIONS

The distribution of SDH in natural fertility is not altogether homogeneous. Weight control by means of restricting calorie intake, greater consumption of healthy foods such as fish, regular physical exercise, and lower age are positively associated with fertility. Population-level intervention is possible to improve women's health, as these are modifiable factors. Ethnic origin can be considered as a relevant factor, as it may condition the distribution of other determinants.

Complications of Assisted Reproductive Technology

Although only accounting for a small percentage of infants born in the United States each year, assisted reproductive technology (ART) has become a more common means of conception since the first in vitro fertilization baby was born in 1978. An understanding of the ART process, medications, and complications is becoming essential for emergency medicine practice. Much of the surveillance data focuses on ART complications that are likely to be less relevant in the acute care setting, but ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, ectopic pregnancy, and ovarian torsion are 3 diagnoses with high potential morbidity and mortality that emergency physicians should not miss.

Increasing the Chances of Natural Conception: Opinion Statement from the the Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Associations - FEBRASGO - Committee of Gynecological Endocrinology

Considering that myths and misconceptions regarding natural procreation spread rapidly in the era of easy access to information and to social networks, adequate counseling about natural fertility and spontaneous conception should be encouraged in any kind of health assistance. Despite the fact that there is no strong-powered evidence about any of the aspects related to natural fertility, literature on how to increase the chances of a spontaneous pregnancy is available. In the present article, the Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Associations (FEBRASGO, in the Portuguese acronym) Committee on Endocrine Gynecology provides suggestions to optimize counseling for non-infertile people attempting spontaneous conception.

Resolving speculations of methodological inadequacies in the standardized protocol for characterizing women's fertility: Comment on Lobmaier and Bachofner (2018)

Lobmaier and Bachofner (2018) suggest a series of methodological practices to increase the accuracy and reliability of determining a woman's fertile window, claiming the standardized protocol for characterizing women's fertility by Blake et al. (2016) is inadequate. These practices include observing participants for purportedly fertile sessions a considerable time before the LH surge, and using salivary ferning and cervical mucus evaluation as real-time measures of current fertility. Here I explain that Lobmaier and Bachofner's (2018) recommendations decrease rather than increase the likelihood of observing women during peak fertility. I also summarize the pertinent literature on salivary ferning and cervical mucus evaluations, showing that neither method has sufficient sensitivity and specificity to characterize peak fertility. Using meta-analytic data of 10K menstrual cycles, I then show that the protocol provided by Blake et al. (2016) recruits women when conception probability is at its peak and is statistically higher than the window recommended by Lobmaier and Bachofner (2018).

Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in subfertile patients who conceived following low technology interventions for fertility enhancement: a comprehensive review

PURPOSE

Low technology interventions for fertility enhancement (LTIFE) are strategies that avoid retrieval, handling, and manipulation of female gametes. The definition of LTIFE is yet to be widely accepted and clarified, but they are commonly used in milder cases of infertility and subfertility. Based on these considerations, the aim of the present study was comprehensively to review and investigate the obstetric and perinatal outcomes in subfertile patients who underwent LTIFE.

METHODS

A literature search up to May 2017 was performed in IBSS, SocINDEX, Institute for Scientific Information, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. An evidence-based hierarchy was used according to The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine to determine which articles to include and analyze, and to provide a level of evidence of each association between intervention and outcome.

RESULTS

This analysis identified preliminary and low-grade evidence on the influence of LTIFE on obstetric and perinatal outcomes in subfertile women.

CONCLUSIONS

LTIFE women should deserve major consideration from Clinicians/Researchers of Reproductive Medicine, because these treatments could be potentially responsible for mothers' and babies' complications. So far, the lack of well-designed and unbiased studies makes further conclusions difficult to be drawn.

No. 356-Egg Freezing for Age-Related Fertility Decline

OBJECTIVE

To provide a comprehensive review and evidence based recommendations for Canadian fertility centres that offer social egg freezing.

OUTCOMES

In social egg freezing cycles we evaluated thawed oocyte survival rates, fertilization rates, embryo quality, pregnancy rates, and live birth rates. We also review how these outcomes are impacted by age, ovarian reserve, and the number of eggs cryopreserved. Finally, we discuss the risks of social egg freezing, the alternatives, the critical elements for counselling and informed consent, and future reporting of egg freezing outcome data.

EVIDENCE

Published literature was reviewed through searches of MEDLINE and CINAHL using appropriate vocabulary and using key words ("oocyte cryopreservation," "egg freezing," "egg vitrification," "social egg freezing," and "elective egg freezing"). Results included systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, and observational studies. Expert opinion based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, or reports of expert committees was also included to discuss aspects of egg freezing not currently rigorously studied.

VALUES

The evidence obtained was reviewed and evaluated by the Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) Committees of the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society (CFAS) under the leadership of the principal authors.

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

Implementation of this guideline should assist the clinician to develop an optimal approach in providing counselling for egg freezing while minimizing harm and improving patient outcomes during treatment.

VALIDATION

These guidelines have been reviewed and approved by the membership of the CFAS and by the CPG Committees of CFAS and The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC).

SPONSORS

CFAS and SOGC.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Priorities for family building among patients and partners seeking treatment for infertility

BACKGROUND

Infertility treatment decisions require people to balance multiple priorities. Within couples, partners must also negotiate priorities with one another. In this study, we assessed the family-building priorities of couples prior to their first consultations with a reproductive specialist.

METHODS

Participants were couples who had upcoming first consultations with a reproductive specialist (N = 59 couples (59 women; 59 men)). Prior to the consultation, couples separately completed the Family-Building Priorities Tool, which tasked them with ranking from least to most important 10 factors associated with family building. We describe the highest (top three) and lowest (bottom three) priorities, the alignment of priorities within couples, and test for differences in prioritization between men and women within couples (Wilcoxon signed rank test).

RESULTS

Maintaining a close and satisfying relationship with one's partner was ranked as a high priority by majorities of men and women, and in 25% of couples, both partners ranked this factor as their most important priority for family building. Majorities of men and women also ranked building a family in a way that does not make infertility obvious to others as a low priority, and in 27% of couples, both partners ranked this factor as the least important priority for family building. There were also differences within couples that involved either men or women ranking a particular goal more highly than their partners. More women ranked two factors higher than did their partners: 1) that I become a parent one way or another (p = 0.015) and 2) that I have a child in the next year or two (p < 0.001), whereas more men ranked 4 factors higher than their partners: 1) that our child has [woman's] genes (p = 0.025), 2) that our child has [man's] genes (p < 0.001), 3) that I maintain a close relationship with my partner (p = 0.034), and 4) that I avoid side effects from treatment (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians who support patients in assessing available family-building paths should be aware that: (1) patients balance multiple priorities as a part of, or beside, becoming a parent; and (2) patients and their partners may not be aligned in their prioritization of achieving parenthood. For infertility patients who are in relationships, clinicians should encourage the active participation of both partners as well as frank discussions about each partner's priorities for building their family.