Outcomes of donor versus partner sperm in intrauterine insemination in women aged 38 years and older

Beyond the egg: sperm source does not impact cumulative live birth rates in autologous oocyte cryopreservation patients when adjusted for oocyte age

PURPOSE

To assess the impact of sperm source on cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) after oocyte thaw in autologous oocyte cryopreservation (AOC) patients.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of autologous oocyte thaw patients at an urban academic fertility center from 2006 to 2021. Patients were stratified by sperm source [partner sperm (PS) vs. donor sperm (DS)]. The primary outcome was CLBR per patient. Secondary outcomes were the oocyte survival rate and usable embryo rate. Statistics included Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis, Fisher's exact, chi-square, two-sample t-tests, and multiple logistic regression (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

A total of 653 patients were included; 455 (69.7%) used PS and 198 (30.3%) used DS. Time from the first AOC to the first thaw did not differ among DS and PS users (56.8 vs. 54.0 months, p = 0.20). PS users were younger at AOC (37.9 vs. 38.5 years, p < 0.001) and thaw (42.3 vs. 43.1 years, p < 0.001). There were equivalent overall CLBRs (39.9% PS vs. 40.6% DS, p = 0.85) and CLBRs in patients < 35 years at AOC (51.2% PS vs. 100% DS, p = 0.18), 35-37 years at AOC (45.9% PS vs. 60.4% DS, p = 0.10), 38-40 years at AOC (35.4% PS vs. 35.2% DS, p = 0.93), 41-42 years at AOC (28.9% PS vs 14.3% DS, p = 0.21), and > 43 years at AOC (12.5% PS vs 16.7% DS, p = 0.83) among PS and DS users. There were no significant differences in the oocyte survival (79% PS vs 80.5% DS, p = 0.08) or the proportion of patients with usable embryos (27.3% vs 27.8%, p = 0.70) between PS and DS groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In AOC patients, CLBR, oocyte survival rate, and usable embryo rate did not differ based on sperm source.

Therapeutic donor insemination for LGBTQ+ families: a systematic review

IMPORTANCE

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer+ (LGBTQ+) families deserve evidence-based care within environments designed for their unique needs; however, care provided in fertility clinics has been reported to fall short, most notably for assigned female at birth recipients of therapeutic donor insemination (TDI).

OBJECTIVE

To identify the aspects of routine infertility care that are clinically appropriate for this unique patient population, specifically those seeking pregnancy with donor sperm. The research question was posed, "What screening and treatment protocols are supported by the evidence regarding TDI care for LGBTQ+ families?"

EVIDENCE REVIEW

High quality, prospective studies specific to and/or inclusive of this patient population in assisted reproductive care contexts is limited, however evidence regarding age-informed prognosis, screening guidelines, treatment outcomes, insemination timing, number of inseminations per cycle, when to refer, and safety of the procedure were found.

FINDINGS

Findings indicate that compared with routine infertility care protocols, a low-tech, low-intervention model of care for ovulatory LGBTQ+ individuals renders equal or higher success rates without increasing risk.

CONCLUSION

Given the current evidence, TDI for LGBTQ+ families can, with support and training, be provided appropriately in a variety of contexts, including community-based and primary care settings as well as in fertility clinics.

RELEVANCE

This review establishes the current state of the evidence supporting TDI for LGBTQ+ families, expanding access to care for recipients as well as their care providers and outlining areas for further study.

Cumulative live birth rates following intrauterine insemination using donor and husband sperm in different age groups: A cohort study of 10 415 insemination cycles

OBJECTIVES

To assess the age-specific cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs) in intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles using either donor or husband sperm, and to investigate the impact of sperm sources on IUI success among women within the same age group.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study comprised women who underwent IUI with donor sperm (IUI-D) or husband sperm (IUI-H) from 2017 to 2021. The women were stratified based on their age at the initiation of insemination into four categories: <35, 35-37, 38-39 and ≥40 years.

RESULTS

A total of 5253 women undergoing 10 415 insemination cycles (3354 with IUI-D and 7061 with IUI-H) were included. The CLBRs decreased significantly with increasing maternal age within donor and husband insemination groups (P < 0.001). In the IUI-D group, the crude CLBRs were 61.50% in women aged <35, 48.91% in 35-37, 24.14% in 38-39 and 11.76% in the ≥40-year age category, respectively. The corresponding rates in the IUI-H group were 27.62%, 22.96%, 13.73% and 6.90%, respectively. Within the <35 and 35-37-year age categories, the CLBRs were significantly higher following IUI-D cycles compared to IUI-H cycles, with hazard ratios (HR) of 1.85 (1.68-2.04) and 1.69 (1.16-2.47), respectively. However, within the 38-39 and ≥40-year age categories, both IUI-D and IUI-H resulted in comparable low CLBRs, with HRs of 1.91 (0.77-4.76) and 1.80 (0.33-9.86), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Advanced maternal age affects the whole process of fertility. Therefore, it could be reasonable to limit the number of IUI performed in women aged 40 years and older, even in couple using donor sperm for reproduction.

Effects of donor sperm on perinatal and neonatal outcomes resulting from in vitro fertilization-intracytoplasmic sperm injection and embryo transfer cycles: a retrospective cohort study

Background

The impact of donor sperm on pregnancy outcomes is controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate whether donor sperm in in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment could reduce the rate of live births or increase the incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes and birth defects in neonates.

Methods

This single-centre, retrospective cohort study included 1,559 patients with infertility who received donor sperm at our hospital from 2015 to 2019. All the patients received fresh embryos and underwent first-cycle transfer. After propensity score matching, 4,677 controls who received their partners’ sperm were matched at 1:3. Clinical pregnancy, perinatal, and neonatal outcomes were compared between the donor sperm and partner sperm groups.

Results

The embryo development was better in the donor sperm group than in the partner sperm group. The high-quality embryo and available embryo rates were significantly higher in the donor sperm group (P<0.05 for both groups). The rate of high-quality embryos transferred from the donor sperm group was higher than that from the partner sperm group (P<0.05). The clinical pregnancy (62.99% vs. 59.65%; P=0.02) and live birth (54.65% vs. 51.59%; P=0.036) rates were higher in the donor sperm group. After adjusting for confounding factors, no significant difference in live birth rates was observed between the two groups (adjusted P=0.057). The low birthweight (18.21% vs. 21.39%; P=0.023) and small for gestational age (SGA) (7.60% vs. 11.97%; P<0.001) rates were lower in the donor sperm group. To exclude the effect of multiple pregnancies, we evaluated neonatal outcomes of singleton pregnancies. No significant differences were noted in preterm and very preterm birth, SGA, mean birthweight, high birthweight, and low birth weight (LBW) and very low birth weight (VLBW) rates (P>0.05 for both groups). Further, no significant between group differences were observed in the ectopic pregnancy rate, early and late spontaneous abortion rates, gestational age, rate of large for gestational age (LGA), and neonatal defects.

Conclusions

Compared with partner sperm, donor sperm did not reduce live birth rate and did not increase neonatal LBW or low birth defects.