To assess the effects of both male and female body mass index (BMI), individually and combined, on IVF outcomes.
Design
Prospective cohort study.
Setting
University fertility center. PATIENT(S): All couples undergoing first fresh IVF cycles, 2005-2010, for whom male and female weight and height information were available (n = 721 couples). INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Embryologic parameters, clinical pregnancy, and live birth incidence. RESULT(S): The average male BMI among the study population was 27.5 ± 4.8 kg/m(2) (range, 17.3-49.3 kg/m(2)), while the average female BMI (n = 721) was 25.2 ± 5.9 kg/m(2) (range, 16.2-50.7 kg/m(2)). Neither male nor female overweight (25-29.9 kg/m(2)), class I obese (30-34.9 kg/m(2)), or class II/III obese (≥35 kg/m(2)) status was significantly associated with fertilization rate, embryo score, or incidence of pregnancy or live birth compared with normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m(2)) status after adjusting for male and female age, partner BMI, and parity. Similar null findings were found between combined couple BMI categories and IVF success. CONCLUSION(S): Our findings support the notion that weight status does not influence fecundity among couples undergoing infertility treatment. Given the limited and conflicting research on BMI and pregnancy success among IVF couples, further research augmented to include other adiposity measures is needed.
body mass index IVF outcomes, male BMI in vitro fertilization, female obesity fertility treatment, BMI pregnancy rate IVF, couple BMI combined effect reproduction, overweight IVF live birth rate, adiposity assisted reproduction outcomes, prospective cohort IVF study, weight fertility treatment success
PMID 25497445 25497445 DOI 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.10.048 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.10.048 Schliep et al. 2015, Schliep 2015
Cite this article
Schliep, K. C., Mumford, S. L., Ahrens, K. A., Hotaling, J. M., Carrell, D. T., Link, M., Hinkle, S. N., Kissell, K., Porucznik, C. A., & Hammoud, A. O. (2015). Effect of male and female body mass index on pregnancy and live birth success after in vitro fertilization. Fertility and sterility, 103(2), 388-395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.10.048
Schliep KC, Mumford SL, Ahrens KA, Hotaling JM, Carrell DT, Link M, et al. Effect of male and female body mass index on pregnancy and live birth success after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(2):388-395. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.10.048
Schliep, K. C., et al. "Effect of male and female body mass index on pregnancy and live birth success after in vitro fertilization." Fertility and sterility, vol. 103, no. 2, 2015, pp. 388-395.
Related articles
Restorative Care and Assisted Reproduction · Outcome Comparisons
Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM) aims to restore fertility by diagnosing and treating the underlying causes of infertility. RRM is frequently promoted as an alternative to assisted reproductive technology (ART), despite uncertainty regarding its comparative effectiveness and safety. Where delayed childbearing and infertility are becoming more common, reliance on optimization of natural physiology alone may delay effective treatment and compromise reproductive outcomes. A systematic review of the current evidence comparing RRM to either ART or unassisted conception is, therefore, essential to inform clinical practice, guideline development, and shared decision-making for patients experiencing infertility. To assess the effectiveness and safety of RRM approaches, evaluated as a whole, rather than as individual components, compared with ART and medically unassisted conception in couples experiencing infertility. A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and the Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine from inception to 28 November 2025. We included randomized control trials (RCTs) or nonrandomized comparative studies evaluating reproductive and safety outcomes of RRM as a unified treatment, compared with either ART or expectant management (attempted medically unassisted conception). Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. We retrieved 724 records, of which 16 studies underwent full-text review. No RCTs or comparative observational studies were identified. All 16 full-text studies were excluded for an ineligible study design (no control group); most were cohort studies in which all participants underwent RRM. Ten studies reported reproductive outcomes; nine of these made claims regarding the benefits or effectiveness of RRM. None of these claims were supported by the study designs used, as the lack of a comparison group precludes reliable estimation of treatment effects. Consequently, these studies cannot provide valid estimates of RRM success rates, nor permit any meaningful inference about its effectiveness relative to unassisted conception or ART. Large-scale RCTs or prospective cohort studies reporting effectiveness and safety outcomes are required to inform evidence-based fertility guidelines. There are no comparative studies to support reliable estimates of the safety and effectiveness of RRM compared with ART or medically unassisted conception for couples experiencing infertility.
Guidelines by Clinical Area · Fertility and Infertility Guidelines
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2015·Fertility and Sterility
The purpose of this ASRM Practice Committee report is to provide clinicians with principles and strategies for the evaluation and treatment of couples with infertility associated with obesity. This revised document replaces the Practice Committee document titled, "Obesity and reproduction: an educational bulletin," last published in 2008 (Fertil Steril 2008;90:S21-9).
Racial disparity in assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes has been reported but remains controversial. Reasons for the disparity are unclear, and access to care has been suggested as a causative factor. In this study, we sought to examine minority utilization of ART in the Department of Defense (DoD) compared with minority utilization in the U.S. ART population. Outcomes from ART were compared between Caucasian (Cau) and African American (AA) patients, and etiologies of disparity were examined. Retrospective cohort study. University-based ART program. PATIENT(S): A total of 1,457 patients undergoing first-cycle fresh, nondonor ART. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Clinical pregnancy rate, live birth rate, implantation rate, spontaneous abortion rate. RESULT(S): Within the DoD population, AA women had a fourfold increase in utilization of ART services relative to the U.S. ART population. In this equal-access-to-care setting, AA women experienced a clinically significant decrease in live birth rate that did not reach statistical significance (29.6% vs. 35.8%, risk ratio [RR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-1.02) and a statistically significant increase in spontaneous abortions compared with Cau women (25% vs. 15.9%, RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.05-2.36). This might be explained, in part, by a higher prevalence of uterine leiomyomas in AA women (30.8% AA vs. 10.7% Cau, RR 2.85, 95% CI 2.06-3.95). For both AA and Cau women, the presence of fibroids at baseline ultrasound was associated with reductions in clinical pregnancy rates (35% with leiomyomas vs. 43.2% without leiomyomas, RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.51-0.98), live birth rates (26.2% vs. 36.0%, RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44-0.90), and implantation rates (25.6% vs. 31.1% RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69-0.98). CONCLUSION(S): Utilization of ART services among AA women increased when access to care was improved. A clinically significant reduction in live birth rate and statistically significant increase in spontaneous abortion rate was observed in AA women compared with Cau women. Leiomyomas were three times more prevalent in AA women and reduced ART success, regardless of race. The persistence of racial differences in an equal-access-to-care environment might be explained, in part, by the increased prevalence of leiomyomas in AA women.
To determine whether IVF or a standard infertility treatment algorithm results in better outcome and/or lower cost when used as first-line therapy for couples with infertility. Prospective, randomized clinical study. University-affiliated infertility clinic. PATIENT(S): Couples with newly diagnosed infertility and no prior treatment. INTERVENTION(S): Couples were randomized to undergo either IVF (group 1, n = 46) or a standard infertility treatment algorithm (group 2, n = 50) as initial therapy for infertility. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Pregnancy rates and costs per couple, per month of treatment, and per pregnancy. RESULT(S): Pregnancy rates were higher in group 2 than in group 1. Costs per couple were not statistically different, although a trend toward higher costs was apparent in group 1, reflected by a higher median cost per clinical pregnancy established and a higher cost per month of treatment. Whereas cost differences between the groups diminished over time, pregnancy rates remained the same. CONCLUSION(S): In vitro fertilization currently does not represent an appropriate first-line treatment option for couples with infertility. The use of a standard infertility treatment algorithm results in a higher pregnancy rate and lower cost and therefore should be the preferred treatment approach.