While we agree with many of the points stated by Dyer et al. in their recent commentary inRBMO(Dyer et al., 2020), we believe their conclusions are focused too narrowly. Limiting the indicator of access to, and utilization of, fertility treatment to assisted reproductive technology (ART) excludes information that is of key importance for subfertile couples, populations, and policymakers. Even in countries where access to ART is widespread, there are more births in subfertile couples through non-ART treatment than through ART (Stanford et al., 2016). While ART is necessary for some couples to have a child, it is not required for many subfertile couples, and overuse of ART may potentially be harmful (Annual Capri Workshop Group 2019). Focusing solely on ART as a metric may unnecessarily encourage overutilization (Boltz et al., 2017). We believe the focus on ART and its outcomes for national and international registries of fertility treatment has stunted the scientific development of non-ART treatments, including those which seek to address underlying health conditions (Boyle et al., 2018). There is a pressing and critical need to develop robust registries of couples treated with non-ART treatments, for the improvement of outcomes and the promotion of robust consumer choice. (Spandorfer, 2020). The ultimate measure of access to fertility care should be determined by the proportion of those with a desire for fertility who achieve a healthy live birth, whether or not ART is required to do so (Mascarenhas et al., 2012). Therefore, notwithstanding methodologic challenges, registry assessments should be developed and supported for all fertility treatments, not only ART.
Stanford fertility care access beyond ART indicators, non-ART fertility treatment registry development, ART utilization metric overuse fertility treatment, subfertile couples non-ART treatment live birth outcomes, fertility treatment access equity beyond assisted reproduction, restorative reproductive medicine vs ART policy, fertility registry non-ART treatment outcomes development, Stanford McLindon fertility treatment access commentary, infertility treatment underlying health conditions non-ART approach, ART overutilization harm subfertile population
PMID 33191132 33191132 DOI 10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.09.010 10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.09.010
Cite this article
Stanford, J. B., James, G., & McLindon, L. A. (2020). Is ART utilization the best indicator of access to fertility care?. Reproductive biomedicine online, 41(6), 1157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.09.010
Stanford JB, James G, McLindon LA. Is ART utilization the best indicator of access to fertility care?. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;41(6):1157. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.09.010
Stanford, J. B., et al. "Is ART utilization the best indicator of access to fertility care?." Reproductive biomedicine online, vol. 41, no. 6, 2020, pp. 1157.
Zegers-Hochschild F et al., 2026·Reproductive Biomedicine Online
What are the trends and effects of assisted reproductive technology (ART) interventions on the effectiveness and safety of ART carried out in Latin America during 2022. Retrospective collection of cycle-based multinational data obtained from ART procedures carried out by 204 accredited institutions in 16 countries. In total 123,265 initiated cycles resulted in 19,663 deliveries and 22,203 births. Use of ART varied greatly, from 643.3 cycles/million inhabitants in Uruguay to 28.8 in Guatemala. In autologous cycles, the proportion of women aged ≥40 years represents 35.1% of cycles, whereas women <34 years represents only 18.8%. The proportion of single embryo transfers (SET) increased from 42.4% in 2021 to 47.3% in 2022. Out of 22,203 babies born, 77.4% were singletons, 21.7% twins and 0.9% triplets or more. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection represented 85.4% of fertilization techniques, and blastocyst transfer increased from 79.3% in 2021 to 85.3% in 2022. Delivery rate after fresh blastocyst elective single embryo transfer (32.6%) was significantly higher than after the transfer of one frozen embryo transfer (FET) from freeze-all cycle (25.2%) (P = 0.0001). The number of aspirations leading to preimplantation genetic testing increased 2.6 times in 6 years, and significantly increased delivery rates/transfer (P ≤ 0.008) and reduced miscarriage at all ages (P ≤ 0.004) in autologous cycles, but not in oocyte donation cycles. Delivery rates after fresh transfer of embryos from vitrified-warmed donated oocytes, generated similar outcome to FET from fresh oocyte donation cycles (P = 0.5621). Perinatal mortality increased from 7.5‰ in singletons to 22.8‰ in twins. Systematic collection of cycle-based multinational data contributes to cooperative sustained development and helps implement evidence-based reproductive decisions.
Farlie F et al., 2024·Reproductive biomedicine online
The healthcare industry is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Assisted reproductive technology is part of the larger healthcare sector, with its own heavy carbon footprint. The social, economic and environmental costs of this collective carbon footprint are becoming clearer, as is the impact on human reproductive health. Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and the International IVF Initiative collaborated to seek and formulate practical recommendations for sustainability in IVF laboratories. An international panel of experts, enthusiasts and professionals in reproductive medicine, environmental science, architecture, biorepository and law convened to discuss the topics of importance to sustainability. Recommendations were issued on how to build a culture of sustainability in the workplace, implement green design and building, use life cycle analysis to determine the environmental impact, manage cryostorage more sustainably, and understand and manage laboratory waste with prevention as a primary goal. The panel explored whether the industry supporting IVF is sustainable. An example is provided to illustrate the application of green principles to an IVF laboratory through a certification programme. The UK legislative landscape surrounding sustainability is also discussed and a few recommendations on 'Green Conferencing' are offered.
Is sequential letrozole/human menopausal gonadotrophin (HMG) superior to letrozole alone in ovulation induction and pregnancy promotion among infertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)?
This open-label randomized controlled trial comparing sequential letrozole/HMG and letrozole alone included 174 participants enrolled from August 2019 to January 2020 at the Union Hospital of Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology. Infertile women aged between 18 and 40 years who met Rotterdam criteria for PCOS and without other known causes of infertility were selected for this study. Patients were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to receive 2.5 mg letrozole on cycle days 3-7 (n = 87) or 2.5 mg letrozole on cycle days 3-7 with a sequential injection of 75 IU HMG on cycle days 8-10 for one treatment cycle (n = 87). The pregnancy outcome was recorded after one treatment cycle.
Women receiving sequential treatment achieved a significantly higher ovulation rate than those in the letrozole group (90.8% versus 70.1%, P = 0.001) and the live birth rate of the sequential group was significantly higher than that of the letrozole protocol (23.0% versus 10.3%, P = 0.025); there was no statistical variation with respect to adverse events. The data suggest that the sequential letrozole/HMG protocol may be superior to the letrozole alone protocol in terms of ovulation induction and pregnancy promotion among infertile women with PCOS.