Restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) outcomes compared to in-vitro fertilization (IVF) for the treatment of infertility:  a retrospective evaluation of a 2019 clinic cohort compared to one cycle of IVF

Restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) is an emerging approach that can be used to treat infertility. Our goal was to compare RRM to IVF outcomes in 2019.

We conducted a retrospective clinic-based analysis and referenced it against publicly available data from IVF registries, as published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) in the USA, and the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA), in the UK. Data from 2019 was collected from routine medical records following treatment at one clinic in Dublin, Ireland during 2019. We defined the demographics, diagnoses, and treatments and then calculated the crude percentages of conception, live birth, multiple pregnancy, prematurity, and low birth weight. These results were benchmarked against data reported in IVF databases.

249 couples had at least one RRM consultation, 187 committed to the RRM treatment program and met the inclusion criteria. The average female age for all included patients was 36.4 years and couples were trying to conceive for a mean of 32.2 months. Of the 187 patients/couples who underwent treatment, 28% had a previous live birth, 30% had a previous miscarriage, and 42% had never conceived;19% (35/187) had previously had IVF, 2.3 + 1.6 IVF cycles per couple. Of the 187 couples, 52% (98/187) conceived, 41% (77/187) had a documented live birth. There were 75 singletons and 2 sets of twins, producing 79 babies. Time to conception for live birth patients averaged 12 + 8 months. The average birth weight was 3422g (7lb 9oz) and average weeks’ gestation at delivery was 39 + 1.5 weeks. 4.0% (3/75) of singleton babies were premature (33-37 weeks) and none were very premature (< 32 weeks). 5.3% (4/75) of singleton babies had low birth weight (< 2,500g). When we compared births across age groups, the RRM percentages with live birth were comparable to those in a single cycle of IVF with multiple subsequent embryo transfers, and greater than a single cycle of IVF with a single embryo transfer. Furthermore, RRM babies had fewer multiple pregnancies, and singleton RRM pregnancies had less than half as many premature deliveries compared to IVF, (6.5% RRM all pregnancies or 4.0% RRM, singleton pregnancies vs 14.4% SART, all pregnancies or 11.8% CDC, singleton pregnancies). 74% (26/35) of couples who remained in contact with us and tried for another pregnancy had a repeat successful live birth.

In our clinic, a comprehensive RRM assessment and treatment followed by up to 12 optimal cycles of timed intercourse resulted in a 41% live birth rate (crude rate). We propose that using RRM may improve a couple’s chance of having a healthy pregnancy and reduce the demand for IVF. Furthermore, RRM reduces the risk of multiple pregnancy, low birth weight and premature delivery compared to IVF. The majority of couples who sought a second live birth were successful.

This is a retrospective analysis with a small number of RRM patients, compared to large IVF databases of patients using one cycle of IVF, including all transfers made from the IVF retrieval. While useful for benchmarking, conclusions are limited by sample size, and the lack of relevant prognostic data (other than female age) for the IVF patients. Larger prospective studies with full prognostic data are needed to make a proper comparison of RRM and IVF outcomes.