The emergence of the novel coronavirus infection that arose in Wuhan, China in December 2019 has resulted in an epidemic that has quickly expanded to become one of the most significant public health threats in recent times. Unfortunately, the disease has spread globally. On March 11th (2020) World Health Organization (WHO) declared Covid-19 a pandemic and has called governments to take urgent and aggressive action to change the course of the outbreak. Within the context of Assisted Reproduction, both reproductive medicine professionals and patients are also fighting against this unprecedented viral pandemic. In view of events, most of us had to make serious decisions, some of them with a lack of scientific evidence due to the circumstances and with the only objective of ensuring the safe care of our patients, reduce non-essential contacts and prevent possible maternal and fetal complications in future pregnancies. Pregnant women should not be considered at high risk for developing severe infection. Up to date, there are no reported deaths in pregnant women with Covid-19, while in the cases that have presented pneumonia because of Covid-19, the symptoms have been moderate and with a good prognosis in recovery

No abstract

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic on 11 March 2020 by the World Health Organization, halting the principal income activities worldwide. The International Monetary Fund predicts that the imminent economic recession will be worse than the global financial crisis of 2008, which severely affected the economy of Southern European countries such as Greece, Italy and Spain. There was then an abysmal drop in the Spanish yearly population growth curve as families could not afford to have children in that economic context; this only worsened the already existing demographic problems in that Spain has a constantly ageing population and one of the lowest fertility indicators in Europe. Taking into consideration that female age is the most important independent variable of success at the time of conception, probably thousands of potentially fertile couples were lost while waiting for more promising circumstances. With the COVID-19 pandemic a similar situation is being faced, where reproductive rights are imperiled by not being able to choose when to have children due to economic coercion. Therefore, governments worldwide should take measures to palliate the possible sociodemographic crisis that will follow the economic recession and try to ease the burden that many families might face during the following years.

Study question Can we use MPA as a pituitary inhibitor instead of the GnRH antagonist in ovarian stimulation protocols in non-oncological fertility preservation and PGT-A cycles? Summary answer MPA can act as a substitute of GnRH antagonist for pituitary suppression in FP and PGT-A cycles, since the results are similar between both groups. What is known already Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocols using exogenous progesterone to replace GnRH analogs during the follicular phase of OS have emerged as an efficient alternative to prevent LH from peaking and have been used successfully in different types of patients. Fertility preservation (FP) and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT-A) have become new emerging areas of assisted reproduction. FP gives women the ability to have children using their own gametes after age-related fertility decline, while PGT-A appears to improve reproductive outcomes in advanced maternal age at increased risk of aneuploid embryos. However, few data are available for both indications regarding PPOS cycle outcomes. Study design, size, duration Multicenter, retrospective, observational, cohort study conducted in eleven IVIRMA centers attached to private universities. We included a total of 4,961 cycles of non-oncological fertility preservation that were distributed as follows: n = 494 were stimulated under a PPOS protocol while n = 4,467 received a GnRH antagonist. Regarding PGT-A cycles, we analyzed 12,461 treatments, of which n = 686 and n = 11,775 received MPA and GnRH antagonist, respectively. Cycles were performed from January 2017 to December 2021. Participants/materials, setting, methods Patients were divided according to the protocol used for preventing premature luteinization during follicular phase of OS. In the MPA group, participants received 10 mg daily administered orally, while in the control group, women received an antagonist once the main follicle reached 13 mm. In FP cycles, ovarian response specific parameters were evaluated, such as endocrine profile and mature oocytes; in PGT-A treatments, main variables were number of biopsied and aneuploid embryos and reproductive outcomes. Main results and the role of chance Regarding FP's baseline characteristics, age was statistically but not clinically significant between the two groups. Length of ovarian stimulation and total dose of hMG administered were similar in both groups, despite the significantly higher total dose of FSH administered in MPA compared to the GnRH antagonist group (p = 0.008) . Number of mature oocytes retrieved (10.2 [95% CI 9.6-10.8] vs 9 [95% CI 8.8-9.2]) was significantly higher in MPA compared to antagonist group; this trend continued regardless of age (≤ 35 or > 35 years). PGT-A cycles followed the same tendency in terms of demographic characteristics. Length of OS was comparable between groups, whilst the total dose of rFSH and hp-HMG administered in the MPA were significantly higher than that in the GnRH antagonist group. Although the number of MII was comparable and despite the lower number of embryos biopsied in the MPA group (4.5±0.2 vs 4.7±0.06, p = 0.031) the number of aneuploid embryos was similar between the two groups (2.3±0.1 vs 2.4±0.04, p = 0.474), as well as implantation (56% vs. 54% p = 0.359) and clinical pregnancy rate (64.1% vs. 62.1, p = 0.316). The miscarriage rate was significantly lower in the group treated with MPA compared to GnRH antagonists (4.7% vs. 8.2%, p = 0.001). Limitations, reasons for caution The retrospective nature of this study may be a reason for caution and only association, not causation, can be inferred from the results. Despite being the largest sample size ever reported with PPOS in no oncological FP and PGT-A, the number of patients included is still low. Wider implications of the findings The administration of PPOS yielded similar or even better results than those observed with GnRH antagonists in terms of oocytes retrieved, rate of aneuploid embryos or clinical results. Therefore, PPOS could be recommended for ovarian stimulation in non-oncological FP and PGT-A cycles as it allows for a more patient-friendly approach. Trial registration number Not applicable

Objective To determine if uterine adenomyosis is associated with worse perinatal outcomes in ovum donation assisted reproductive treatment cycles. Materials and Methods A multicenter and retrospective cohort study in which a total of 3307 patients undergoing an ovum donation cycle in 2018–2019 were included and divided into two groups: adenomyosis (n = 179) and controls (n = 3128). Clinical, obstetrical, and perinatal outcomes were analyzed. Results A lower live birth rate per embryo transfer was observed in women diagnosed with adenomyosis versus control women: 67/179 (37%) versus 1560/3128 (49.9%), respectively (odds ratio 0.6, 95% confidence interval 0.43–0.83, P = 0.002). There was no statistically significant difference in childbirth delivery method (vaginal versus cesarean section) between the adenomyosis and control groups. Mean gestational age at the time of delivery, newborn length and weight, and incidences of low birth weight, preterm birth, and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit did not differ between the two groups. In addition, in vitro fertilization and perinatal outcomes were similar in patients with diffuse compared with focal adenomyosis. Conclusions Adenomyosis affects clinical but may not affect perinatal outcomes in ovum donation cycles.