Mild COVID-19 Was Not Associated with Impaired IVF Outcomes or Early Pregnancy Loss in IVF Patients

Abstract

Data collection regarding the effects of COVID-19 on reproduction is ongoing. This study examined the effect of COVID-19 on IVF cycle parameters and early pregnancy outcomes. It included two arms: the first compared non-exposed cycles to post-SARS-CoV-2 IVF cycles. Sperm parameters were also compared. The second, prospective arm compared pregnancy outcomes among IVF patients who contracted COVID-19 during early pregnancy to those who did not. None of the patients were vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. The first arm included 60 treatment cycles of women with confirmed COVID-19, compared to 60 non-exposed cycles (either the same patient before exposure or matched non-exposed patients). The outcomes of the treatment cycles did not differ significantly between exposed and non-exposed groups, including number of oocytes, endometrial thickness, fertilization rate and number of top-quality embryos. In 11 cycles, the male partner had also recently recovered: sperm concentration was lower post-exposure: 6.27 million/mL vs. 16.5 pre-exposure (p = 0.008). In 189 patients with IVF-achieved pregnancies, pregnancy loss and hospital admissions did not differ between exposed and non-exposed groups. IVF treatment outcomes and the rate of early pregnancy loss appears to be unaffected by SARS-CoV-2 disease, despite a minor decline in sperm concentration among recent recoverees.

Effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection on IVF/ICSI-ET outcomes: A propensity score-matched cohort study

“…Therefore, when the new SARS-CoV-2 virus emerged and spread globally, researchers focused on the impact of infection with this virus on human reproduction and ART outcomes [5]. The effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the laboratory and clinical outcomes of ART have not yet been consistently documented in the literature [14,[29][30][31]. An unclear infection status, the inability to correctly measure the time between SARS-CoV-2 infection and ART treatment, and the absence of a strati cation analysis on the time of oocyte retrieval relative to SARS-CoV-2 infection could all be contributing factors.…”

Impact of prior coronavirus disease 2019 infection in females on assisted reproductive outcomes: A systematic review with meta‐analysis

“…The sample size of each study ranged between 7 and 452. The infection of SARS-CoV-2 was diagnosed in four studies by polymerase chain reaction test, 14,24,33,35 five by serum antibodies, 27,28,30,31,36 and three using both. 15,29,32 The remaining studies did not mention the details of diagnosis.…”

“…36 Most studies (n = 11) considered the interval between COVID-19 and the initiation of the post-infection cycle, except those conducted by Morris et al, 30 Odeh-Natour et al, 31 Chico-Sordo et al, 28 and Albeitawi et al 26 In terms of ET strategy reported in 10 studies, five used fresh ET, 26,31,32,34,36 three used frozen-thawed ET 25,30,33 and two used both. 24,35 Overall, the literature included in this review had high methodological quality, as indicated by the mean NOS score of 8 (all ≥ 7) (Table S1).…”

“…Six studies (n = 517) provided information on the number of fertilized oocytes, 14,26,27,31,35,36 and a significant increase was noticed in the infected group (MD = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.20-1.38; p = .008) (Figure 3D). The pooled results of the other laboratory parameters were comparable in the number of mature oocytes (8 studies; MD = −0.29; 95% CI: −1.65-1.06; p = .67), 14,15,[26][27][28][29]31,36 oocyte maturation rate (five studies; MD = −3.20; 95% CI: −7.43-1.04; p = .14), 14,15,28,34,36 fertilization rate (five studies; MD = 1.97; 95% CI: −1.54-5.48; p = .27), 14,26,28,34,36 number of good-quality embryos (four studies; MD = −0.60; 95% CI: −2.32-1.12; p = .50), 14,24,35,36 and good-quality embryo rate (three studies; MD = −14.76; 95% CI: −33.99-4.47; p = .13) 14,15,36 (Figure 3B,C,E-G). Among the above seven comparisons, the heterogeneity was identified as low in most outcomes, except for the number and rate of good-quality embryos, whose I 2 were 70% and 77%, respectively.…”

“…These studies were distributed in eight countries including China, Israel, the USA, Argentina, Italy, Spain, Russia and Jordan, and all were published between 2021 and 2022. Most of these studies (n = 10) employed a retrospective cohort design 14,[25][26][27]29,30,[32][33][34][35] and five were prospective cohorts. 15,24,28,31,36 All studies were single-centre except for the studies by Youngster et al 34 and Albeitawi et al, 26 whose participants were enrolled from two centres.…”