Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why is use of donor eggs not viewed as treatment failure? A call for improvements in treatments with autologous oocytes

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Based on national registry reports, after age 42, the number of IVF cycles utilizing autologous oocytes is very small; after age 43, autologous oocyte use in US IVF cycles is almost non-existent. We here argue that the in vitro fertilization (IVF) field has created a self-fulfilling prophecy by basically abandoning the utilization of autologous oocytes after ages 42–43 years. This not only resulted in almost no IVF cycles with autologous oocytes being performed but also in abandonment of research that could lead to improvements in IVF outcomes in older women when using autologous oocytes. As a consequence, IVF has largely stagnated in this area. We further argue that third-party oocyte donation in clinical IVF should be considered a treatment failure, as it requires patients to choose a second rather than a first-choice treatment. Such a redesignation of third-party egg donation would not only be appropriate but could lead to necessary changes in physician attitudes, considering that women almost exclusively prefer to conceive with their autologous oocytes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gezinski LB, Karandikar S, Carter J, White M. Exploring motivations, awareness of side effects, and attitudes among potential egg donors. Health Soc Work. 2016;41(2):75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Letur H, Peigne M, Ohl J, Cedrin-Dunerin I, Mathieu-D’Argent E, Scheffler F, et al. Hypertensive pathologies and egg donation pregnancies: results of a large comparative cohort study. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(2):284–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bracewell-Milnes T, Saso S, Bora S, Ismail AM, Al-Memar M, Hamed AH, et al. Investigating psychological attitudes, motivations and experiences of oocyte donors, recipients and egg shares: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2016;22(4):450–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. CDC 2016, 2016 Assisted Reproductive Technology National Summary Report. https://www.cdc.gov/art/reports/2016/national-summary-figures.html

  5. SART 2016, https://www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx?reportingYear=2016 (accessed March 4, 2019).

  6. Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine 2012: Fertility treatment when the prognosis is very poor or futile: an ethics committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2019, 11(4):659–663.

  7. Hourvitz A, Machtinger R, Maman E, Baum M, Dor J, Levron J. Assisted reproduction in women over 40 years of age: how old is too old? Reprod BioMed Online. 2009;9(4):599–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Baylis F. Human nuclear genome transfer (so-called mitochondrial replacement): clearing the underbrush. Bioethics. 2017;31(1):7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Genome editing and human reproduction; 2018; http://nuffieldbioethics.org/project/genome-editing

  10. Kandel ER. The Age of Insight, Random House. New York; 2012. p. 47.

  11. Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Weghofer A, Barad DH. The “graying” of infertility services: an impending revolution nobody is ready for. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2014;12:63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Darmon S, Albertini DF, Barad DH. Older women using their own eggs? Issue framed with two oldest reported IVF pregnancies and a live birth. Reprod BioMed Online. 2018;37(2):172–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gleicher N, Weghofer A, Barad DH. Defining ovarian reserve to better understand ovarian aging. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011;9:23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gleicher N, Kim A, Weghofer A, Kushnir VA, Shohat-Tal A, Lazzaroni E, et al. Hypoandrogenism is associated with diminished functional ovarian reserve. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(4):1084–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Wu YG, Barad DH, Kushnir VA, Lazzaroni E, Wang Q, Albertini DF, et al. Aging-related premature luteinization of granulosa cells is avoided by early oocyte retrieval. J Endocrinol. 2015;226(3):167–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Wu YG, Barad DH, Kushnir VA, Wang Q, Zhang L, Darmon SK, et al. With low ovarian reserve, Highly Individualized Egg Retrieval (HIER) improves IVF results by avoiding premature luteinization. J Ovarian Res. 2018;11(1):23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Human Fertilization & Embryology Authority. https://www.hfea.gov.uk/i-am/women-over-38/ (accessed March 4, 2019).

  18. Campbell D IVF treatment extended to women up to age 42 on NHS. Guardian 2012 http://www.the guardian.com/society/2012/may/22/ivf-nhs-age-42-fertility (accessed March 4, 2019.

  19. The Swedish National Council on Medical Ethics Summary of the original report “Assisterad befruktning – etiska aspekter 2013:1”published in Feb 2013. http://www.smer.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Slutversion-sammanfattning-eng- Assisted-reproduction.pdf.

  20. Klemetti R, Gissler M, Sevón T, Hemminiki E. Resources allocation of in vitro fertilization: a nationwide register-based cohort study. BMC Health Service Res. 2007;7:210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Osterman MJK, Rossen LM Births: Provisional Data for 2018. NVSS vital statistics rapid release; Report No007, May 2019.

  22. Gleicher N, Kushnir VA, Sen A, Darmon SK, Weghofer A, Wu YG, et al. Definition by FSH, AMH and embryo numbers of good-, intermediate- and poor-prognosis patients suggests previously unknown IVF outcome-determining factor associated with AMH. J Transl Med. 2016;14(1):172.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Gunnala V, Irani M, Melnick A, Rosenwaks Z, Spandorfer S. One thousand seventy-eight autologous IVF cycles in women 45 years and older: the largest single-center cohort to date. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35(3):435–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gleicher N, Barad DH. Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) supplementation in diminished ovarian reserve. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011;9:67.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Yovich JL, Regan SLP, Zaidi S, Keane KN. The concept of growth hormone deficiency affecting clinical prognosis in IVF. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019;19:650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wang S, Chen L, Fang J, Jiang W, Zhang N. Comparison of the pregnancy and obstetric outcomes between single cleavage-stage embryo transfer and single blastocyst transfer by time-lapse selection of embryos. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2019;35(9):792–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Xiao JS, Healey M, Talmor A, Vollenhove B. When only one embryo is available, is it better to transfer on day-3 or to grow on? Reprod BioMed Online. 2019;39(6):916–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Munné S, Kaplan B, Frattarelli JL, Child T, Nakhuda G, Sharma FN, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus morphology as selection criteria for single-frozen-thawed embryo transfer in good-prognosis patients: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(6):1071–9 e7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the constant input of interesting new ideas from large numbers of patients.

Contributors

The idea for this manuscript arose from the very low utilization of autologous eggs in IVF cycles in the USA above age 42–43. All 3 authors contributed equally to the final manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Center for Human Reproduction, 21 East 69th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA

    Norbert Gleicher & David H. Barad

  2. Foundation for Reproductive Medicine, New York, NY, USA

    Norbert Gleicher & David H. Barad

  3. Stem Cell Biology and Molecular Embryology Laboratory, The Rockefeller University, New York, USA

    Norbert Gleicher

  4. Department of Obstetrics and Genecology, Vienna University of Medicine, Vienna, Austria

    Norbert Gleicher

  5. The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA

    Eli Y. Adashi

Authors
  1. Norbert Gleicher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David H. Barad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eli Y. Adashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Norbert Gleicher.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

N.G. is the owner of a for-profit fertility centre, the CHR in New York, NY. He and D.H.B. are co-inventors on several pending and already awarded US patents claiming therapeutic benefits from androgen supplementation in women with low functional ovarian reserve. Both are also co-inventors on patents relating to the FMR1 gene in diagnostic functions in female fertility and to AMH as a potentially therapeutic agent in female infertility. N.G. and D.H.B. receive royalties from Fertility Nutraceuticals, LLC, in which N.G. also holds shares. Both in the past received research grants, travel funds and/or speaker honoraria from pharma and/or medical device companies, though none in any way related to hear presented materials. E.Y.A. has no conflicts to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gleicher, N., Barad, D.H. & Adashi, E.Y. Why is use of donor eggs not viewed as treatment failure? A call for improvements in treatments with autologous oocytes. J Assist Reprod Genet 37, 1583–1588 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01847-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01847-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation