Yijun Liu1, Heather S Hipp2, Zsolt P Nagy3, Sarah M Capelouto4, Daniel B Shapiro3, Jessica B Spencer2, Audrey J Gaskins5. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. 2. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA. 3. Reproductive Biology Associates, Sandy Springs, GA. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. 5. Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA. Electronic address: audrey.jane.gaskins@emory.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A growing literature suggests that minority races, particularly Black women, have a lower probability of live birth and higher risk of perinatal complications after autologous assisted reproductive technology. However, questions still remain as to whether these racial disparities have arisen because of associations between race and oocyte/embryo quality, the uterine environment, or a combination of the two. Oocyte donation assisted reproductive technology represents a unique approach to examine this question. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the associations between the race of female oocyte donors and recipients and live birth rates following vitrified donor oocyte assisted reproductive technologies. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective study conducted at a single, private fertility clinic that included 327 oocyte donors and 899 recipients who underwent 1601 embryo transfer cycles (2008-2015). Self-reported race of the donor and recipient were abstracted from medical records. Live birth was defined as the delivery of at least 1 live-born neonate. We used multivariable cluster weighted generalized estimating equations with binomial distribution and log link function to estimate the adjusted risk ratios of live birth, adjusting for donor age and body mass index, recipient age and body mass index, tubal and uterine factor infertility, and year of oocyte retrieval. RESULTS: The racial profile of our donors and recipients were similar: 73% white, 13% Black, 4% Hispanic, 8% Asian, and 2% other. Women who received oocytes from Hispanic donors had a significantly higher probability of live birth (adjusted risk ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.36) than women who received oocytes from white donors. Among Hispanic recipients, however, there was no significant difference in probability of live birth compared with white recipients (adjusted risk ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.26). Embryo transfer cycles using oocytes from Black donors (adjusted risk ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.03) and Black recipients (adjusted risk ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.99) had a lower probability of live birth than white donors and white recipients, respectively. There were no significant differences in the probability of live birth among Hispanic, Asian, and other race recipients compared with white recipients. CONCLUSION: Black female recipients had a lower probability of live birth following assisted reproductive technology, even when using vitrified oocytes from healthy donors. Female recipients who used vitrified oocytes from Hispanic donors had a higher probability of live birth regardless of their own race.
BACKGROUND: A growing literature suggests that minority races, particularly Black women, have a lower probability of live birth and higher risk of perinatal complications after autologous assisted reproductive technology. However, questions still remain as to whether these racial disparities have arisen because of associations between race and oocyte/embryo quality, the uterine environment, or a combination of the two. Oocyte donation assisted reproductive technology represents a unique approach to examine this question. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the associations between the race of female oocyte donors and recipients and live birth rates following vitrified donor oocyte assisted reproductive technologies. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective study conducted at a single, private fertility clinic that included 327 oocyte donors and 899 recipients who underwent 1601 embryo transfer cycles (2008-2015). Self-reported race of the donor and recipient were abstracted from medical records. Live birth was defined as the delivery of at least 1 live-born neonate. We used multivariable cluster weighted generalized estimating equations with binomial distribution and log link function to estimate the adjusted risk ratios of live birth, adjusting for donor age and body mass index, recipient age and body mass index, tubal and uterine factor infertility, and year of oocyte retrieval. RESULTS: The racial profile of our donors and recipients were similar: 73% white, 13% Black, 4% Hispanic, 8% Asian, and 2% other. Women who received oocytes from Hispanic donors had a significantly higher probability of live birth (adjusted risk ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.36) than women who received oocytes from white donors. Among Hispanic recipients, however, there was no significant difference in probability of live birth compared with white recipients (adjusted risk ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.26). Embryo transfer cycles using oocytes from Black donors (adjusted risk ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.03) and Black recipients (adjusted risk ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.99) had a lower probability of live birth than white donors and white recipients, respectively. There were no significant differences in the probability of live birth among Hispanic, Asian, and other race recipients compared with white recipients. CONCLUSION: Black female recipients had a lower probability of live birth following assisted reproductive technology, even when using vitrified oocytes from healthy donors. Female recipients who used vitrified oocytes from Hispanic donors had a higher probability of live birth regardless of their own race.
Authors: Valerie L Baker; Barbara Luke; Morton B Brown; Ruben Alvero; John L Frattarelli; Rebecca Usadi; David A Grainger; Alicia Y Armstrong Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2009-09-09 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Z P Nagy; J Liu; H Joris; G Bocken; B Desmet; H Van Ranst; A Vankelecom; P Devroey; A C Van Steirteghem Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 1995-12 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Sara Crawford; Nikhil Joshi; Sheree L Boulet; Marie A Bailey; Maria-Elena Hood; Susan E Manning; Patricia McKane; Russell S Kirby; Dmitry M Kissin; Denise J Jamieson Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Eve C Feinberg; Frederick W Larsen; William H Catherino; Jun Zhang; Alicia Y Armstrong Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2006-03-09 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Saswati Sunderam; Dmitry M Kissin; Yujia Zhang; Suzanne G Folger; Sheree L Boulet; Lee Warner; William M Callaghan; Wanda D Barfield Journal: MMWR Surveill Summ Date: 2019-04-26