After 10 years of publishing newsletters, many with personal stories from our own employees, we have decided that it is time to do personal stories on our own physicians. So this is the first of our five physicians’ own stories we will be sharing with our readers over the next several issues. We hope you enjoy these stories and get to know our PFC doctors a little better.

I was born in Wahiawa, Hawaii in 1957, two years before Hawaii became a state. My mother was a Nisei Japanese woman, born and raised on the Big Island of Hawaii, where I hope, if I live long enough, to retire someday. My father was a Texan, raised on a dry land cotton farm in the Panhandle of Texas. He was adopted so I don’t know his genetic and ethnic background, but we suspect perhaps Welsh-Scottish. My parents met in Hawaii during WWII. I grew up the youngest of four children. I have two older sisters, with whom I am very close, and I had an older brother I loved very much but lost to kidney cancer two years ago. My mother never got to graduate from high school as she had to help her father in his general store, but she was a remarkably intelligent woman with a life-long thirst for knowledge. She received her G.E.D. at age 42; in another time, she could have been a very accomplished career woman. I was very lucky to have her for a stay-at-home mom. My father finished high school and joined the Navy just before WWII. He never went to college, but worked for the US government all his life in civil service for the Army. He rose to quite a high rank by the time he retired, due to his diligence and competence. We lived in Hawaii until I was 8 years old, then we lived in Okinawa, Japan during the Vietnam War (1965-1973). After that, my father was stationed at Ft. Hood, Texas. It was good for him to return to his home state after 35 years on islands, but hard on my mother and me, who had always lived on tropical islands with Asian culture. I graduated from high school in Central Texas and, not knowing what I wanted to do, enrolled at the University of Texas at Austin, because it was inexpensive and close to home. This was a stroke of luck because I received a wonderful education there for very little money, and it paved the way to medical school. I worked all kinds of low paying jobs to help pay my way through college, as my parents didn’t really have much money. I entered the university as an English major, as I loved literature, but quickly realized there would be no work in that field. I took a biology course my freshman year and absolutely fell in love with it. I considered being a biologist, a veterinarian (I love animals!) and eventually realized I wanted to work with people, not animals and not at a research bench. I went to medical school in Dallas, at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School. This school has an incredible reputation for excellent research (they are always in the top 2-3 medical schools in the nation to receive NIH grant money), a well-developed program of philanthropy that supports their mission, and most of all, the best teachers one could have. I feel truly blessed to have been able to attend that wonderful medical school. During medical school, I had a job (always working!) in a research lab that was doing research on how the genes that make FSH work. That experience exposed me to reproductive endocrinology early in my career. I was even able to publish a few papers during medical school. Small stuff, but it felt great at the time.

During medical school, I discovered I liked many different specialties, but really liked caring for women. It was natural for me to go into obstetrics and gynecology. I stayed at Southwestern because their teaching hospital is Parkland Memorial Hospital, an incredible training ground for residents. During my four years there, I delivered thousands of babies, performed or assisted about 600 Cesarean sections and did all kinds of gynecologic surgery. It was very hard work, but gave me a sound foundation and a lot of confidence that I could do most anything. I remained interested in Reproductive Endocrinology, although at the time, in vitro fertilization was just beginning to develop around the country and wasn’t the major emphasis in the field. Back then, the specialty was more about taking care of menopausal women, doing surgery for infertility (especially endometriosis, because at the time, we thought surgery helped fertility for these patients, something we now know isn’t really true) and doing microsurgery to put the tubes back together for women who had previously had their tubes tied and now wanted to be pregnant again (we now treat this with IVF). I decided that rather than going into practice in general ob/gyn, I would continue two more years of training to become a Reproductive Endocrinologist.

After 17 years in Texas and 8 years at Southwestern, I knew I wanted to go somewhere else and gain new experiences and exposure to different teachers. I only applied to a few fellowship programs and was fortunate to be accepted to my first choice: the University of California San Francisco. During my fellowship there, I met and was taught by the best mentor one could have, who is now my close friend and partner, Dr. Eldon Schriock. At the end of my fellowship, I was incredibly fortunate to be recruited by him and the department to stay on as a faculty member. While there, we instituted many new techniques into the infertility program such as ICSI and PGD. We doubled the size of the IVF program. We also taught many of the Reproductive Endocrinologists that now practice in the Bay Area, including our own Dr. Isabelle Ryan. While at UCSF, we almost merged with Drs. Carl Herbert and Philip Chenette, who were in private practice in San Francisco, but due to a variety of reasons, we were unable to realize the merger with them within the UCSF system. We got to know them very well, though, and we knew we could work together.

Dr. Givens was born in Hawaii in 1957, 2 years before Hawaii became a state.

Since I finished my fellowship, I knew I wanted to be part of a world-class fertility center that could provide the best care for our patients. For many reasons, during the late 1990s, this was becoming more difficult to do within the University. In 1999, when the previously existing Pacific Fertility Center came up for sale, Dr. Schriock and I got together with Drs. Herbert and Chenette and took the opportunity to realize our dream. We were able to recruit Dr. Ryan to join us. It has been a challenging but very exciting 10 years at PFC but now we are all able to say that the dream has become a reality. I am getting to do what I love to do every day.

On a personal level, I met my husband Michael when I was at UCSF. We were so sure about each other that we married 7 months after we met! I was a little older by then and at first we struggled with the idea of whether we would try to have a family. Since neither of us had any family living close by and my professional career (as well as his business) was very time consuming, we realized we would be stressed-out parents living the day-care life. We finally decided to live child-free. I only regret not having adult children to be proud of and having grandchildren to spoil. We now live in Marin and our children are our two dogs that I adore and spoil way too much. I love gardening, boating, cooking, reading and travelling. I don’t really have a passion for any particular hobby, just a passion for my work. But someday, as I said, I hope when I retire to return to Hawaii. Even though we left there when I was young, it is a big part of my family’s history and culture. I feel most at home with the aloha I feel when I am there. I would love to volunteer at an animal shelter after retiring. I still sometimes wish I had gone into veterinary medicine, but I think I will enjoy it more as a volunteer and since I have the best job in the world, that will have to wait for another lifetime.

— Carolyn Givens, M.D.

Since Pacific Fertility Center came into existence in November of 1999, we have been offering genetic pre-screening of IVF embryos for couples with recurrent miscar- riage, repeated IVF implantation failure and sex selection for family balancing. For most of the last decade, a technology known as Fluorescent In-Situ Hybridization, or FISH has been used to screen embryos. FISH is employed to probe a cell removed from a Day 3 embryo to determine the chromosomal makeup for anywhere from three to twelve of the cell’s 23 pairs of chromosomes. With time, we, as well as everyone else in the reproductive genetic world, came to realize the serious limitations of this technology.

In the last 2-3 years, as the Human Genome Project has been completed and as more DNA-related biotechnologies have emerged to evaluate human genes, these methods are being utilized to analyze human embryos. The technology now available—the ability to analyze large numbers of genetic locations on each human chromosome, and quantify that genetic material, with the previously well-established techniques to amplify a single cell’s genetic material up to hundreds of thousands of copies—has allowed PGS to take a quantum leap forward. It is now possible to more accurately analyze all 23 chromosome pairs from a single embryo; not only to determine if the correct number of copies of each chromosome is present, but also to look at single gene mutations.

At the end of 2009, Pacific Fertility Center began working with a new biotech company called Gene Security Network, located in Redwood City (genesecurity.net). This company uses gene microarray technology to analyze amplified DNA from a single cell.

It then uses microchips to analyze 30,000 genetic loci in a quantitative manner. In addition, their unique technology allows us to compare the analysis of the embryos’ cells to the parent’s chromosomes to ensure that all the genes are being properly analyzed. It does appear that the error problems that plagued FISH technology have been overcome with this new, more sophisticated, method.

In October of 2009, Dr. Conaghan and I were invited to tour the GSN laboratory and see the technology in action. We met with David Johnson, the lead scientist at GSN, who explained the cell process; from the amplification of the DNA, to arranging the chromosomes on chips, to DNA analysis, to synthesizing the data generated with the parental genetic data to come up with a full analysis of that cell’s genome. In order to process the cells between the day of embryo biopsy (Day 3) and receive the results on the day of embryo transfer (Day 5), their technicians work around the clock in shifts. GSN has a very cold, clean room to replicate the single cells into multiple copies. They cannot allow any outside contamination, not even from a single cell. They videotape the cell duplicating process so if any errors subsequently arise, they have a video record of what the laboratory technician did. We found this to be very impressive. We also saw how the chips were coated with DNA and analyzed. We were shown the sophisticated software that generates the final report detailing the genetic makeup of each embryo from the cells in which they originated. All in all, the tour gave us great confidence in the quality control and scientific integrity at GSN.

Even with this 21st century technology, we continue to biopsy Day 3 embryos because it provides us with a 48 hours window to send the cells to the lab and complete the analysis in time for transfer. However, we have not yet found a way around the problem of mosa- icism. GSN and microarray technology appears to have largely solved the resolution error problem but it can only tell us what is in the chromosomal make-up of the single cell. It cannot tell us whether or not that cell represents what is truly going on with the rest of the embryo. We are currently looking at the possibility of biopsying Day 5 embryos. The set back would result in having to freeze these embryos due to the time constraint in analyzing the genetic material in time for fresh transfer. With all of the innovation occurring daily in the genetics field, we hope that this puzzle will be resolved.

— Carolyn Givens, M.D.

Previous Fertility Flash articles about PGS:
2 Methods of Gaining Info Prior to Implantation
PGD & PGS: Why Genetic Counseling is a Prerequisite
The Benefits and Pitfalls of PGS

Title: Everything Conceivable
Subtitle: How Assisted Reproduction is Changing Men, Women and the World
Penguin Books, 2007. 343 pages, with 57 pages of footnotes and references.
By: Liza Mundy

This is a very interesting book about the current state of affairs in the world of assisted reproduction. It is comprehensive in its coverage of almost all the latest technologies and the author has been very thorough in researching the subject. On most topics, there are insightful observations on the societal implications of current technologies. In this regard, it is a thought-provoking book.

In the epilogue, the writer states, “It was my goal to help readers understand why certain changes in the family are taking place and what their likely consequences might be. Why there is so much demand for donor eggs, now. Why there are so many more triplet sets than there once were. What life is like for those triplet parents. How embryo research and embryo politics are influencing our thought on human life and its origins. What is the real, rather than the imagined impact of medicine and science on families and culture.”

I think this would be an excellent resource if one were a health care policy maker or if one were writing a term paper or thesis on the subject but I don’t really think it’s a book to inform the infertility patient about fertility options or what to expect with treatment. It really does not seem to be intended for fertility patients as the target audience.

However, the book does provide a lot of useful information in a somewhat scholarly fashion. Most of the facts are correct, with some of the usual journalistic license.

One of the biggest challenges we face as fertility medicine specialists is how to do more to help our least-likely-to-succeed patients. What I mean here is the 42-and-over age group, patients with high FSH levels (decreased ovarian reserve), patients with very low responses to fertility medications, or those with very poor quality eggs. Some patients have a combination of the above which leads to a really dim prospect of having a baby with their own eggs.

Some people get the impression that fertility clinics avoid these patients like they have a communicable disease. They get the impression that we try to cherry pick patients to keep success rates high and make the CDC stats look good.  My impression from talking to my colleagues across the country and certainly from our own practice is that we do not try to discourage patients with poor possibilities from making a consult appointment and discussing treatment options. We all have such patients. In fact, we have so many of them at PFC, I don’t think we would have many patients at all if we tried to pre-select our best prognosis patients for IVF. When it comes to treatment, although there are challenges and sometimes the rewards are few, we don’t just throw up our hands and give up. We try to come up with a strategy to achieve the goal, looking at the emotional reserves and financial resources we have to work with, and start by making a plan.

Sometimes that plan will be to try a couple of cycles of low-tech approach, like just intrauterine insemination or Clomid + insemination, or a mid-level approach, like injections of FSH along with  insemination. We would see how things go and play it by ear from there. Sometimes, the plan will be to blast ahead to the big guns, full steam ahead to IVF. Sometimes, it’s counseling with our marriage and family therapist to begin the discussion: are we ready to move on to donor eggs? Sometimes it’s a sequence of all of the above. There really is no one plan for any one person. It’s just too complex to say one size fits all.

A certain percentage, even of the-less-likely-to-succeed patients will get pregnant with their own eggs and go on to deliver a healthy baby. The remainder may be faced with a tough decision. Do we just stop here and live child-free?  There are certain perks to that plan (sleeping in on the weekends, eating in nicer restaurants, adult vacations to name just a couple) but most people want to have a family no matter what or how. So then there is the adoption vs. egg donation question. There is no right or wrong choice here, either: just choices.

Progress has been steady at the Center this week. From last Sunday up until this coming Saturday we will do 13 egg retrievals, 14 fresh embryo transfers, 6 frozen embryo transfers and one hysteroscopy. It looks to be a fairly typical week.

Last Saturday I attended an investigators’ meeting, along with our lab director, Dr. Joe Conaghan, for a new clinical research study that we may be undertaking with Gene Security Network (GSN). GSN is one of the pre-implantation genetic diagnosis/screening (PGD/PGS) laboratories with which we work. I really can’t discuss the details of the study at this time, as we have signed a standard non-disclosure agreement with GSN, but this will be a big study to investigate how useful PGS will be to the average IVF patient.

This leads me to the topic of today’s blog: clinical research. Although PFC is not an academic institution, we are still interested in research because this is how the field of reproductive medicine advances. In fact, since there are so many private IVF clinics, much of the research on IVF is currently being done in the private sector. We would not have the field of assisted reproduction today if it were not for clinical research and for the thousands of patients who have participated in this research to this point. I’d like our readers to know that participation in research is not taken lightly by anyone conducting the studies. As investigators, we all have to be trained in the ethical conduct of research, to make sure the risks of participation are minimized and that there is potential benefit to patients from participation. Our number one goal is still to get our patients a healthy pregnancy. We will not compromise that goal for the sake of a clinical study. The study protocols are carefully reviewed by an independent Institutional Review Board (IRB), tasked with ensuring there is no harm or undue coercion to participants. In most good studies, the design of the study includes a “control arm” and the patients who are randomized into this arm receive current standard treatment. The patients randomized to the “treatment arm” receive the treatment under investigation. It is very important that the patients in the treatment arm should be expected to be at least as successful, if not more so, than the patients in the control arm.

This year, PFC is participating in at least 4 clinical studies. Some, like our acupuncture study, are designed by PFC and are only being done at our facility. Some, like the GSN study, are being designed by the company and will be done at multiple IVF centers, then GSN will pool the data.  If you are interested, please let us know. I will be posting more details very soon to our PFC website.

UPDATE: Research web page is live

It’s looking to be another typically busy week at the Center. Although the overall patient volume at PFC in 2009 was down about 10% from 2008, 2008 was a record year, so 2009 was more typical of the volume in the last 10 years. So far in 2010, we are up over this time in 2009. Many clinics in California and around the country are seeing decreased demand for IVF services, likely due to the poor economy. I heard on the radio the other day that the number of vasectomy procedures was up sharply in 2009 as well. A sign of the tough economic times, I suppose.

In 2007, the last year for which U.S. IVF clinics have official results tabulated from mandatory reporting to the CDC, the total number of  fresh IVF cycles performed in 430 reporting clinics was 142,435 resulting in 43,412 live births and 57,569 infants*. It is estimated that in western countries, about 1% of babies born are now from assisted reproductive technologies. Overall, about 36% of embryo transfers resulted in a live birth. This number continues to climb nationwide, at the same time the number of triplets and more is dropping (now at only 1.8% of live births, which is excellent). The twin percentage is still too high at 30% but we hope to also see this number declining in the coming years as overall success rates improve and we continue to emphasize to our patients the  much better outcomes of singleton pregnancy as compared to twin pregnancy.

Delayed childbearing still continues to be the biggest issue for human reproduction and fertility in the post-industrial world. This is especially true in the San Francisco Bay Area. The median age for women doing IVF in the U.S. was less than 35 but at PFC it is age 39. This may partly to do with the fact that in California, insurance coverage for fertility treatment is not mandatory, like it is in some states like Massachusetts and Illinois. Therefore, couples wait longer before availing themselves of the most effective treatment for infertility. This is also why the proportion of women undergoing IVF nationwide diagnosed with decreased ovarian reserve (i.e. diminished egg quality, a diagnosis that tracks with female age) is 10.3% but this diagnosis represents 31% of the patients at PFC.

*2007 Assisted Reproductive Technology Success Rates National Summary and Fertility Clinic Reports U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention www.cdc.gov/ART/

It’s been another busy week at Pacific Fertility Center. Since Monday, we have done 13 egg retrievals, 11 embryo transfer procedures and one hysteroscopy. One thing is certain – our lab is very hard working. I’m really proud of our embryologists. We have 8 embryologists, including 2 PhDs. They are very enthusiastic and never complain about the work load. They put in the hours and virtually never make mistakes. They really are professionals.

Many people wonder why IVF is so expensive. One reason is that, unlike other medical procedures, it’s often not covered by insurance, so patients have to pay out of pocket and that can hurt. If you were undergoing, say, a kidney transplant procedure, with the attendant technological and complicated procedures involved, no one really questions the costs, mainly because medical insurance covers so much of it. Until infertility is seen as a medical condition for which treatment should be universally covered, we are unlikely to see a change in the perception of the high expense. Although IVF does cost about $15-20K for one cycle, with all possible expenses included, the increase in costs over the last 20 years have not risen to anywhere near the extent that other medical services have risen in this time period. This is because we all try to do what we can to be as efficient as possible, mindful of what it costs patients out of their own bank accounts.

Last night, the MDs and PFC managers met for our monthly meeting (usually a 3-4 hour marathon meeting!). We have managers for the following departments: nursing, billing, IT, medical records, the Egg Donor Agency, HR, clinical research and our Laboratory Director. One of the topics under consideration is how we are going to wire the Center to accommodate a large diesel generator we just purchased. We never really use the generator, it’s only there for emergency power losses. Yet we must have a functioning generator to keep the Center running in case of minor power losses, or heaven forbid, the big quake that damages significant infrastructure. We decided last night to go with the “Cadillac” plan for re-wiring, allowing us to run the entire Center for several days off the generator and allowing for flexible allocation of the electricity to some or all areas. The difference in cost was $25K for basic wiring and $39K for the most extensive and flexible arrangement. Along with rent, salaries for 70+ employees, including some very highly educated staff, these are some of the “hidden” expenses that are essential to running a world-class IVF center.

This past summer, I had the opportunity to travel to Amsterdam, Holland for the annual meeting of the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Though largely attended by Europeans, this scientific meeting draws physicians, embryologists and scientists from around the world to discuss their research, attend courses and lectures, and discuss the latest topics in our field. Although I don’t think this year’s meeting was as quite as good as last year’s ESHRE in Barcelona, there were still some good learning opportunities. Here are some of the highlights of the meeting:

“From Gamete to Heartbeat: The Missing Link”

This was a post-graduate course offered in conjunction with the meeting. The course covered sperm and egg evaluation,

expression of genes in the early embryo and in the endometrium (uterine lining) and some of the latest research into basic embryo implantation mechanisms.

One of the interesting talks was on gene expression in the early embryo. We have come to believe that the differences in pregnancy rates between younger and older women is mainly due to an increase in the number of abnormal chromosomes in embryos from women as they age (such as increased risk for Down Syndrome). However, this only explains part of the differences in successful pregnancy in younger compared to older mothers. New research into expression of proteins from embryonic genes is showing that in both chromosomally normal and abnormal embryos, there are differences in the number and types of genes encoding proteins in younger and older women. This suggests that it is not just changes in the number of chromosomes but subtler differences in the way individual genes are being expressed that affect the developmental competence of their embryos. Determining which genes and proteins are involved, and what the mechanisms are for regulating the expression of these genes in early embryos, will be an area of focused research in the coming years.

“Hyaluronic Acid (HA) favors selection of spermatozoa with intact DNA and normal nucleus, resulting in improvement of embryo quality” (Bologna, Italy)

This presentation (Parmegiani, et al.) looked at the percentage of sperm showing DNA fragmentation based on several methods of sperm preparation for IVF-ICSI (in vitro fertilization with intracellular sperm injection). They compared sperm in the fresh specimen 30 minutes after ejaculation, sperm that had been processed with a standard “swim-up” technique, and sperm that were placed in PVP (polyvinyl propylene), a substance used to slow sperm down so they can be picked up from a culture dish just prior to injection into the eggs. Lastly, they looked at sperm that had been placed into dishes that contain a ring of hyaluronic acid at the bottom of the dish, a substance to which some sperm will automatically bind. They looked at the percentage of sperm showing total or partial fragmentation of the DNA with each of these steps in the sperm preparation process. In the freshly ejaculated sperm, the DNA fragmentation was 16.5% of tested sperm. In the “swim-up” sperm prep, 11% were fragmented and in the PVP-exposed sperm, it was also 11%. Sperm that had bound to hyaluronic acid showed the least amount of fragmentation, at 5.3%.

These findings suggest that using HA binding to select sperm for sperm injection may result in fewer abnormalities in embryos, and possibly higher pregnancy rates. PFC is currently investigating HA binding on our own to see if it is something we would wish to routinely incorporate into IVF. The downside (like everything else!) is that HA plates are expensive.

Stress and Fertility – an enlightening symposium

Jacky Boivin, PhD., a researcher from Cardiff University in Wales, presented some very interesting data about the stresses of infertility treatment. She discussed a new study from Alice Domar’s group in Boston that surveyed why women/couples discontinued IVF treatment before achieving pregnancy (Fertility and Sterility, in press 2009). In this study, 132 women who had insurance coverage for IVF were surveyed. The two main reasons given for dropping out of treatment were the toll that infertility took on the couples’ relationship and being too anxious or depressed to continue. Among the less common reasons for dropping out were medication-related issues (such as difficulty with injections) and feeling the need for a female doctor. Dr. Boivin also discussed results from her own study that was published in the journal Human Reproduction in 2008. In that study, she developed a copingstratagem for women awaiting results of their treatment (i.e. the time between embryo transfer and first beta hCG). It is known that this is a most anxious time for women and the stress of waiting can become overwhelming. She utilized something called the “positive reappraisal coping intervention” card, or “PRCI” card. This is a small printed card that a patient can carry around in his or her pocket and it is meant to be read 2 times per day, every day during the 9-11 days between embryo transfer and first pregnancy test. The card has several little sayings such as: “During this experience I will try …to do something that makes me feel positive” and “During this experience I feel that….I’m energized or I’m creative.” This is a way of programming thoughts towards the positive and away from the negative. She and her colleagues were able to show that patient felt less stressed and felt that the PRCI was helpful during this period.

Currently, at PFC, we have begun a task force to look into ways to better incorporate counseling and tools for stress management for our patients. Please also see this recent Patient Odyssey. Support groups are a wonderful way to diffuse stress and feel more positive.

Corifollitropin: a modification of Follistim to allow a once-a-week injection.

As most people know, the medication we most commonly use for fertility treatment, Follistim, is pure human FSH, manufactured using recombinant DNA technology. The company that makes Follistim, Schering Plough, is working towards FDA approval of a modified version of Follistim, called Corifollitropin, that will make the drug very long-acting.

For those interested in the details; Corifollitropin is the recombinant FSH molecule + 22 C-terminal peptides from betahCG. It does not bind to the LH receptor. This modification lengthens the half-life of Follistim from 22-34 hours to 60-74 hours for Corifollitropin. The recommended regimen will be one dose per week, starting at baseline, then switch to daily recombinant FSH after that. After injection, peak levels are reached in 2 days then they slowly level. It may be possible to only take one injection per week!

A symposium at ESHRE presented information from the ENGAGE trial with data from 14 European and 5 Asian IVF centers, using women with body mass indices (BMIs) between 18 and 32 (generally less than 60 kg -132 lb). The patients were randomized to receive either Corifollitropin or conventional daily recombinant FSH for oocyte recruitment. The number of days of stimulation was the same in both groups (9). The number of eggs retrieved was significantly higher in the Corifollitropin group (13.3) vs. the FSH group (10.6). The rates of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome were the same in both groups (about 3%). The pregnancy rates were 25% in the Corifollitropin group and 34% in the FSH group, a difference that did not quite reach statistical significance.

Data were also presented on a second study of Corifollitropin from the U.S. and Europe, comparing two doses of the drug. In the study, 100 mcg/dose was given to women less than or equal to 60 kg and women greater than 60 kg were dosed at 150 mcg. Over 1500 patients were included in this large trial. In this study, the average number of eggs recovered was 13.7 for the Corifollitropin group and 12.5 for the Follistim group. The mature egg and fertilization rates were the same. The percentage of good quality embryos was the same.

The clinical pregnancy rate in the Cori group was 38.9% and was 38.1% in the Follistim group. These rates were statistically the same. We expect that Corifollitropin will likely be available in the U.S. in 2010 or 2011.

The article in January’s issue of Fertility Flash, Conception at 40 and Beyond – Does IVF Help? contained some errors in the table. The following is a reprint of the article with corrections.

We all know that fertility declines with female age but what is not certain is how much does in vitro fertilization improve one’s chances of conception if a woman/couple is having problems conceiving on their own?

The table below is one I often use when counseling patients 40 and over about their chances of conception with in vitro fertilization.

This table represents pregnancy outcomes with PFC patients from January 2003 to March 2008, so most of the viable pregnancies tabulated here have been delivered.

One thing to note is that over half of the patients that get a positive beta-hCG result do not end up delivering a baby. This is consistent with the observation that most embryos from women 40 and over have abnormal numbers of chromosomes.

Another thing to note is that pregnancies after age 43 are exceedingly rare, even with IVF. We encourage most women over age 43 to strongly consider ovum donation.

World-wide, over half the babies born from assisted reproduction to women over age 40 are born from ovum donation, not from their own eggs.

We all know that fertility declines with female age, but what is not certain is how much in vitro fertilization (IVF) improves one’s chances of conception if a couple/woman is having problems conceiving on her own.

The table below is one I often use when counseling patients 40 and over about their chances of conception with in vitro fertilization.

This table represents pregnancy outcomes with PFC patients from January 2003 to March 2008, so most of the viable pregnancies tabulated here have been delivered.

One thing to note is that over half of the patients that get a positive beta-hCG result do not end up delivering a baby. This is consistent with the observation that most embryos from women 40 and over have abnormal numbers of chromosomes.

Another thing to be aware of is that pregnancies after age 43 are exceedingly rare, even with IVF. We encourage most women over age 43 to strongly consider ovum donation.
World-wide, over half the babies born from assisted reproduction to women over age 40 are born from ovum donation, not from their own eggs.