Kevin S. Richter

The purpose of this mixed methods, cross-sectional patient survey was to characterize patient experience, to explore the frequency of and reasons for infertility treatment discontinuation and return to infertility treatments. Participants were recruited from United States patient support groups. Participants had received or were receiving ovulation induction (OI) with or without intrauterine insemination (IUI), with or without subsequent in vitro fertilization (IVF), or IVF with no other previous infertility treatment. Live birth was achieved by 62% of participants. Compared with participants treated with OI/IUI only, participants who underwent OI/IUI followed by ≥1 IVF cycle were less likely to consider discontinuing care (64% vs 77%; P = .014) or to discontinue treatment without achieving a pregnancy (40% vs 58%; P = .004). The most commonly cited reasons for treatment discontinuation were financial (62%) and psychological burden/treatment fatigue (58%). Expected versus actual time to pregnancy differed greatly. Continued desire for a child (60%) was the most frequently cited reason for continuing or resuming treatment. Expanded access to treatment, counseling and fostering realistic expectations regarding cumulative time to pregnancy may reduce treatment discontinuation.

After more than a decade of increasingly widespread clinical use, personalized embryo transfer guided by endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) remains controversial and unproven. One key element missing from the historical literature is the recognition that potential benefits from personalized embryo transfer are entirely dependent on the accuracy and predictive value of the ERA test. Results from the first comprehensive clinical trial, designed in a way that allowed independent evaluation of both potential benefits of personalized embryo transfer and the predictive value of the ERA test upon which it is based, were recently published. However, the authors failed to conduct an appropriate analysis or recognize the significance of their results. Here, we present a simple reanalysis of data from this otherwise excellent randomized controlled trial, demonstrating for the first time that the ERA was unable to identify the window of implantation as purported and that, as a result, personalized embryo transfer based on the ERA actually reduced rather than increased the birth rates. Based on these results and the lack of any contradictory evidence, it is our opinion that all clinical use of ERA-guided personalized embryo transfer should be discontinued immediately, outside of a controlled experimental setting with appropriate informed consent of all participating patients.