Ask Our Doctors – Archive
Our Medical Directors are outstanding physicians that you will find to be very personable and compassionate, who take care to ensure that you have the most cutting-edge fertility treatments at your disposal. This is your outlet to ask your questions to the doctors.
Hi Dr. Sher,
I am 40 y.o and have 2 embryos from previous cycles that I am considering transferring:
1. No result
2. Mosaic monosomy 2
Which one would you recommend to transfer first? Or would you transfer them at the same time?
Thanks!
Very respectfully…I would transfer both!
Geoff sher
Do you still recommend vaginal Viagra to help thicken the uterus lining? If so, when would the process start/stop and how often should it be used daily/weekly?
25mg of compounded vaginal Viagra, 4 t5imes daily from the end of the period until the “trigger shot” or administration of progesterone (for embryo recipients).
It was as far back as 1989, when I first published a study that examined the correlation between the thickness of a woman’s uterine lining (the endometrium), and the subsequent successful implantation of embryos in IVF patients. This study revealed that when the uterine lining measured <8mm in thickness by the day of the “hCG trigger” (in fresh IVF cycles), or at the time of initiating progesterone therapy (in embryo recipient cycles, e.g. frozen embryo transfers-FET, egg donation-IVF etc.) , pregnancy and birth rates were substantially improved. Currently, it is my opinion, that an ideal estrogen-promoted endometrial lining should ideally measure at least 9mm in thickness and that an endometrial lining measuring 8-9mm is “intermediate”. An estrogenic lining of <8mm is in most cases unlikely to yield a viable pregnancy.
A “poor” (<8mm) uterine lining is usually the result of the innermost layer of endometrium (the basal or germinal endometrium from which endometrium grows) ) not being able to respond to estrogen by propagating an outer, “functional” layer thick enough to support optimal embryo implantation and development of a healthy placenta (placentation). The “functional” layer ultimately comprises 2/3 of the full endometrial thickness and is the layer that sheds with menstruation in the event that no pregnancy occurs.
The main causes of a “poor” uterine lining are:
1.Damage to the basal endometrium as a result of:
a.Inflammation of the endometrium (endometritis) most commonly resulting from infected products left over following abortion, miscarriage or birth
b.Surgical trauma due to traumatic uterine scraping, (i.e. due to an over-aggressive D & C)
2.Insensitivity of the basal endometrium to estrogen due to:
a.Prolonged , over-use/misuse of clomiphene citrate
b.Prenatal exposure to diethylstilbestrol (DES). This is a drug that was given to pregnant women in the 1960’s to help prevent miscarriage
3.Over-exposure of the uterine lining to ovarian male hormones (mainly testosterone): Older women, women with diminished ovarian reserve (poor responders) and women with polycystic ovarian syndrome -PCOS tend to have raised LH biological activity.. This causes the connective tissue in the ovary (stroma/theca) to overproduce testosterone. The effect can be further exaggerated when certain methods for ovarian stimulation such as agonist (Lupron/Buserelin) “flare” protocols and high dosages of menotropins such as Menopur are used in such cases.
4.Reduced blood flow to the basal endometrium:
Examples include;
a.Multiple uterine fibroids - especially when these are present under the endometrium (submucosal)
b.Uterine adenomyosis (excessive, abnormal invasion of the uterine muscle by endometrial glands).
“The Viagra Connection”
Eighteen years ago years ago, after reporting on the benefit of vaginal Sildenafil (Viagra) for to women who had implantation dysfunction due to thin endometrial linings I was proud to announce the birth of the world’s first “Viagra baby.” Since the introduction of this form of treatment, thousands of women with thin uterine linings have been reported treated and many have gone on to have babies after repeated prior IVF failure.
For those of you who aren’t familiar with the use of Viagra in IVF, allow me to provide some context. It was in the 90’s that Sildenafil (brand named Viagra) started gaining popularity as a treatment for erectile dysfunction. The mechanism by which it acted was through increasing penile blood flow through increasing nitric oxide activity. This prompted me to investigate whether Viagra administered vaginally, might similarly improve uterine blood flow and in the process cause more estrogen to be delivered to the basal endometrium and thereby increase endometrial thickening. We found that when Viagra was administered vaginally it did just that! However oral administration was without any significant benefit in this regard. We enlisted the services of a compound pharmacy to produce vaginal Viagra suppositories. Initially, four (4) women with chronic histories of poor endometrial development and failure to conceive following several advanced fertility treatments were evaluated for a period of 4-6 weeks and then underwent IVF with concomitant Viagra therapy. Viagra suppositories were administered four times daily for 8-11 days and were discontinued 5-7 days prior to embryo transfer in all cases.
Our findings clearly demonstrated that vaginal Viagra produced a rapid and profound improvement in uterine blood flow and that was followed by enhanced endometrial development in all four cases. Three (3) of the four women subsequently conceived. I expanded the trial in 2002 and became the first to report on the administration of vaginal Viagra to 105 women with repeated IVF failure due to persistently thin endometrial linings. All of the women had experienced at least two (2) prior IVF failures attributed to intractably thin uterine linings. About 70% of these women responded to treatment with Viagra suppositories with a marked improvement in endometrial thickness. Forty five percent (45%) achieved live births following a single cycle of IVF treatment with Viagra The miscarriage rate was 9%. None of the women who had failed to show an improvement in endometrial thickness following Viagra treatment achieved viable pregnancies.
Following vaginal administration, Viagra is rapidly absorbed and quickly reaches the uterine blood system in high concentrations. Thereupon it dilutes out as it is absorbed into the systemic circulation. This probably explains why treatment is virtually devoid of systemic side effects
It is important to recognize that Viagra will NOT be effective in improving endometrial thickness in all cases. In fact, about 30%-40% of women treated fail to show any improvement. This is because in certain cases of thin uterine linings, the basal endometrium will have been permanently damaged and left unresponsive to estrogen. This happens in cases of severe endometrial damage due mainly to post-pregnancy endometritis (inflammation), chronic granulomatous inflammation due to uterine tuberculosis (hardly ever seen in the United States) and following extensive surgical injury to the basal endometrium (as sometimes occurs following over-zealous D&C’s).
Combining vaginal Viagra Therapy with oral Terbutaline;
In my practice I sometimes recommend combining Viagra administration with 5mg of oral terbutaline. The Viagra relaxes the muscle walls of uterine spiral arteries that feed the basal (germinal) layer of the endometrium while Terbutaline, relaxes the uterine muscle through which these spiral arteries pass. The combination of these two medications interacts synergistically to maximally enhance blood flow through the uterus, thereby improving estrogen delivery to the endometrial lining. The only drawback in using Terbutaline is that some women experience agitation, tremors and palpitations. In such cases the terbutaline should be discontinued. Terbutaline should also not be used women who have cardiac disease or in those who have an irregular heartbeat.
About 75% of women with thin uterine linings see a positive response to treatment within 2-3 days. The ones that do not respond well to this treatment are those who have severely damaged inner (basal/germinal) endometrial linings, such that no improvement in uterine blood flow can coax an improved response. Such cases are most commonly the result of prior pregnancy-related endometrial inflammation (endometritis) that sometimes occurs post abortally or following infected vaginal and/or cesarean delivery.
Viagra therapy has proven to be a god send to thousands of woman who because of a thin uterine lining would otherwise never have been able to successfully complete the journey “from infertility to family”.
ADDENDUM: PLEASE READ!!
INTRODUCING SHER FERTILITY SOLUTIONS (SFS)
Hitherto I have personally performed IVF- treatment and related procedures on patients who, elected to travel to Las Vegas to be managed by me. However, with the launching of Sher-Fertility Solutions (SFS) in April 2019, I have taken on a new and expanded role. Now, rather than having hands-on involvement I confine my services to providing hour-long online Skype consultations to an ever-growing number of patients (emanating from >40 countries), with complex Reproductive problems, who seek access to my input, advice and guidance. All Skype consultations are followed by a detailed written report that meticulously describes and explains my recommendations for treatment. All patients are encouraged to share this report with their personal treating doctor(s), with whom [subject to consent and a request from their doctor] I will, gladly discuss their case with the “treating Physician”.
Through SFS I am now able to conveniently provide those who because of geography, convenience and cost, prefer to be treated at home or elsewhere by their chosen Infertility Physician.
“I wish to emphasize to all patients with whom I consult, that in the final analyses, when it comes to management, strategy, protocol and implementation of treatment, my advice and recommendations are always superseded by that of the hands-on treating Physician”.
Anyone wishing to schedule a Skype consultation with me, can do so by: Calling my concierge (Patti Converse) at 1-800-780-7437 (in the U.S.A or Canada) or 702-533-2691, for an appointment. Patients can also enroll online on my website, http://www.SherIVF.com, or email Patti at concierge@SherIVF.com .
I was very recently greatly honored in receiving an award by the prestigious; International Association of Top Professionals (IAOTP). For more information, go to the press release on my website, http://www.sherIVF.com .
PLEASE HELP SPREAD THE WORD ABOUT SFS!
Geoff Sher
Hello Dr Sher,
my english may not be verey good,may be some grammatical errors
now Anxiety and confused surround me ,my wife has a history of chocolate cysts and teratomas and has had laparoscopic surgery about tow years ago, now we are going to have a baby,A physical examination revealed a new ovarian cyst ,The size is about 6.4* 4.0 *5.2cm,We went to west China hospital of sichuan university, xijing hospital and southeast hospital in china,The gynecologist told us to go to the reproductive surgeons to try to get pregnant,But reproductive surgeons say it’s very difficult because ovarian cysts are so big,Neither doctor gave us specific advice,The thought of having no children in the future saddens me,In this case, I must to go to wikipedia, Google, and nature for clues to help me decide ,i feel desperate secretly tears,I just want the advice of an outspoken doctor and trust him as a percentage,Bear any consequences,Maybe the medical environment in China is so bad that I can’t blame the doctors for not giving clear advice,So I was hoping against hope for some help, thks,As for the cost, I don’t know how to give it to you, but I can donate to charity organizations in your name
When women with infertility due to endometriosis seek treatment, they are all too often advised to first try ovarian stimulation (ovulation Induction) with intrauterine insemination (IUI) ………as if to say that this would be just as likely to result in a baby as would in vitro fertilization (IVF). Nothing could be further from reality It is time to set the record straight. And hence this communication!
Bear in mind that the cost of treatment comprises both financial and emotional components and that it is the cost of having a baby rather than cost of a procedure. Then consider the fact that regardless of her age or the severity of the condition, women with infertility due to endometriosis are several fold more likely to have a baby per treatment cycle of IVF than with IUI. It follows that there is a distinct advantage in doing IVF first, rather than as a last resort.
So then, why is it that ovulation induction with or without IUI is routinely offered proposed preferentially to women with mild to moderately severe endometriosis? Could it in part be due to the fact that most practicing doctors do not provide IVF services but are indeed remunerated for ovarian stimulation and IUI services and are thus economically incentivized to offer IUI as a first line approach? Or is because of the often erroneous belief that the use of fertility drugs will in all cases induce the release (ovulation) of multiple eggs at a time and thereby increase the chance of a pregnancy. The truth however is that while normally ovulating women (the majority of women who have mild to moderately severe endometriosis) respond to ovarian stimulation with fertility drugs by forming multiple follicles, they rarely ovulate > 1 (or at most 2) egg at a time. This is because such women usually only develop a single dominant follicle which upon ovulating leaves the others intact. This is the reason why normally ovulating women who undergo ovulation induction usually will not experience improved pregnancy potential, nor will they have a marked increase in multiple pregnancies. Conversely, non-ovulating women (as well as those with dysfunctional ovulation) who undergo ovulation induction, almost always develop multiple large follicles that tend to ovulate in unison. This increases the potential to conceive along with an increased risk multiple pregnancies.
So let me take a stab at explaining why IVF is more successful than IUI or surgical correction in the treatment of endometriosis-related infertility:
1.The toxic pelvic factor: Endometriosis is a condition where the lining of the uterus (the endometrium) grows outside the uterus. While this process begins early in the reproductive life of a woman, with notable exceptions, it only becomes manifest in the 2ndhalf of her reproductive life. After some time, these deposits bleed and when the blood absorbs it leaves a visible pigment that can be identified upon surgical exposure of the pelvis. Such endometriotic deposits invariably produce and release toxins” into the pelvic secretions that coat the surface of the membrane (the peritoneum) that envelops all abdominal and pelvic organs, including the uterus, tubes and ovaries. These toxins are referred to as “the peritoneal factor”. Following ovulation, the egg(s) must pass from the ovary (ies), through these toxic secretions to reach the sperm lying in wait in the outer part the fallopian tube (s) tube(s) where, the sperm lie in waiting. In the process of going from the ovary(ies) to the Fallopian tube(s) these eggs become exposed to the “peritoneal toxins” which alter s the envelopment of the egg (i.e. zona pellucida) making it much less receptive to being fertilized by sperm. As a consequence, if they are chromosomally normal such eggs are rendered much less likely to be successfully fertilized. Since almost all women with endometriosis have this problem, it is not difficult to understand why they are far less likely to conceive following ovulation (whether natural or induced through ovulation induction). This “toxic peritoneal factor impacts on eggs that are ovulated whether spontaneously (as in natural cycles) or following the use of fertility drugs and serves to explain why the chance of pregnancy is so significantly reduced in normally ovulating women with endometriosis.
2.The Immunologic Factor: About one third of women who have endometriosis will also have an immunologic implantation dysfunction (IID) linked to activation of uterine natural killer cells (NKa). This will require selective immunotherapy with Intralipid infusions, and/or heparinoids (e.g. Clexane/Lovenox) that is much more effectively implemented in combination with IVF.
3.Surgical treatment of mild to moderate endometriosis does not usually improve pregnancy potential:. The reason is that endometriosis can be considered to be a “work in progress”. New lesions are constantly developing. So it is that for every endometriotic seen there are usually many non-pigmented deposits that are in the process of evolving but are not yet visible to the naked eye and such evolving (non-visible) lesions can also release the same “toxins that compromise fertilization. Accordingly, even after surgical removal of all visible lesions the invisible ones continue to release “toxins” and retain the ability to compromise natural fertilization. It also explains why surgery to remove endometriotic deposits in women with mild to moderate endometriosis usually will fail to significantly improve pregnancy generating potential. In contrast, IVF, by removing eggs from the ovaries prior to ovulation, fertilizing these outside of the body and then transferring the resulting embryo(s) to the uterus, bypasses the toxic pelvic environment and is therefore is the treatment of choice in cases of endometriosis-related infertility.
4.Ovarian Endometriomas: Women, who have advanced endometriosis, often have endometriotic ovarian cysts, known as endometriomas. These cysts contain decomposed menstrual blood that looks like melted chocolate…hence the name “chocolate cysts”. These space occupying lesions can activate ovarian connective tissue (stroma or theca) resulting in an overproduction of male hormones (especially testosterone). An excess of ovarian testosterone can severely compromise follicle and egg development in the affected ovary. Thus there are two reasons for treating endometriomas. The first is to alleviate symptoms and the second is to optimize egg and embryo quality. Conventional treatment of endometriomas involves surgical drainage of the cyst contents with subsequent removal of the cyst wall (usually by laparoscopy), increasing the risk of surgical complications. We recently reported on a new, effective and safe outpatient approach to treating endometriomas in women planning to undergo IVF. We termed the treatment ovarian Sclerotherapy. The process involves; needle aspiration of the “chocolate colored liquid content of the endometriotic cyst, followed by the injection of 5% tetracycline hydrochloride into the cyst cavity. Such treatment will, more than 75% of the time result in disappearance of the lesion within 6-8 weeks. Ovarian sclerotherapy can be performed under local anesthesia or under conscious sedation. It is a safe and effective alternative to surgery for definitive treatment of recurrent ovarian endometriomas in a select group of patients planning to undergo IVF
I am not suggesting that all women with infertility-related endometriosis should automatically resort to IVF. Quite to the contrary…. In spite of having reduced fertility potential, many women with mild to moderate endometriosis can and do go on to conceive on their own (without treatment). It is just that the chance of this happening is so is much lower than normal.
IN SUMMARY: For young ovulating women (< 35 years of age ) with endometriosis, who have normal reproductive anatomy and have fertile male partners, expectant treatment is often preferable to IUI or IVF. However, for older women, women who (regardless of their age) have any additional factor (e.g. pelvic adhesions, ovarian endometriomas, male infertility, IID or diminished ovarian reserve-DOR) IVF should be the primary treatment of choice
Hi Dr Sher,
Would you share your opinion regarding Mini IVF for poor responders?
Thanks!
Mini-IVF is a procedure that involves ovarian stimulation using low dosage medications (often oral drugs like clomiphene and Letrozole) under the premise that it is a “safer” and less expensive than conventional gonadotropin stimulation regimes while yielding comparable success. …….. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that success rates per fresh mini-IVF cycle ranges between 10% and 12%s (i.e., about one third of that which reported national average for conventional IVF performed on women under 39y of age) ). And when it comes to older women and those with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR), the success rate with mini-IVF is usually much lower still.
There can be little doubt that aside from a woman’s age, the method used for ovarian stimulation represents the most important determinant of egg/embryo quality and thus of IVF outcome. There is no single stimulation protocol that is suitable for all IVF patients. It must be individualized…. especially when it comes to women who, regardless of their age have diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) and for women over >40y of age. The reason for this is that in such cases, the pituitary gland often over-produces LH which in turn causes the ovarian stroma/theca (connective tissue) to thicken (stromal hyperplasia/hyperthecosis) and over-produce male hormones (mainly testosterone). This in turn adversely influences egg and follicle growth, resulting in poor egg/embryo “competency” and compromised IVF outcome.
So let us examine the validity of the claims made in support of mini-IVF:
1.Milder stimulation using oral agents such as clomiphene, letrozole (alone or in combination with low dosage gonadotropins (Follistim/Gonal-F/Puregon/Menopur) reduces stress on the ovaries and overall risk associated with IVF. This argument while perhaps having some merit when applied to mini-IVF conducted in younger women who also have normal ovarian reserve, does not hold water for older women and those with DOR who (s stated above) often already have excessive LH-induced ovarian testosterone production. Furthermore, addition of clomiphene and letrozole by further increasing pituitary LH (and thus ovarian testosterone) only serves to add “fuel to the fire” in such cases and Menopur which contains both LH and hCG ( that both have similar effects on ovarian testosterone production), if administered in large amounts (>75U per day) can also do harm in my opinion.
2.Women with DOR will respond better to “milder stimulation” and egg quality will so be enhanced. This assertion borders on the ridiculous. It is like saying that applying less force to a heavier object will increase the likelihood of moving it”. That is simply not how FSH stimulates follicle development. You see…the cell membranes that envelop the follicular granulosa cells that line the inside surface of ovarian follicles have on their surfaces, a finite number of FSH receptors. FSH molecules attach to these receptors and mediate intracellular events that lead to granulosa cell proliferation with production of estradiol and the concurrent development of the egg (oogenesis) that is attached to the inner wall of the follicle. Once all the FSH receptors on the cell membranes are saturated, any residual FSH is discarded. This is why, when it comes to older women and women with DOR whose granulose cell membranes harbor fewer FSH receptors, it is virtually impossible to overstimulate them. Excessive FSH will simply be rejected and discarded.
3. Use of fewer drugs translates into lower cost. This would be true, were it not for the fact that success rates with mini-IVF across the board are much lower than with conventional ovarian stimulation. More important is the fact that the cost of IVF should be expressed in terms of “the cost of having a baby” rather than “cost per cycle of treatment”. When this is taken into account the cost associated with mini-IVF will b be significantly higher than conventional IVF. Then there is the additional emotional cost associated with a much higher IVF failure rate with mini-IVF.
4.Mini-IVF is less technology driven, less stressful and easier to execute. This assertion is in my opinion also without merit. Aside from reduced cost of medications, the same monitoring and laboratory procedures are needed for mini-IVF as with conventional treatment.
What is the best approach? When it comes to older women and those with DOR, it is in my opinion preferable to use a long pituitary down-regulation protocol with conversion from an I.M agonist (e.g. Lupron or Buserelin) to an antagonist such as Cetrotide/Orgalutron or Ganirelix (the agonist/antagonist conversion protocol) augmented with human growth hormone (HGH) and/or estrogen priming and combing this “embryo banking” over several cycles. In such cases preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) can be incorporated to help select the most “competent” embryos for transfer.
What about younger women with normal or increased ovarian reserve? If mini-IVF has any role at all, it could be in young women who have normal or increased ovarian reserve. I do not o not advocate aggressively stimulating the ovaries of younger women who have normal or increased ovarian reserve (as assessed by basal FSH, AMH and estradiol) simply to try and access more eggs. In fact, such an approach is neither safe nor acceptable. In such women it is often wiser to use lower dosage stimulation to try and prevent the development of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) which aside from putting the woman at severe risk of (sometimes) life-endangering complications, can also compromise egg/embryo quality. However, it is my fervent belief that in such women, the preferred approach to ovarian stimulation is through the use of low dosage FSHr-dominant gonadotropins (rather than oral agents such as clomiphene or Letrozole and/or high dosage Menopur). This approach is referred to as Micro-IVF.
I strongly recommend that you visit http://www.SherIVF.com. Then go to my Blog and access the “search bar”. Type in the titles of any/all of the articles listed below, one by one. “Click” and you will immediately be taken to those you select. Please also take the time to post any questions or comments with the full expectation that I will (as always) respond promptly.
•A Fresh Look at the Indications for IVF
•The IVF Journey: The importance of “Planning the Trip” Before Taking the Ride”
•Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) for IVF: Selecting the ideal protocol
•IVF: Factors Affecting Egg/Embryo “competency” during Controlled Ovarian Stimulation(COS)
•The Fundamental Requirements For Achieving Optimal IVF Success
•Use of GnRH Antagonists (Ganirelix/Cetrotide/Orgalutron) in IVF-Ovarian Stimulation Protocols.
•Human Growth Hormone Administration in IVF: Does it Enhances Egg/Embryo Quality and Outcome?
•IVF and the use of Supplementary Human Growth Hormone (HGH) : Is it Worth Trying and who needs it?
•The BCP: Does Launching a Cycle of Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS). Coming off the BCP Compromise Response?
•Blastocyst Embryo Transfers Should be the Standard of Care in IVF
•Why did my IVF Fail
•Anti Mullerian Hormone (AMH) Measurement to Assess Ovarian Reserve and Design the Optimal Protocol for Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) in IVF.
•A personalized, stepwise approach to IVF
•How Many Embryos should be transferred: A Critical Decision in IVF.
•The Role of Nutritional Supplements in Preparing for IVF
•Implications of “Empty Follicle Syndrome and “Premature Luteinization”
•Premature Luteinization (“the premature LH surge): Why it happens and how it can be prevented.
•Micro-IVF: Often Preferable to Ovarian Stimulation with or Without IUI
_______________________________________________________
ADDENDUM: PLEASE READ!!
INTRODUCING SHER FERTILITY SOLUTIONS (SFS)
Hitherto I have personally performed IVF- treatment and related procedures on patients who, elected to travel to Las Vegas to be managed by me. However, with the launching of Sher-Fertility Solutions (SFS) in April 2019, I have taken on a new and expanded role. Now, rather than having hands-on involvement I confine my services to providing hour-long online Skype consultations to an ever-growing number of patients (emanating from >40 countries), with complex Reproductive problems, who seek access to my input, advice and guidance. All Skype consultations are followed by a detailed written report that meticulously describes and explains my recommendations for treatment. All patients are encouraged to share this report with their personal treating doctor(s), with whom [subject to consent and a request from their doctor] I will, gladly discuss their case with the “treating Physician”.
Through SFS I am now able to conveniently provide those who because of geography, convenience and cost, prefer to be treated at home or elsewhere by their chosen Infertility Physician.
“I wish to emphasize to all patients with whom I consult, that in the final analyses, when it comes to management, strategy, protocol and implementation of treatment, my advice and recommendations are always superseded by that of the hands-on treating Physician”.
Anyone wishing to schedule a Skype consultation with me, can do so by: Calling my concierge (Patti Converse) at 1-800-780-7437 (in the U.S.A or Canada) or 702-533-2691, for an appointment. Patients can also enroll online on my website, http://www.SherIVF.com, or email Patti at concierge@SherIVF.com .
I was very recently greatly honored in receiving an award by the prestigious; International Association of Top Professionals (IAOTP). For more information, go to the press release on my website, http://www.sherIVF.com .
PLEASE HELP SPREAD THE WORD ABOUT SFS!
Geoff Sher
Hi everyone,
My husband and I are working though an embryo adoption program and have so far had 2 failed FETs with 6 day embryos.
We have four adopted embryos left, and are trying to figure out how to move forward.
Right now, we’re considering doing the ERA test before our next transfer. We’ve done a bit of research into the test, but the studies seem inconclusive. We’re not sure if we should do the test or just go ahead with another FET.
Do you have any recommendations or thoughts on how helpful the ERA test is?
Thank you so much!
The blastocyst and the endometrium are in a constant state of cross-talk. In order for successful implantation to take place, the blastocyst must be at the appropriate stage of development, and needs to signal a well synchronized endometrium to ‘accept it”. This dialogue between embryo and endometrium involves growth factors, cytokines, immunologic accommodations, cell adhesion molecules, and transcription factors. These are all mostly genetically driven but are also heavily influenced by numerous physiologic and pathophysiologic, hormonal and molecular mechanisms capable of profoundly affecting the receptivity of the secretory endometrium to the overtures made by the embryo, to implant.
Embryo implantation takes place 6-9 days after ovulation. This period is commonly referred to as the “window of implantation (WOI)”. In the past it was believed that as long as the embryo reached the uterus in this 4 day time frame, its chance of implanting would not be affected.
In 2013, after evaluating 238 genes in the secretory endometrium and applying bioformatics, Ruiz-Alonzo, et all introduced the Endometrial Receptivity Array (ERA) . Using this test, they categorized mid-secretory endometria into 4 categories: “a) proliferative, b) pre-receptive, c) receptive or d) post-receptive”. They claimed that women with pre-receptive or post-receptive endometria were more likely to experience failed implantation post-embryo transfer (ET).
It was in large part this research which suggested that the concept of a relatively “wide” (4day) WOI, was flawed, that an optimal WOI is likely much narrower and could be a critical factor in determining the success or failure of implantation post-ET. Ruiz-Alonzo also reported that about 25% of women have pre, or post-receptive endometria, suggesting that by deferring embryo transfer in women with pre-receptive endometria and bringing ET forward in women with post-receptive endometria, viable IVF pregnancy rates could be enhanced.
There is no doubt that ERA testing has opened the door to a very intriguing area new arena. But presently available data does not support this assay as being the “silver bullet” when it comes to implantation.
Further studies are needed to confirm the positive findings in what presently represents a relatively small subset of studies that support a clinical value for ERA. Here are 2 examples of a dissenting opinion::
•Basil and Casper (2018) state: “Performing the ERA test in a mock cycle prior to a FET does not seem to improve the ongoing pregnancy rate in good prognosis patients. Further large prospective studies are needed to elucidate the role of ERA testing in both good prognosis patients and in patients with recurrent implantation failure”
•Churchill and Comstock (2017) conclude:” In our preliminary observations, the non-receptive ERA group had similar live birth rates compared to the receptive ERA group. It appears the majority of the pregnancies conceived in the non-receptive group occurred during ovulatory cycles and thus a non-receptive ERA in a medicated cycle likely does not have prognostic value for ovulatory cycles. Larger studies are needed to assess the prognostic value of ERA testing in the gen-eral infertility population.”
There are additional negatives that relate to the considerable emotional and financial cost of doing ERA testing:
1.First, the process costs $600-$1000 to undertake
2., Second, it requires that the patient undergo egg retrieval, vitrify (cryobank) all blastocysts, res for 1 or more cycles to allow their hormonal equilibrium to restore, do an ERA biopsy to determine the synchronicity of the endometrium, wait a few weeks for the results of the test and thereupon engage in undertaking an additional natural or hormonal preparation cycle for timed FET. This represents a significant time lapse, emotional cost and additional expense.
Presently, ERA testing is only advocated for women who have experienced several IVF failures. However, some authorities are beginning to advocate that it become routine for women undergoing all IVF. Considering that there is currently no general agreement that ERA is uniformly beneficial. So, taking into account the financial cost, time delay and emotional impact, I believe this to be injudicious
There are so many variables involved in the success or failure of embryo implantation. These involve embryo competency, anatomical and immunologic factors and yes…technical skill in performing embryo transfer. Gold standard statistical analyses require that all confounding variable be controlled while examining the effect of changing only the one under consideration. This is the reason why, it is presently virtually impossible to perform reliable randomized controlled studies in IVF where there is a constant interplay of many changing variables. So, when it comes to accepting that ERA makes a real difference, I remain highly skeptical. Unfortunately, as with everything we adopt in IVF, it will take time and longitudinal experience to learn what works and what does not work.
___________________________________________________________
ADDENDUM: PLEASE READ!!
INTRODUCING SHER FERTILITY SOLUTIONS (SFS)
Hitherto I have personally performed IVF- treatment and related procedures on patients who, elected to travel to Las Vegas to be managed by me. However, with the launching of Sher-Fertility Solutions (SFS) in April 2019, I have taken on a new and expanded role. Now, rather than having hands-on involvement I confine my services to providing hour-long online Skype consultations to an ever-growing number of patients (emanating from >40 countries), with complex Reproductive problems, who seek access to my input, advice and guidance. All Skype consultations are followed by a detailed written report that meticulously describes and explains my recommendations for treatment. All patients are encouraged to share this report with their personal treating doctor(s), with whom [subject to consent and a request from their doctor] I will, gladly discuss their case with the “treating Physician”.
Through SFS I am now able to conveniently provide those who because of geography, convenience and cost, prefer to be treated at home or elsewhere by their chosen Infertility Physician.
“I wish to emphasize to all patients with whom I consult, that in the final analyses, when it comes to management, strategy, protocol and implementation of treatment, my advice and recommendations are always superseded by that of the hands-on treating Physician”.
Anyone wishing to schedule a Skype consultation with me, can do so by: Calling my concierge (Patti Converse) at 1-800-780-7437 (in the U.S.A or Canada) or 702-533-2691, for an appointment. Patients can also enroll online on my website, http://www.SherIVF.com, or email Patti at concierge@SherIVF.com .
I was very recently greatly honored in receiving an award by the prestigious; International Association of Top Professionals (IAOTP). For more information, go to the press release on my website, http://www.sherIVF.com .
PLEASE HELP SPREAD THE WORD ABOUT SFS!
Geoff Sher