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 Doctor Sher,
I am feeling really hopeless right now and wanted some advise on next steps. I responded well to first attempt fresh IVF, 32 follicles retrieved, 10 ferilised, 5 5 day blastocysts AA quality. First try 1 was transferred, resulted in a pregnancy loss at 5 weeks (HCG never doubled). Second try 2 were transferred, resulted in a pregnancy loss at 5 weeks (identical to the first scenario, HCG never doubled). Since then I have had miscarriage bloods done and the only thing of an real relevance was the occurance of a homozygous MTHFR c665t mutation (which i now take 2mg methylated foltate and 2md methylated B12 for) and mild hypothyrodism with raised TPO antibodies (which i now take thyroxine for). Karotyping for me and my husband came back normal and so has hysterscopy of the uterine cavity. I am now due another FET very soon and finding it very hard to be hopeful. I will add 20mg prednisolene and 20mg clexane daily into my next protocol and my treatment is in the UK.
We are trying to find out what more we can do? We wonder whether it’s time to change clinics, as ours doesn’t offer all the immunological and pgs tests that i’ve read about.
Can you offer any advise at this stage please?
Many Thanks in advance
Whenever a patient fails to achieve a viable pregnancy following embryo transfer (ET), the first question asked is why! Was it simply due to, bad luck?, How likely is the failure to recur in future attempts and what can be done differently, to avoid it happening next time?.
It is an indisputable fact that any IVF procedure is at least as likely to fail as it is to succeed. Thus when it comes to outcome, luck is an undeniable factor. Notwithstanding, it is incumbent upon the treating physician to carefully consider and address the causes of IVF failure before proceeding to another attempt:
1.Age: The chance of a woman under 35Y of age having a baby per embryo transfer is about 35-40%. From there it declines progressively to under 5% by the time she reaches her mid-forties. This is largely due to declining chromosomal integrity of the eggs with advancing age…”a wear and tear effect” on eggs that are in the ovaries from birth.
2.Embryo Quality/”competency (capable of propagating a viable pregnancy)”. As stated, the woman’s age plays a big role in determining egg/embryo quality/”competency”. This having been said, aside from age the protocol used for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) is the next most important factor. It is especially important when it comes to older women, and women with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) where it becomes essential to be aggressive, and to customize and individualize the ovarian stimulation protocol.
We used to believe that the uterine environment is more beneficial to embryo development than is the incubator/petri dish and that accordingly, the earlier on in development that embryos are transferred to the uterus, the better. To achieve this goal, we used to select embryos for transfer based upon their day two or microscopic appearance (“grade”). But we have since learned that the further an embryo has advanced in its development, the more likely it is to be “competent” and that embryos failing to reach the expanded blastocyst stage within 5-6 days of being fertilized are almost invariably “incompetent” and are unworthy of being transferred. Moreover, the introduction into clinical practice about a decade ago, (by Levent Keskintepe PhD and myself) of Preimplantation Genetic Sampling (PGS), which assesses for the presence of all the embryos chromosomes (complete chromosomal karyotyping), provides another tool by which to select the most “competent” embryos for transfer. This methodology has selective benefit when it comes to older women, women with DOR, cases of unexplained repeated IVF failure and women who experience recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL).
3.The number of the embryos transferred: Most patients believe that the more embryos transferred the greater the chance of success. To some extent this might be true, but if the problem lies with the use of a suboptimal COS protocol, transferring more embryos at a time won’t improve the chance of success. Nor will the transfer of a greater number of embryos solve an underlying embryo implantation dysfunction (anatomical molecular or immunologic).Moreover, the transfer of multiple embryos, should they implant, can and all too often does result in triplets or greater (high order multiples) which increases the incidence of maternal pregnancy-induced complications and of premature delivery with its serious risks to the newborn. It is for this reason that I rarely recommend the transfer of more than 2 embryos at a time and am moving in the direction of advising single embryo transfers …especially when it comes to transferring embryos derived through the fertilization of eggs from young women.
4.Implantation Dysfunction (ID): Implantation dysfunction is a very common (often overlooked) cause of “unexplained” IVF failure. This is especially the case in young ovulating women who have normal ovarian reserve and have fertile partners. Failure to identify, typify, and address such issues is, in my opinion, an unfortunate and relatively common cause of repeated IVF failure in such women. Common sense dictates that if ultrasound guided embryo transfer is performed competently and yet repeated IVF attempts fail to propagate a viable pregnancy, implantation dysfunction must be seriously considered. Yet ID is probably the most overlooked factor. The most common causes of implantation dysfunction are:
a.A“ thin uterine lining”
b.A uterus with surface lesions in the cavity (polyps, fibroids, scar tissue)
c.Immunologic implantation dysfunction (IID)
d.Endocrine/molecular endometrial receptivity issues
Certain causes of infertility are repetitive and thus cannot readily be reversed. Examples include advanced age of the woman; severe male infertility; immunologic infertility associated with alloimmune implantation dysfunction (especially if it is a “complete DQ alpha genetic match between partners plus uterine natural killer cell activation (NKa).
I strongly recommend that you visit http://www.DrGeoffreySherIVF.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.
•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
•Ovarian Stimulation for IVF using GnRH Antagonists: Comparing the Agonist/Antagonist Conversion Protocol.(A/ACP) With the“Conventional” Antagonist Aproach
•Anti Mullerian Hormone (AMH) Measurement to Assess Ovarian Reserve and Design the Optimal Protocol for Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) in IVF.
•IVF Failure and Implantation Dysfunction:
•The Role of Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID) & Infertility (IID):PART 1-Background
•Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID) & Infertility (IID):PART 2- Making a Diagnosis
•Immunologic Dysfunction (IID) & Infertility (IID):PART 3-Treatment
•Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction: Importance of Meticulous Evaluation and Strategic Management:(Case Report
•Intralipid and IVIG therapy: Understanding the Basis for its use in the Treatment of Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID)
•Intralipid (IL) Administration in IVF: It’s Composition; How it Works; Administration; Side-effects; Reactions and Precautions
•Natural Killer Cell Activation (NKa) and Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction in IVF: The Controversy!
•Treating Out-of-State and Out-of-Country Patients at Sher-IVF in Las Vegas:
•Traveling for IVF from Out of State/Country–
•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
Please call or email Julie Dahan, my patient concierge. She will guide you on how to set up an in-person or Skype consultation with me. You can reach Julie at on her cell phone or via email at any time:
Julie Dahan
•Email: Julied@sherivf.com
•Phone: 702-533-2691
?800-780-7437
Geoff Sher
I also suggest that you access the 4th edition of my book ,”In Vitro Fertilization, the ART of Making Babies”. It is available as a down-load through http://www.Amazon.com or from most bookstores and public libraries.
Between 2% and 5% of women of the childbearing age have reduced thyroid hormone activity (hypothyroidism). Women with hypothyroidism often manifest with reproductive failure i.e. infertility, unexplained (often repeated) IVF failure, or recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). The condition is 5-10 times more common in women than in men. In most cases hypothyroidism is caused by damage to the thyroid gland resulting from of thyroid autoimmunity (Hashimoto’s disease) caused by damage done to the thyroid gland by antithyroglobulin and antimicrosomal auto-antibodies.
The increased prevalence of hypothyroidism and thyroid autoimmunity (TAI) in women is likely the result of a combination of genetic factors, estrogen-related effects and chromosome X abnormalities. This having been said, there is significantly increased incidence of thyroid antibodies in non-pregnant women with a history of infertility and recurrent pregnancy loss and thyroid antibodies can be present asymptomatically in women without them manifesting with overt clinical or endocrinologic evidence of thyroid disease. In addition, these antibodies may persist in women who have suffered from hyper- or hypothyroidism even after normalization of their thyroid function by appropriate pharmacological treatment. The manifestations of reproductive dysfunction thus seem to be linked more to the presence of thyroid autoimmunity (TAI) than to clinical existence of hypothyroidism and treatment of the latter does not routinely result in a subsequent improvement in reproductive performance.
It follows, that if antithyroid autoantibodies are associated with reproductive dysfunction they may serve as useful markers for predicting poor outcome in patients undergoing assisted reproductive technologies.
Some years back, I reported on the fact that 47% of women who harbor thyroid autoantibodies, regardless of the absence or presence of clinical hypothyroidism, have activated uterine natural killer cells (NKa) cells and cytotoxic lymphocytes (CTL) and that such women often present with reproductive dysfunction. We demonstrated that appropriate immunotherapy with IVIG or intralipid (IL) and steroids, subsequently often results in a significant improvement in reproductive performance in such cases.
The fact that almost 50% of women who harbor antithyroid antibodies do not have activated CTL/NK cells suggests that it is NOT the antithyroid antibodies themselves that cause reproductive dysfunction. The activation of CTL and NK cells that occurs in half of the cases with TAI is probably an epiphenomenon with the associated reproductive dysfunction being due to CTL/NK cell activation that damages the early “root system” (trophoblast) of the implanting embryo. We have shown that treatment of those women who have thyroid antibodies + NKa/CTL using IL/steroids, improves subsequent reproductive performance while women with thyroid antibodies who do not harbor NKa/CTL do not require or benefit from such treatment.
Hi Dr Sher, you previously advised that the more chromosomes in an embryo that is affected the less the likelihood of it being mosaic. Is there a general rule in terms of the minimum number of chromosomes impacted before being considered mosaic? Eg would you consider transferring embryos with 1 or 2 chromosomes impacted? Many thanks!
Human embryo development occurs through a process that encompasses reprogramming, sequential cleavage divisions and mitotic chromosome segregation and embryonic genome activation. Chromosomal abnormalities may arise during germ cell and/or pre-implantation embryo development, and represents a major cause of early pregnancy loss. About a decade ago, I and an associate, Levent Keskintepe Ph.D. were the first to introduce full embryo karyotyping (identification of all 46 chromosomes) through preimplantation genetic sampling (PGS) as a method by which to selectively transfer only euploid embryos (i.e. those that have a full component of chromosomes) to the uterus. We subsequently reported on a 2-3 fold improvement in implantation and birth rates as well as a significant reduction in early pregnancy loss, following IVF. Since then PGS has grown dramatically in popularity such that it is now widely used throughout the world.
Most IVF programs that offer PGS services, require that all participating patients consent to all their aneuploid embryos (i.e. those with an irregular quota of chromosomes) be disposed of. However, there is now growing evidence to suggest that following embryo transfer, some aneuploid embryos will in the process of ongoing development, convert to the euploid state (i.e. “auto correction”) and then go on to develop into chromosomally normal offspring. In fact, I am personally aware of several such cases occurring within our IVF network. So clearly, by summarily discarding all aneuploid embryos as a matter of routine we are sometimes destroying some embryos that might otherwise have “autocorrected” and gone on to develop into normal offspring.
Thus by discarding all aneuploid embryos we, in so doing, might be denying some women the opportunity of having a baby. This creates a major ethical and moral dilemma for those of us that provide the option of PGS to our patients. On the one hand, we strive “to avoid knowingly doing harm” (the Hippocratic Oath) and as such would prefer to avoid or minimize the risk of miscarriage and/or chromosomal birth defects and on the other hand we would not wish to deny patients with aneuploid embryos, the opportunity to have a baby.
The basis for such embryo “auto correction” lies in the fact that some embryos found through PGS-karyotyping to harbor one or more aneuploid cells (blastomeres) will often also harbor chromosomally normal (euploid) cells (blastomeres). The coexistence of both aneuploid and euploid cells coexisting in the same embryo is referred to as “mosaicism.” Many such mosaic embryos will In the process of subsequent cell replication convert to the normal euploid state (i.e. autocorrect)
It is against this background, that an ever increasing number of IVF practitioners, rather than summarily discard PGS-identified aneuploid embryos are now choosing to cryobanking (freeze-store) certain of them, to leave open the possibility of ultimately transferring them to the uterus. In order to best understand the complexity of the factors involved in such decision making, it is essential to understand the causes of embryo aneuploidy of which there are two varieties:
1.Meiotic aneuploidy” results from aberrations in chromosomal numerical configuration that originate in either the egg (most commonly) and/or in sperm, during preconceptual maturational division (meiosis). Since meiosis occurs in the pre-fertilized egg or in and sperm, it follows that when aneuploidy occurs due to defective meiosis, all subsequent cells in the developing embryo/blastocyst/conceptus inevitably will be aneuploid, precluding subsequent “auto correction”. Meiotic aneuploidy will thus invariably be perpetuated in all the cells of the embryo as they replicate. It is a permanent phenomenon and is irreversible. All embryos so affected are thus fatally damaged. Most will fail to implant and those that do implant will either be lost in early pregnancy or develop into chromosomally defective offspring (e.g. Down syndrome, Edward syndrome, Turner syndrome).
2.“Mitotic aneuploidy” occurs when following fertilization and subsequent cell replication (cleavage), some cells (blastomeres) of a meiotically euploid early embryo mutate and become aneuploid. This is referred to as mosaicism. Thereupon, with continued subsequent cell replication (mitosis) the chromosomal make-up (karyotype) of the embryo might either comprise of predominantly aneuploid cells or euploid cells. The subsequent viability or competency of the conceptus will thereupon depend on whether euploid or aneuploid cells predominate. If in such mosaic embryos aneuploid cells predominate, the embryo will be “incompetent”). If (as is frequently the case) euploid cells prevail, the mosaic embryo will be “competent” and capable of propagating a normal conceptus.
Since some mitotically aneuploid (“mosaic”) embryos can and indeed do “autocorrect’ while meiotically aneuploid embryos cannot, it follows that an ability to differentiate between these two varieties of aneuploidy would be of enormous clinical value. Since some mosaic embryos can “autocorrect” and even go on to propagate a viable baby, the ability to confirm that aneuploidy is mitotic (potentially reversible) would provide a strong argument in favor of preserving certain aneuploid embryos for future dispensation. Unfortunately however, there is presently no microscopic or genetic test that can reliable differentiate between meiotic and mitotic aneuploidy.
Aneuploidy, whether meiotic or mitotic in origin involves the addition of one or more chromosomes to a given pair in human embryos. Certain aneuploidies involve only a single, chromosome pair (simple aneuploidy) while others involve more than a single pair (i.e. complex aneuploidy). Evidence suggests that complex aneuploidy, whether meiotic or mitotic in origin is almost always lethal while all forms of meiotic aneuploidy are permanent. Some aneuploidies, especially those that involve addition of a chromosome to any pair (trisomy) will at times progress to clinical pregnancies (e.g. trisomy 15, 18, 21 or when the sex chromosomes are involve). And as stated previously, most aneuploid embryos, should they attach, will miscarry or result in a chromosomally defective offspring.
On the other hand, some aneuploid embryos have one chromosome (in a given pair) missing (i.e. monosomy). Aside from monosomy involving absence of the Y-sex chromosome (i.e. XO) which can resulting in a live birth (Turner syndrome) all other monosomies involving autosomes (non-sex chromosomes) are lethal and will not result in viable offspring.
Since it is presently not possible, without removing more than 1 cell from an embryo (a very traumatic event) to differentiate between meiotic and mitotic aneuploidy, it follows that making a diagnosis of embryo aneuploidy does not allow for identification of mosaic embryos for transfer. This is especially true when it comes to trisomic embryos that can and sometimes do, propagate chromosomal birth defects such as Down syndrome. It is important to bear in mind that the transfer of trisomic embryos (whether due to meiotic or mitotic aneuploidy) can result in miscarriage or a birth defect. This makes any attempt to transfer such embryos to the uterus fraught with risk and in my opinion, ill advised. Conversely, since true meiotic autosomal monosomic embryos cannot propagate viable pregnancies, performing embryo transfer in such cases in the hope that the aneuploidy is mitotic (mosaic) in origin and will spontaneously “ auto correct”, is a rational consideration. Needless to say, such action would require full disclosure, and the execution of a detailed, informed consent agreement which would include an expressed commitment to undergo prenatal genetic testing aimed at excluding a chromosomal defect in the developing baby and/or a willingness to terminate the pregnancy should a serious birth defect be diagnosed.
Since it is meiotic rather than mitotic aneuploidy that is invariably lethal and given that meiotic aneuploidy originates in the egg, it is my belief that the closer to fertilization that embryo biopsy is done for PGS, the more likely it is that any aneuploidy detected, will be meiotic in origin. The longer you wait thereafter, the greater the likelihood that with repeated mitotic division, mutational changes will result in mitotic aneuploidy (mosaicism). This is why I strongly believe embryo biopsies should be performed on day 2-3 post fertilization rather on day 5-6 days (the blastocyst stage).”
I strongly recommend that you visit http://www.DrGeoffreySherIVF.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.
•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
•Ovarian Stimulation for IVF using GnRH Antagonists: Comparing the Agonist/Antagonist Conversion Protocol.(A/ACP) With the“Conventional” Antagonist Aproach
•Anti Mullerian Hormone (AMH) Measurement to Assess Ovarian Reserve and Design the Optimal Protocol for Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) in IVF..
•Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGS) in IVF: It Should be Used Selectively and NOT be Routine.
•Preimplantation Genetic Sampling (PGS) Using: Next Generation Gene Sequencing (NGS): Method of Choice.
•PGS and Assessment of Egg/Embryo “competency”: How Method, Timing and Methodology Could Affect Reliability
•Treating Out-of-State and Out-of-Country Patients at Sher-IVF in Las Vegas:
•Traveling for IVF from Out of State/Country–
•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
Please call or email Julie Dahan, my patient concierge. She will guide you on how to set up an in-person or Skype consultation with me. You can reach Julie at on her cell phone or via email at any time:
Julie Dahan
•Email: Julied@sherivf.com
•Phone: 702-533-2691
?800-780-7437
Geoff Sher
I also suggest that you access the 4th edition of my book ,”In Vitro Fertilization, the ART of Making Babies”. It is available as a down-load through http://www.Amazon.com or from most bookstores and public libraries.
Hello Dr Sher,
I am 41 yrs old and married for 3 years without a baby. I was diagnosed with UTERINE ADENOMYOSIS. Uterus is enlarged in size and measures 14.8 x 11.6 x 10.4 cm. My OB suggested us to go to IVF center. IVF center run an ultrasound examination and told me that i have low ovarian reserved which confirmed followed by blood test. My IVF doctor didn’t suggest to go through IVF procedure and just gave me 2% chance rather he suggested for laparoscopy. I really need your opinion. Thanks a lot.
1. Adenomyosis:
Adenomyosis is a condition where endometrial glands develop outside the uterine lining (endometrium), within the muscular wall of the uterus (myometrium). Definitive diagnosis of adenomyosis is difficult to make. The condition should be suspected when a premenopausal woman (usually>25 years of age) presents with pelvic pain, heavy painful periods, pain with deep penetration during intercourse, “unexplained infertility” or repeated miscarriages and thereupon, when on digital pelvic examination she is found to have an often smoothly enlarged (bulky) soft tender uterus. Previously, a definitive diagnosis was only possible after a woman had her uterus removed (hysterectomy) and it this was inspected under a microscope. However the use of uterine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) now permits reliable diagnosis. Ultrasound examination of the uterus on the other hand , while not permitting definitive diagnosis, is a very helpful tool in raising a suspicion of the existence of adenomyosis.
Criteria used to make a diagnosis of adenomyosis on transvaginal ultrasound:
•Smooth generalized enlargement of the uterus.
•Asymmetrical thickening of one side of the (myometrium) as compared to another side.
•Thickening (>12mm) of the junctional zone between the endometrium and myometrium with increased blood flow.
•Absence of a clear line of demarcation between the endometrium and the myometrium
•Cysts in the myometrium
•One or more non discrete (not encapsulated) tumors (adenomyomas) in the myometrium.
Since there is no proven independent relationship between adenomyosis and egg/embryo quality any associated reproductive dysfunction (infertility/miscarriages) might be attributable to an implantation dysfunction. It is tempting to postulate that this is brought about by adenomyosis-related anatomical pathology at the endometrial-myometrial junction. However, many women with adenomyosis, do go on to have children without difficulty. Given that 30%-70% of women who have adenomyosis also have endometriosis…. a known cause of infertility, it is my opinion that infertility caused by adenomyosis is likely linked to endometriosis where infertility is at least in part due to a toxic pelvic environment that compromises egg fertilization potential and/or due to an immunologic implantation dysfunction (IID) linked to activation of uterine natural killer cells (NKa). Thus, in my opinion all women who are suspected of having adenomyosis-related reproductive dysfunction (infertility/miscarriages) should be investigated for endometriosis and for IID. The latter, if confirmed would make them candidates for selective immunotherapy (using intralipid/steroid/heparin) in combination with IVF.
Surgery: Conservative surgery to address adenomyosis-related infertility involves excision of portions of the uterus with focal or nodular adenomyosis and/or excision of uterine adenomyomas. It is very challenging and difficult to perform because adenomyosis does not have distinct borders that distinguish normal uterine tissue from the lesions. In addition, surgical treatment for adenomyosis-related reproductive dysfunction is of questionable value and of course is not an option for diffuse adenomyosis.
Medical treatment: There are three approaches.
•GnRH agonists (Buserelin/Lupron) which is thought to work by lowering estrogen levels.
•Aromatase inhibitors such as Letrozole have also been tried with limited success
•Inhibitors of angiogenesis: The junctional zone in women with adenomyosis may grow blood vessels more readily that other women (i.e. angiogenesis). A hormone known as VEGF can drive this process. It is against this background that it has been postulated that use of drugs that reduce the action of VEGF and thereby counter blood vessel proliferation in the uterus could have a therapeutic benefit. While worth trying in some cases, thus far such treatment has been rather disappointing
•Immunotherapy to counter IID: The use of therapies such as Intralipid (or IVIG)/steroids/heparin in combination with IVF might well hold promise in those women with adenomyosis who have NKa.
Fortunately, not all women with adenomyosis are infertile. For those who are, treatment presents a real problem. Even when IVF is used and the woman conceives, there is still a significant risk of miscarriage. Since the condition does not compromise egg/embryo quality, women with adenomyosis-related intractable reproductive dysfunction who fail to benefit from all options referred to above…(including IVF) might as a last resort consider Gestational surro resort consider Gestational surrogacy.
2. The age factor and DOR:
The older a woman becomes, the more likely it is that her eggs will be chromosomally/genetically “incompetent” (not have the potential upon being fertilized and transferred, to result in a viable pregnancy). That is why, the likelihood of failure to conceive, miscarrying and of giving birth to a chromosomally defective child (e.g. with Down Syndrome) increases with the woman’s advancing age. In addition, as women age beyond 35Y there is commonly a progressive diminution in the number of eggs left in the ovaries, i.e. diminished ovarian reserve (DOR). So it is that older women as well as those who (regardless of age) have DOR have a reduced potential for IVF success. Much of this is due to the fact that such women tend to have increased production of LH biological activity which can result in excessive LH-induced ovarian male hormone (predominantly testosterone) production which in turn can have a deleterious effect on egg/embryo “competency”.
While it is presently not possible by any means, to reverse the age-related effect on the woman’s “biological clock, certain ovarian stimulation regimes, by promoting excessive LH production (e.g. short agonist/Lupron- “flare” protocols, clomiphene and Letrozole), can make matters worse. Similarly, the amount/dosage of certain fertility drugs that contain LH/hCG (e.g. Menopur) can have a negative effect on the development of the eggs of older women and those who have DOR and should be limited.
I try to avoid using such protocols/regimes (especially) in older women and those with DOR, favoring instead the use of the agonist/antagonist conversion protocol (A/ACP), a modified, long pituitary down-regulation regime, augmented by adding supplementary human growth hormone (HGH). I further recommend that such women be offered access to embryo banking of PGS (next generation gene sequencing/NGS)-selected normal blastocysts, the subsequent selective transfer of which by allowing them to to capitalize on whatever residual ovarian reserve and egg quality might still exist and thereby “make hay while the sun still shines” could significantly enhance the opportunity to achieve a viable pregnancy
Please visit my new Blog on this very site, http://www.DrGeoffreySherIVF.com, find the “search bar” and 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
•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
•Ovarian Stimulation for IVF using GnRH Antagonists: Comparing the Agonist/Antagonist Conversion Protocol.(A/ACP) With the “Conventional” Antagonist Approach
•Anti Mullerian Hormone (AMH) Measurement to Assess Ovarian Reserve and Design the Optimal Protocol for Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) in IVF.
•The “Biological Clock” and how it should Influence the Selection and Design of Ovarian Stimulation Protocols for IVF.
• A Rational Basis for selecting Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) protocols in women with Diminished Ovarian Reserve (DOR)
•Diagnosing and Treating Infertility due to Diminished Ovarian Reserve (DOR)
•Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) in Older women and Women who have Diminished Ovarian Reserve (DOR): A Rational Basis for Selecting a Stimulation Protocol
•Human Growth Hormone Administration in IVF: Does it Enhances Egg/Embryo Quality and Outcome?
•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
•Frozen Embryo Transfer (FET) versus “Fresh” ET: How to Make the Decision
•Frozen Embryo Transfer (FET): A Rational Approach to Hormonal Preparation and How new Methodology is Impacting IVF.
•Staggered IVF: An Excellent Option When. Advancing Age and Diminished Ovarian Reserve (DOR) Reduces IVF Success Rate
•Embryo Banking/Stockpiling: Slows the “Biological Clock” and offers a Selective Alternative to IVF-Egg Donation.
•Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGS) in IVF: It Should be Used Selectively and NOT be Routine.
•Preimplantation Genetic Sampling (PGS) Using: Next Generation Gene Sequencing (NGS): Method of Choice.
•PGS in IVF: Are Some Chromosomally Abnormal Embryos Capable of Resulting in Normal Babies and Being Wrongly Discarded?
•PGS and Assessment of Egg/Embryo “competency”: How Method, Timing and Methodology Could Affect Reliability
•Treating Out-of-State and Out-of-Country Patients at Sher-IVF in Las Vegas:
•Traveling for IVF from Out of State/Country–
•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
•Premature Luteinization (“the premature LH surge): Why it happens and how it can be prevented.
•IVF Egg Donation: A Comprehensive Overview
I invite you to arrange to have a Skype or an in-person consultation with me to discuss your case in detail. If you are interested, please contact Julie Dahan, at:
Email: Julied@sherivf.com
OR
Phone: 702-533-2691
800-780-7437
I also suggest that you access the 4th edition of my book ,”In Vitro Fertilization, the ART of Making Babies”. It is available as a down-load through http://www.Amazon.com or from most bookstores and public libraries.
Hi Dr. Sher,
I am a 24 year old Canadian and my husband and I are considering PGD for family balancing, however we cannot do so in Canada. Our previous pregnancy was spontaneous and low risk, and we are wondering whether micro IVF might be an option with PGD? I would rather not have to do the full IVF if not needed, as we were able to conceive our first in less then a year, and we are both under 30, and healthy. Also especially considering the Canadian dollar makes the exchange rate extremely high, and a lesser cost option would also be of benefit!
Indeed micro-IVF with PGS would be most appropriate.
Couples have for centuries sought to influence the gender of their offspring. More than seven centuries ago the ancient Chinese developed a birth calendar said to be able to predict gender on the basis of when conception occurred. Later, the ancient Greeks suggested that by lying on her right side during intercourse, a woman could improve the likelihood of having a male child. And 300 years ago, the French suggested that placing a ligature around the right testicle would improve the chance of having a male child.
More recently in the U.S., methods such as timing intercourse, assuming different positions during sex, and (relatively recently) employing rapid sperm centrifugation in an attempt to separate male chromosome-bearing sperm from female sperm prior to artificial insemination were proposed. The fact is that none of these (as well as many other) such anecdotal assertions have been shown to have any real validity.
Currently, in spite of several well described medical approaches, the indisputable fact has emerged that it is only by way of IVF that reliable sex selection can be achieved. This allows for embryos to be screened for gender through preimplantation genetic diagnosis prior to transferring the embryo(s) of the desired gender to the uterus.
Nevertheless, it is an inescapable reality that the very idea of medical sex selection challenges moral and ethical beliefs at their very foundation. Many hold that the growing popularity of gender selection solely for the convenience of altering a family’s gender balance represents an unwanted example of how assisted reproductive technology is subject to abuse…and thus it should be outlawed. They also see it as an example of a disturbing trend towards “designer babies” where genetic engineering could be used to manipulate the intellect, body configuration, build, height, and the talents of future offspring. This assertion is commonly followed by the tantalizing question as to where all this would end and whether we as a society “would really want to live in such a world.”
There is, however, one clear exception to the apparent across-the-board opposition to sex selection that is well worthy of mention. This applies in cases where sex selection is used to avoid the occurrence of a serious medical disorder that selectively affects one gender or the other (e.g., Hemophilia, a life threatening bleeding disorder that selectively affects male offspring).
EVALUATING CURRENTLY USED METHODS FOR SEX SELECTION
SPERM GRADIENT METODOLOGY (discredited because of a lack of reliability)
This is one of the simplest methods that still (unfortunately) remains in widespread use. Here sperm is rapidly spun down (centrifuged) in the hope of separating the male sperm (those with Y-chromosomes) from the female sperm (those with X-chromosomes). It relies on the assumption that the X chromosome makes sperm heavier, allowing for separation of male from female chromosome-bearing sperm. Though this method is often touted as a low cost method for sex selection, the truth is that it simply does not work!
LOW CYTOMETRIC TESTING BY THE MICROSORT METHOD (discredited because of a lack of reliability)
This method which is now somewhat discredited by the FDA employedthe use of a fluorescent dye that adheres to genetic material within the sperm. It was based on the premise that because X-bearing sperm contain more genetic material, these sperm were supposed to pick up more dye than Y-bearing sperm. Thereupon, X and Y bearing sperm are then separated into two groups and used for intrauterine insemination (IUI) or IVF. This method was touted as yielding a 60% to 70% accuracy rate with IUI. This has not been adequately confirmed and in my personal experience its reliability in the IVF setting has been questionable to say the least. The Microsort technique is to my knowledge not presently being offered in the United States.
IVF using PREIMPLANTATION GENETIC DIAGNOSIS (PGD)
Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) involves the removal of one or more cells from an embryo, for chromosomal or genetic analysis. The most widely used and he most reliable PGD method for gender selection is fluorescence in-situ-hybridization (FISH). However, this technique does not identify all 23 pairs of chromosomes in the embryo’s cells. At best it can well identify 12. Thus, while FISH provides an excellent method for gender selection and for identification of structural chromosomal aberrations, it is not a reliable method for diagnosing embryo aneuploidy (“competency”). Conversely, another PGD method, next generation gene sequencing (NGS) which does assess all the embryo’s chromosomes can be used for both detecting all the embryo’s chromosomes and thus can determine embryo “competency” reliably. It also reliably identifies gender. However, while NGS is very bit as reliable as FISH for gender selection, FISH can be done in fresh cycles (i.e. the ET is done in the same cycle as that in which the ER is done), while NGS requires time for testing that requires Staggered IVF (St-IVF) in which the embryos are biopsied on day 3 or day 5-6 (post-fertilization) and the blastocysts are ultrarapidly frozen (vitrified) and allowed to proceed in culture to blastocysts whereupon they are ultra-rapidly frozen (vitrified) and are then held for transfer in a subsequent cycle.
Upon completion of FISH, which takes about 24-36 hours, the couple can select which embryo(s) they will transfer to the uterus. If pregnancy results, there is almost a 100% chance it will result in the desired gender. If NGS is used, the degree of accuracy in diagnosing gender, is as reliable as is FISH but in addition, NGS provides information on the entire karyotype (all 23 pairs of chromosomes) which is extremely beneficial because it assesses embryo “competency, while FISH does not.
A PERSONAL OPINION:
Sex selection done purely for family balancing is somewhat controversial, raising concern that if widely accessible and freely available, such practice could distort the natural sex ratio, leading to a population gender imbalance. However, for this to happen, there would have to be a significant population preference for sex selection. In reality, the contrary seems to apply, since studies conducted in western societies discount these concerns. In fact, the relatively high cost of IVF with the added cost of gender selection in the United States makes it unlikely that the demand would ever become large enough to impact overall population gender balance. In addition, several studies done in Western countries have shown that the majority of people do not seem to be concerned about the gender of their offspring, and that with a few notable exceptions, gender preference does not appear to be slanted in the direction of either male or female. Thus, from a practical standpoint, such concerns are overstated.
Given that in the United States most couples do not care about the gender of their offspring, and only a minority are interested in selecting the sex of their children there is currently no risk that IVF sex-selection will impact the population gender balance. Thus, in my opinion by and large, freedom of choice should prevail and a service for sex selection should be freely available
So, in my personal practice, I absolutely do offer gender selection in the following circumstances.
•Medical Indications for Gender Selection:
oFor cases associated with
?sex-linked genetic disorders or,
?serious genetic disorders that are more likely to occur in one gender or the other.
•Non-Medical Family balancing
o For couples who have at least one child of the opposite gender to that which they choose for their IVF embryo transfer and,
oFor those women who do not have any children at all but prefer to have a child of one or the other gender.
I strongly recommend that you visit http://www.DrGeoffreySherIVF.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.
•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
•Ovarian Stimulation for IVF using GnRH Antagonists: Comparing the Agonist/Antagonist Conversion Protocol.(A/ACP) With the“Conventional” Antagonist Aproach
•Anti Mullerian Hormone (AMH) Measurement to Assess Ovarian Reserve and Design the Optimal Protocol for Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) in IVF.
•Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGS) in IVF: It Should be Used Selectively and NOT be Routine.
•Preimplantation Genetic Sampling (PGS) Using: Next Generation Gene Sequencing (NGS): Method of Choice.
•PGS in IVF: Are Some Chromosomally abnormal Embryos Capable of Resulting in Normal Babies and Being Wrongly Discarded?
•PGS and Assessment of Egg/Embryo “competency”: How Method, Timing and Methodology Could Affect Reliability
•Treating Out-of-State and Out-of-Country Patients at Sher-IVF in Las Vegas:
•Traveling for IVF from Out of State/Country–
•A personalized, stepwise approach to IVF
•Micro-IVF: Often Preferable to Ovarian Stimulation with or Without IUI
Please call or email Julie Dahan, my patient concierge. She will guide you on how to set up an in-person or Skype consultation with me. You can reach Julie at on her cell phone or via email at any time:
Julie Dahan
•Email: Julied@sherivf.com
•Phone: 702-533-2691
?800-780-7437
Geoff Sher
I also suggest that you access the 4th edition of my book ,”In Vitro Fertilization, the ART of Making Babies”. It is available as a down-load through http://www.Amazon.com or from most bookstores and public libraries.
Hi Dr Sher,
I am 38 years old and was diagnosed with elevated NKactivity 3 years ago after 5 failed IVF transfers. 2 years ago I successfully gave birth to a baby boy who was a PGD tested FET. My treatment protocol was as follows: 3 weeks pre FET I started 3 x .5mg dexamethasone, I had an intrallipid 5days pre transfer, started 400mg x 2 progresterone pesseries and 40mg clexane per day. I swtiched to Prednisone at 9weeks, continued with the pessaries until 15w and continued with the clexane until 27w. I was having intrallipids every 5w up until 24w.
I have now been trying for number 2 and last July & Aug I had two failed FETs using the same protocol.
I did another full cycle with PGD and ended up with 5 normal embryos 2day5 AA & AB Blasts & 3AA,BA,BA Blasts.
Pre transfer my marker levels were as follows:
CD3-/CD16 + (NK) 13%
CD3-/CD56 +(NK) 13%
CD3-/CD16+CD56+ 13%
CD57 12%
CD8 (T SUPPRESSOR) 24% or .34(UNDER NORMAL Abs range .60-1.70)
I had a FET in June & my specialist kept the same protocol however added Neupogen at .03ml per day but that resulted in a chemical pregnancy….
I did another FET in July just gone but decided to add IVIG in place of the Intrallipid but that ended in a failed implantation….
My lining is always above 8mm and my progestrone high….
I am at a loss as to what is going on as I seem to have perfectly pgd embryos a strong protocol but no success in achieving a second pregnancy. Any advice would be appreciated…
Thank you
Nadia
Hi Nadia,
You clearly do have an immunologic implantation dysfunction linked to NKa. However, it is possibly an alloimmune rather than autoimmune issue. This needs to be clarified . If you indeed have the latter, then a different treatment regime would be needed (see below).
I strongly recommend that you visit http://www.DrGeoffreySherIVF.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.
•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
•Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGS) in IVF: It Should be Used Selectively and NOT be Routine.
•Preimplantation Genetic Sampling (PGS) Using: Next Generation Gene Sequencing (NGS): Method of Choice.
•PGS in IVF: Are Some Chromosomally abnormal Embryos Capable of Resulting in Normal Babies and Being Wrongly Discarded?
•PGS and Assessment of Egg/Embryo “competency”: How Method, Timing and Methodology Could Affect Reliability
•IVF Failure and Implantation Dysfunction:
•The Role of Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID) & Infertility (IID):PART 1-Background
•Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID) & Infertility (IID):PART 2- Making a Diagnosis
•Immunologic Dysfunction (IID) & Infertility (IID):PART 3-Treatment
•Thyroid autoantibodies and Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID)
•Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction: Importance of Meticulous Evaluation and Strategic Management:(Case Report
•Intralipid and IVIG therapy: Understanding the Basis for its use in the Treatment of Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID)
•Intralipid (IL) Administration in IVF: It’s Composition; How it Works; Administration; Side-effects; Reactions and Precautions
•Natural Killer Cell Activation (NKa) and Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction in IVF: The Controversy!
•Endometrial Thickness, Uterine Pathology and Immunologic Factors
•Vaginally Administered Viagra is Often a Highly Effective Treatment to Help Thicken a Thin Uterine Lining
•Treating Out-of-State and Out-of-Country Patients at Sher-IVF in Las Vegas:
•Traveling for IVF from Out of State/Country–
•A personalized, stepwise approach to IVF
•How Many Embryos should be transferred: A Critical Decision in IVF.
Please call or email Julie Dahan, my patient concierge. She will guide you on how to set up an in-person or Skype consultation with me. You can reach Julie at on her cell phone or via email at any time:
Julie Dahan
•Email: Julied@sherivf.com
•Phone: 702-533-2691
?800-780-7437
Geoff Sher
I also suggest that you access the 4th edition of my book ,”In Vitro Fertilization, the ART of Making Babies”. It is available as a down-load through http://www.Amazon.com or from most bookstores and public libraries.