Search

Objective: To report on outcomes from a university-based low-cost and low-complexity IVF program using mild stimulation approaches and simplified protocols to provide basic access to ART to a socioculturally diverse low-income urban population., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Setting: Academic infertility center., Patient(s): Sixty-five infertile couples were enrolled from a county hospital serving a low-resource largely immigrant population., Interventions(s): Patients were nonrandomly allocated to one of four mild stimulation protocols: clomiphene/letrozole alone, two clomiphene/letrozole-based protocols involving sequential or flare addition of low-dose gonadotropins, and low-dose gonadotropins alone. Clinical fellows managed all aspects of cycle preparation, monitoring, oocyte retrieval, and embryo transfer under an attending preceptor. Retrieval was undertaken without administration of deep anesthesia, and laboratory interventions were minimized. All embryo transfers were performed at the cleavage stage., Main Outcome Measure(s): Sociomedical demographics, treatment response, and pregnancy outcomes were recorded., Result(s): From August 2010 to June 2016, 65 patients initiated 161 stimulation IVF cycles, which resulted in 107 retrievals, 91 fresh embryo transfers, and 40 frozen embryo transfer cycles. The mean age of patients was 33.3 years, and mean reported duration of infertility was 5.3 years; 33.5% (54/161) of cycles were cancelled before oocyte retrieval, with 13% due to premature ovulation. Overall, cumulative live birth rates per retrieval including subsequent use of frozen embryos was 29.0%; 44.6% (29/65) of patients enrolled in the program achieved pregnancy., Conclusion(s): Use of mild stimulation protocols, simplified monitoring, and minimized laboratory handling procedures enabled access to care in a low-resource socioculturally diverse infertile population., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Many assisted reproductive technology (ART) centers utilize satellite clinics to expand reach and access to clinical services, but their contribution to lowering geographic barriers in access to care has not been examined. This study's purpose is to determine the extent to which satellite clinics impact geographic access to ART and estimate the percentage of reproductive-age women who have geographic access to ART services.Methods: A systematic web-search collected the locations of all main and satellite ART clinics in the United States (US). Driving times were calculated between satellite clinics and main clinics. The percentage of women with geographic access to care was characterized by clinic type using US Census Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs). Logistic regression was used to statistically model the presence of main and satellite clinics as a function of CBSA median income and female reproductive-age population.Results: Four hundred sixty-nine main clinics with embryology labs and 583 satellite clinics were found in the US. Practices with satellite clinics tend to perform more ART cycles. Satellite clinics are located on average 66 minutes from their practice's main clinic and 31 minutes from any main clinic. 22% of satellite clinics were in CBSAs without a main clinic. 46 M (72%) US reproductive-age women live in a CBSA with a main clinic, 5.1 M (8%) women live in a CBSA without a main clinic but at least one satellite clinic, and 13 M (20%) women live in an area with no ART clinic of either type. Female reproductive-age population was found to be a more important predictor of clinic presence than median income.Conclusions: The majority of satellite clinics in the US are positioned in relative proximity to a main clinic. 85% of satellite clinics are located closer to the main clinic of other practices than to their own main clinic. Less than a quarter of ART satellite clinics expand geographic access to ART services by being located in areas without a main clinic, and the vast majority of practices with satellite clinics position their satellite clinics close to another practice's main clinic.Trial Registration: Not applicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]