O-159 Domestic and cross-border reproductive care among same-sex male intended parents: comparing live birth rates (LBRs) in a national retrospective cohort in the United States (U.S.)

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Study question How common is cross-border reproductive care (CBRC) in the U.S. among international same-sex male intended parents? Do CBRC LBRs differ compared to domestic counterparts? Summary answer A substantial number of international same-sex male intended parents seek CBRC in the U.S. LBRs per transfer are reassuring and comparable to domestic counterparts. What is known already Same-sex male intended parents often work with a gestational carrier to have a genetically related child(ren); however, restrictive and/or discriminatory policies in their home countries may prevent access. Intended parents may seek CBRC in countries like the U.S. due to favorable regulations. However, the volume of CBRC activity among same-sex male intended parents has been difficult to estimate accurately due to poor sexual orientation data collection. Capitalizing on national databases that identify same-sex male intended parents is the first step to describing CBRC trends and their associated outcomes in a marginalized population that is often excluded in the literature. Study design, size, duration This national retrospective cohort study included U.S. based gestational carrier embryo transfer cycles from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) database in the years 2017–2020. Among participating clinics (n = 488), 6,168 cycles among same-sex male intended parents were identified. Relative risks (RRs) for LBRs per transfer were compared for cycles including domestic (i.e., U.S. based, n = 3,052) and internationally based (n = 3,080) patients. LBR and country data were missing for 546 and 36 cycles, respectively. Participants/materials, setting, methods The inclusion criteria were transfer cycles among male patients with male partners. Unadjusted and adjusted RRs for LBRs per transfer were calculated to compare domestic (reference) and internationally based groups using multivariable Poisson and logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations (GEEs). Models were adjusted for donor age, transfer type (i.e., fresh, frozen), day of transfer, number of embryos transferred, male infertility, and the use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection, assisted hatching, and preimplantation genetic testing. Main results and the role of chance Between 2017 and 2020, 6,168 cycles with an embryo transfer to a gestational carrier occurred among same-sex male intended parents in the U.S. In half of the cycles, the U.S. was a destination for CBRC (50%, n = 3,080) among which (48%, n = 1,540) were from one of 23 European countries. Regarding countries of residence for CBRC cycles (n = 3,080), those most reported were China (23%), France (19%), Israel (13%), Spain (11%), the United Kingdom (6.1%), Australia (4.1%), Germany (3.7%), Italy (2.6%), Switzerland (1.5%), Canada (1.5%), Belgium (1.4%), Singapore (1.0%), Taiwan (1.2%), Norway (1.2%) and The Netherlands (0.92%). Additionally, there were 76 cycles from 8 countries in South America (2.3%), 9 cycles from 6 countries in Africa (0.27%), and 3 cycles from 2 countries in Central America (0.089%). Most cycles were in the U.S. West (72%, n = 4,441; e.g., California [47%]). Median oocyte age was 26 years (interquartile range 24,28) with a majority of cycles involving single embryo transfer (78%, n = 4,802). LBR per transfer was 69% (n = 3,867). There was no statistical difference between live births for domestic versus CBRC cycles in the unadjusted (RR 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96, 1.37; p: 0.141) or adjusted regression models (aRR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86, 1.32; p: 0.572). Limitations, reasons for caution The SART surveillance system captures most (∼90%) but not all embryo transfer cycles in the US. Current gender identity data were not available. Only the individual identified as the patient (and not the partner) indicated country of residence. The rationale for pursuing CBRC in the U.S could not be explored. Wider implications of the findings This study highlights a substantial amount of CBRC among same-sex male intended parents choosing the US for reproductive care. Implementing improved sexual orientation and gender identity data collection strategies are critical to filling CBRC data deserts not only among same-sex male intended parents but all sexual and gender minority populations. Trial registration number Not applicable

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.