The effect of donor and recipient race on outcomes of assisted reproduction

• Authors: Yijun Liu, Emory University; Heather Hipp, Emory University; Zsolt Nagy, Emory University; Sarah M Capelouto, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center; Daniel B Shapiro, Reprod Biol Associates; Jessica Spencer, Emory University; Audrey Gaskins, Emory University
• Journal Title: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
• Volume: Volume 224, Number 4
• Publisher: MOSBY-ELSEVIER | 2021-03-26, Pages 374.e1-374.e12
• Type of Work: Article | Post-print: After Peer Review
• Publisher DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2020.09.013
• Subjects: Health Sciences, Epidemiology; Health Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Keywords: Science & Technology; Life Sciences & Biomedicine; Obstetrics & Gynecology; ethnicity; in vitro fertilization; live birth; oocyte donor; oocyte recipient; pregnancy; race; AFRICAN-AMERICAN; ETHNIC DISPARITIES; PREGNANCY RATES; BLACK-WOMEN; TECHNOLOGY; FERTILIZATION; WHITE; PARADOX

Abstract

Background: A growing literature suggests that minority races, particularly Black women, have a lower probability of live birth and higher risk of perinatal complications after autologous assisted reproductive technology. However, questions still remain as to whether these racial disparities have arisen because of associations between race and oocyte/embryo quality, the uterine environment, or a combination of the two. Oocyte donation assisted reproductive technology represents a unique approach to examine this question. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the associations between the race of female oocyte donors and recipients and live birth rates following vitrified donor oocyte assisted reproductive technologies. Study Design: This was a retrospective study conducted at a single, private fertility clinic that included 327 oocyte donors and 899 recipients who underwent 1601 embryo transfer cycles (2008–2015). Self-reported race of the donor and recipient were abstracted from medical records. Live birth was defined as the delivery of at least 1 live-born neonate. We used multivariable cluster weighted generalized estimating equations with binomial distribution and log link function to estimate the adjusted risk ratios of live birth, adjusting for donor age and body mass index, recipient age and body mass index, tubal and uterine factor infertility, and year of oocyte retrieval. Results: The racial profile of our donors and recipients were similar: 73% white, 13% Black, 4% Hispanic, 8% Asian, and 2% other. Women who received oocytes from Hispanic donors had a significantly higher probability of live birth (adjusted risk ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.05–1.36) than women who received oocytes from white donors. Among Hispanic recipients, however, there was no significant difference in probability of live birth compared with white recipients (adjusted risk ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.90–1.26). Embryo transfer cycles using oocytes from Black donors (adjusted risk ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.72–1.03) and Black recipients (adjusted risk ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.71–0.99) had a lower probability of live birth than white donors and white recipients, respectively. There were no significant differences in the probability of live birth among Hispanic, Asian, and other race recipients compared with white recipients. Conclusion: Black female recipients had a lower probability of live birth following assisted reproductive technology, even when using vitrified oocytes from healthy donors. Female recipients who used vitrified oocytes from Hispanic donors had a higher probability of live birth regardless of their own race.