Restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) outcomes compared to in-vitro fertilization (IVF) for the treatment of infertility: a retrospective evaluation of a 2019 clinic cohort compared to one cycle of IVF
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63264/gejytw70Keywords:
In vitro fertilization, Restorative reproductive medicine, Infertility, premature birth, conceptionAbstract
Objectives: Restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) is an emerging approach that can be used to treat infertility. Our goal was to compare RRM to IVF outcomes in 2019.
Design: We conducted a retrospective clinic-based analysis and referenced it against publicly available data from IVF registries, as published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) in the USA, and the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA), in the UK. Data from 2019 was collected from routine medical records following treatment at one clinic in Dublin, Ireland during 2019. We defined the demographics, diagnoses, and treatments and then calculated the crude percentages of conception, live birth, multiple pregnancy, prematurity, and low birth weight. These results were benchmarked against data reported in IVF databases.
Results: 249 couples had at least one RRM consultation, 187 committed to the RRM treatment program and met the inclusion criteria. The average female age for all included patients was 36.4 years and couples were trying to conceive for a mean of 32.2 months. Of the 187 patients/couples who underwent treatment, 28% had a previous live birth, 30% had a previous miscarriage, and 42% had never conceived;19% (35/187) had previously had IVF, 2.3 + 1.6 IVF cycles per couple. Of the 187 couples, 52% (98/187) conceived, 41% (77/187) had a documented live birth. There were 75 singletons and 2 sets of twins, producing 79 babies. Time to conception for live birth patients averaged 12 + 8 months. The average birth weight was 3422g (7lb 9oz) and average weeks’ gestation at delivery was 39 + 1.5 weeks. 4.0% (3/75) of singleton babies were premature (33-37 weeks) and none were very premature (< 32 weeks). 5.3% (4/75) of singleton babies had low birth weight (< 2,500g). When we compared births across age groups, the RRM percentages with live birth were comparable to those in a single cycle of IVF with multiple subsequent embryo transfers, and greater than a single cycle of IVF with a single embryo transfer. Furthermore, RRM babies had fewer multiple pregnancies, and singleton RRM pregnancies had less than half as many premature deliveries compared to IVF, (6.5% RRM all pregnancies or 4.0% RRM, singleton pregnancies vs 14.4% SART, all pregnancies or 11.8% CDC, singleton pregnancies). 74% (26/35) of couples who remained in contact with us and tried for another pregnancy had a repeat successful live birth.
Conclusions: In our clinic, a comprehensive RRM assessment and treatment followed by up to 12 optimal cycles of timed intercourse resulted in a 41% live birth rate (crude rate). We propose that using RRM may improve a couple’s chance of having a healthy pregnancy and reduce the demand for IVF. Furthermore, RRM reduces the risk of multiple pregnancy, low birth weight and premature delivery compared to IVF. The majority of couples who sought a second live birth were successful.
Limitations and Future directions: This is a retrospective analysis with a small number of RRM patients, compared to large IVF databases of patients using one cycle of IVF, including all transfers made from the IVF retrieval. While useful for benchmarking, conclusions are limited by sample size, and the lack of relevant prognostic data (other than female age) for the IVF patients. Larger prospective studies with full prognostic data are needed to make a proper comparison of RRM and IVF outcomes.
References
1. Boyle PC, de Groot T, Andralojc KM, Parnell TA. Healthy Singleton Pregnancies from Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM) After Failed IVF. Front Med (Lausanne). 2018. Jul 31;5:210. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2018.00210. PMID: 30109231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2018.00210
2. Boyle PC, Stanford JB. NaProTechnology (Natural procreative technology), A multifactorial approach to the chronic problem of Infertility. Health Sciences (SVEIKATOS MOKSLAI), 2011, Volume 21, Number 3, p. 61-68. ISSN 1392-6373.
3. Del Giudice F, Kasman AM, Chen T, De Berardinis E, Busetto GM, Sciarra A, Ferro M, Lucarelli G, Belladelli F, Salonia A, Eisenberg ML. The Association between Mortality and Male Infertility: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Urology. 2021 Aug;154:148-157 doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2021.02.041. Epub 2021 Apr 2. PMID: 33819517. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.02.041
4. Murugappan G, Li S, Alvero RJ, Luke B, Eisenberg ML. Association between infertility and all-cause mortality: analysis of US claims data. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Jul;225(1):57.e1-57.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.02.010. Epub 2021 Feb 10. PMID: 33577764; PMCID: PMC8254745. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2021.02.010
5. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address: asrm@asrm.org; Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertility evaluation of infertile women: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2021 Nov;116(5):1255-1265. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.08.038. Epub 2021 Oct 2. PMID: 34607703. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.08.038
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “2019 Assisted Reproductive Technology Fertility Clinic and National Summary Report” US Dept of Health and Human Services; 2025 [Internet] https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/art/reports/2019/pdf/2019-Report-ART-Fertility-Clinic-National-Summary-h.pdf.
7. Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority “Fertility treatment 2019: trends and figures.” UK statistics for IVF and DI treatment, storage, and donation Published: May 2021. [Internet] https://www.hfea.gov.uk/about-us/publications/research-and-data/fertility-treatment-2019-trends-and-figures/.
8. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology “National Summary Report” Filtered for 2019. [Internet] https://www.sartcorsonline.com/CSR/Public?ClinicPKID=0&reportingYear=2022
9. Duane M, Stanford JB, Porucznik CA, Vigil P. Fertility Awareness-Based Methods for Women's Health and Family Planning. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022 May 24;9:858977. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.858977. PMID: 35685421 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.858977
10. Domar AD, Rooney K, Hacker MR, Sakkas D, Dodge LE. Burden of care is the primary reason why insured women terminate in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertil Steril. 2018 Jun;109(6):1121-1126. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.02.130. PMID: 29935647. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.02.130
11. Stanford JB, Carpentier PA, Meier BL, Rollo M, Tingey B. Restorative reproductive medicine for infertility in two family medicine clinics in New England, an observational study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021 Jul 7;21(1):495. doi: 10.1186/s12884-021-03946-8. PMID: 34233646. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-03946-8
12. Stanford JB, Parnell T, Kantor K, Reeder MR, Najmabadi S, Johnson K, Musso I, Hartman H, Tham E, Winter I, Galczynski K, Carus A, Sherlock A, Golden Tevald J, Barczentewicz M, Meier B, Carpentier P, Poehailos K, Chasuk R, Danis P, Lipscomb L. International Natural Procreative Technology Evaluation and Surveillance of Treatment for Subfertility (iNEST): enrollment and methods. Hum Reprod Open. 2022 Aug 9;2022(3):hoac033. doi: 10.1093/hropen/hoac033. PMID: 35974874. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoac033
13. Boyle PC, de Groot T, Andralojc KM, Parnell TA. Healthy Singleton Pregnancies From Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM) After Failed IVF. Front Med (Lausanne). 2018 Jul 31;5:210. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2018.00210. PMID: 30109231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2018.00210
14. Tham E, Schliep K, Stanford J. Natural procreative technology for infertility and recurrent miscarriage: outcomes in a Canadian family practice. Can Fam Physician. 2012 May;58(5):e267-74. PMID: 22734170.
15. Qin J, Sheng X, Wu D, Gao S, You Y, Yang T, Wang H. Adverse Obstetric Outcomes Associated With In Vitro Fertilization in Singleton Pregnancies. Reprod Sci. 2017 Apr;24(4):595-608. doi: 10.1177/1933719116667229. Epub 2016 Sep 27. PMID: 27620916. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719116667229
16. Bahadur G, Homburg R, Jayaprakasan K, Raperport CJ, Huirne JAF, Acharya S, Racich P, Ahmed A, Gudi A, Govind A, Jauniaux E. Correlation of IVF outcomes and number of oocytes retrieved: a UK retrospective longitudinal observational study of 172 341 non-donor cycles. BMJ Open. 2023 Jan 2;13(1):e064711. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064711. PMID: 36592998. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064711
17. Sunkara SK, Rittenberg V, Raine-Fenning N, Bhattacharya S, Zamora J, Coomarasamy A. Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: an analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod. 2011 Jul;26(7):1768-74. doi:10.1093/humrep/der106. Epub 2011 May 10. PMID: 21558332. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der106
18. Pandian Z, Gibreel A, Bhattacharya S. In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Apr 18;(4):CD003357. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003357. pub3. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Nov 19;(11):CD003357. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003357.pub4. PMID: 22513911. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003357.pub4
19. Vigil P, Lyon C, Flores B, Rioseco H, Serrano F. Ovulation, a sign of health. Linacre Q. 2017 Nov;84(4):343-355. doi:10.1080/00243639.2017.1394053. Epub 2017 Nov 27. PMID: 29255329. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00243639.2017.1394053
20. Boyle P, Andralojc K, van der Velden S, Najmabadi S, de Groot T, Turczynski C, Stanford JB. Restoration of serum estradiol and reduced incidence of miscarriage in patients with low serum estradiol during pregnancy: a retrospective cohort study using a multifactorial protocol including DHEA. Front Reprod Health. 2024 Jan 4;5:1321284. doi: 10.3389/frph.2023.1321284. PMID: 38239818. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frph.2023.1321284
21. Berntsen S, Söderström-Anttila V, Wennerholm UB, Laivuori H, Loft A, Oldereid NB, Romundstad LB, Bergh C, Pinborg A. The health of children conceived by ART: 'the chicken or the egg?'. Hum Reprod Update. 2019 Mar 1;25(2):137-158. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmz001. PMID: 30753453. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmz001
22. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Endometriosis and infertility: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012 Sep;98(3):591-8. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.05.031. Epub 2012 Jun 15. PMID: 22704630. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.05.031
23. Rathod S, Shanoo A, Acharya N. Endometriosis: A Comprehensive Exploration of Inflammatory Mechanisms and Fertility Implications. Cureus. 2024 Aug 4;16(8):e66128. doi: 10.7759/cureus.66128. PMID: 39229427. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.66128
24. Arraztoa JA. Commentary On Infertility and Restorative Reproductive Medicine. J Restorative Reprod Med. 2025 Apr. 6; 1:1-5 doi: 10.63264/7eg52623. DOI: https://doi.org/10.63264/7eg52623
Downloads
Published
Data Availability Statement
Data for each of the IVF databases are available to the public and referenced. Data from the NeoFertility clinic is de-identified but can be accessed by contacting the principal investigator.
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Phil Boyle, Agnes Toth, Monica Minjeur, Craig Turczynski
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
CC-BY-4.0 permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.