Of course women get pregnant at 42-44, but not many.

"Chances 'accumulate' for the future events but they don't for those in the past. so if the chance of conception per attempt is 5% and you do 20 attempts, at the beginning of those 20 attempts your chances are almost 70%. however, if you had 19 of those 20 attempts and nothing happened, you chances for something to happen on the 20th attempt are 5%."

If this were true, then 42-44 year olds would have little to no problem conceiving. Just try for 20 months and you have a 70% chance of conceiving. Yeah right. That's a rarity.

Something is very wrong with the analysis on this thread. I'm no statistician, but come on people. We wouldn't need a fertility industry or donor eggs and there wouldn't be much worry about AMA at all. Shoot, if all I had to do was try for a year or two, and 70% chance I'd get pregnant, no problemo, that sounds great, I didn't want to rush anyway.

Ovarian reserve can be done at any age (and is usually covered by insurance). Any reputable RE should do that before doing fertility treatment since they will know or have an indication as to how your body will respond. And NO RE should suggest donor eggs unless it has been done.

Genetics has a HUGE role (as well as lifestyle) in all of this. I come from a large family full or women who conceived easily in their 40s (some LATE 40s) and had healthy children. I am 40 and am pregnant with my 3rd. We thought it would take a while but got pregnant the first month out. My cousin is 41 and just got pregnant out of the gate with her first. We had assumed it would take us a while because statistically it should have.

Get tested to know where you stand. Your results might be that of a 35 year old or it might show that your eggs are in bad shape. Better to know.

OP here. I appreciate the good dialouge. I do have a question about ovarian reserve testing -- is everyone over 40 a candidate for this? My RE has never suggested it. I should say that I am not actively being treated right now. I had a failed FET in January and spoke to my RE once after that, who recommended that I give it a shot on my own for a few months and then come back to see him if I wanted to. We had said we didn't want to do IUI/IVF/Donor Eggs. Note our last child was conceived naturally so aside from age, I'm not even sure IVF would be a necessary or good route to go. We have been very lucky with the 2 kids we have and although we want another, paying for additional IUI/IVF seems excessive from a financial standpoint for us today. But I would like to know more about my eggs (or lack thereof) so I can either keep using that Clear Blue Ferility Monitor or stop wasting the time/money peeing on all those sticks! Also, I don't want to continue to hope for something that may never be. I am not there yet, but I know at some point I may have to accept that this is it. Regrets about starting younger, not waiting 2.5 years between last kid and now, etc will need to give way to acceptance. Getting there will be hard. (Inside, I am 25!)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, just to add:

at age 40, if you TTC every single cycle on your own, you will have a child within next 3 years.

I'm not *totally* sure that's correct. Statistics are not my strong suit, let me say that first! But if you're talking about your conception chances over that three year time period, they're going to be higher at age 40 than age 43. It's not an equal chance every month for that 36 months.

Yes, I know the chances change, but still the point holds. If your chance per cycle is 5%, then probability of getting pregnant within 12 cycles (a year of trying, more or less) is almost 50% i.e. very close to getting pregnant with 2 IVF trials with 0.30 probability of success per trial. At 40, the probability of conception is likely higher than 5% per cycle; at say 44 it's lower. But over the span of those years you will still have a cumulative probability of like 70% or so - equivalent of 3 IVFs.

So my point, is, I guess, that the number of trials is no less and probably more important than how "powerful" the trial is, especially since one can afford only so many IVFs.

This is so off. If it was true then 42 and 43 and 44 year olds would be getting prego with their own eggs without much trouble, just lots of consistent sex and persistence. Also, conception is far far different than coming out of things with a healthy baby. You failed to consider the miscarriage rates at those ages (most eggs are faulty at those ages) and other problems with the fetus/baby which are really high as you get into your 40s.

But some do. Not necessarily those who are trying to, but many women do get pregnant naturally at those ages.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, just to add:

at age 40, if you TTC every single cycle on your own, you will have a child within next 3 years.

I'm not *totally* sure that's correct. Statistics are not my strong suit, let me say that first! But if you're talking about your conception chances over that three year time period, they're going to be higher at age 40 than age 43. It's not an equal chance every month for that 36 months.

Yes, I know the chances change, but still the point holds. If your chance per cycle is 5%, then probability of getting pregnant within 12 cycles (a year of trying, more or less) is almost 50% i.e. very close to getting pregnant with 2 IVF trials with 0.30 probability of success per trial. At 40, the probability of conception is likely higher than 5% per cycle; at say 44 it's lower. But over the span of those years you will still have a cumulative probability of like 70% or so - equivalent of 3 IVFs.

So my point, is, I guess, that the number of trials is no less and probably more important than how "powerful" the trial is, especially since one can afford only so many IVFs.

That was my thinking, and I tried for over three years, doing timed intercourse and medicated IUIs every single month, from when I was 42 until I was 45. I was a very good responder and our timing was good every cycle. But no luck. So yes, IF the stats are correct, you have a fair shot. But that doesn't mean it will work for you. (But I hope it will.)

I don't think stats work like that. You have a 5% chance each cycle. Just because you didn't get pregnant last cycle, your chances don't go up to 10%. Probabilities don't accumulate like that. You would have a 5% chance each cycle that you try.

chances "accumulate" for the future events but they don't for those in the past. so if the chance of conception per attempt is 5% and you do 20 attempts, at the beginning of those 20 attempts your chances are almost 70%. however, if you had 19 of those 20 attempts and nothing happened, you chances for something to happen on the 20th attempt are 5%.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, just to add:

at age 40, if you TTC every single cycle on your own, you will have a child within next 3 years.

I'm not *totally* sure that's correct. Statistics are not my strong suit, let me say that first! But if you're talking about your conception chances over that three year time period, they're going to be higher at age 40 than age 43. It's not an equal chance every month for that 36 months.

Yes, I know the chances change, but still the point holds. If your chance per cycle is 5%, then probability of getting pregnant within 12 cycles (a year of trying, more or less) is almost 50% i.e. very close to getting pregnant with 2 IVF trials with 0.30 probability of success per trial. At 40, the probability of conception is likely higher than 5% per cycle; at say 44 it's lower. But over the span of those years you will still have a cumulative probability of like 70% or so - equivalent of 3 IVFs.

So my point, is, I guess, that the number of trials is no less and probably more important than how "powerful" the trial is, especially since one can afford only so many IVFs.

This is so off. If it was true then 42 and 43 and 44 year olds would be getting prego with their own eggs without much trouble, just lots of consistent sex and persistence. Also, conception is far far different than coming out of things with a healthy baby. You failed to consider the miscarriage rates at those ages (most eggs are faulty at those ages) and other problems with the fetus/baby which are really high as you get into your 40s.

"I think there is a difference between treatment (where IVF can indeed help) and age. I am not sure IVF helps AMAs any more than consistent, timed intercourse. Of course, if your tubes are blocked, then it will help. But I think it's a mistake to do IVF for "unexplained infertility" if you are over 40."

This was not true for me at all. I believe ICSI and IVF helped the sperm fertilize what were somewhat hardened eggs due to age for me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand this anger -- I feel it. But there's only so much that can be done to turn back the clock. (I'm 40, by the way) I feel great, I look young on the outside, but my ovaries are the ovaries of a 40-year-old. I did IVF at 40 and got 11 eggs and thought that was great, but I read about women just a few years younger than me getting 20+ eggs and ending up with blasts frozen and I just wish I had started sooner. Oh well.

I kind of agree with that, but then, if it can't be done, why are they selling me painful treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars? This is what annoys me. And the more I think about this, the more I think that IVF doesn't really increase my chances at all. I think the chances are pretty solid (and even this 5% conception statistic kind of supports that, if you calculate probabilities) that, at age 40, if you TTC every single cycle on your own, you will have a child within next 3 years.

This is very unrealistic, to say that your chances are "solid" of conceiving if TTC consistently between age 40-43. You might be lucky, but most will be severely disappointed and get a rude awakening.

Also very wrong that IVF does not increase chances. I don't know your situation and whether it will increase your chances, but it does for so so many of AMA.

Anonymous wrote:I recently had a baby at 42. When I asked my OB priorto about the likelihood of conception at 42, he said if timed correctly there was a 20 percent each month. I thought that number sounded like a high probability. It took three cycles.

Your OB is clueless. That's the conception rate each month for someone in their mid-20s.

Anonymous wrote:At 42 your chances are definitely low, but the question you should ask (instead of what the statistics mean) is what you can do about it. Basically, at 42 you are more or less looking at two options: a) luck and b) donor egg. Since donor egg is an option even at much older ages, there's no reason no to give luck a good shot at it. I'd confer with my RE and see when you hit "now or never" for DE and then give luck a shot between then and now. Don't even bother with IVF.

I think both those statements are incorrect...

It all depends on your body, and how you respond to IVF meds. If you don't respond...then I would suggest other options, BUT...I was an abnormally high responder...I mean OHSS level responder...I got eggs, LOTS of eggs and with my husband, made LOTS of high quality 5 day embryos AT THE AGE OF 42!!!.

In fact, two of them (healthy, genetically typical, b/g twins) are playing in the family room right now...

I think if you are a good responder to meds...that stimulated IVF is a great option, because it gives you more shots per month, at success!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, just to add:

at age 40, if you TTC every single cycle on your own, you will have a child within next 3 years.

I'm not *totally* sure that's correct. Statistics are not my strong suit, let me say that first! But if you're talking about your conception chances over that three year time period, they're going to be higher at age 40 than age 43. It's not an equal chance every month for that 36 months.

Yes, I know the chances change, but still the point holds. If your chance per cycle is 5%, then probability of getting pregnant within 12 cycles (a year of trying, more or less) is almost 50% i.e. very close to getting pregnant with 2 IVF trials with 0.30 probability of success per trial. At 40, the probability of conception is likely higher than 5% per cycle; at say 44 it's lower. But over the span of those years you will still have a cumulative probability of like 70% or so - equivalent of 3 IVFs.

So my point, is, I guess, that the number of trials is no less and probably more important than how "powerful" the trial is, especially since one can afford only so many IVFs.

That was my thinking, and I tried for over three years, doing timed intercourse and medicated IUIs every single month, from when I was 42 until I was 45. I was a very good responder and our timing was good every cycle. But no luck. So yes, IF the stats are correct, you have a fair shot. But that doesn't mean it will work for you. (But I hope it will.)

I don't think stats work like that. You have a 5% chance each cycle. Just because you didn't get pregnant last cycle, your chances don't go up to 10%. Probabilities don't accumulate like that. You would have a 5% chance each cycle that you try.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, just to add:

at age 40, if you TTC every single cycle on your own, you will have a child within next 3 years.

I'm not *totally* sure that's correct. Statistics are not my strong suit, let me say that first! But if you're talking about your conception chances over that three year time period, they're going to be higher at age 40 than age 43. It's not an equal chance every month for that 36 months.

Yes, I know the chances change, but still the point holds. If your chance per cycle is 5%, then probability of getting pregnant within 12 cycles (a year of trying, more or less) is almost 50% i.e. very close to getting pregnant with 2 IVF trials with 0.30 probability of success per trial. At 40, the probability of conception is likely higher than 5% per cycle; at say 44 it's lower. But over the span of those years you will still have a cumulative probability of like 70% or so - equivalent of 3 IVFs.

So my point, is, I guess, that the number of trials is no less and probably more important than how "powerful" the trial is, especially since one can afford only so many IVFs.

That was my thinking, and I tried for over three years, doing timed intercourse and medicated IUIs every single month, from when I was 42 until I was 45. I was a very good responder and our timing was good every cycle. But no luck. So yes, IF the stats are correct, you have a fair shot. But that doesn't mean it will work for you. (But I hope it will.)

Anonymous wrote:

I think there is a difference between treatment (where IVF can indeed help) and age. I am not sure IVF helps AMAs any more than consistent, timed intercourse.

I'm the PP you're quoting: I definitely understand what you're saying here. I'm single, so my *personal* calculus when deciding to go through IVF is different from someone who can do this for free! My chances with IVF were higher than my chances with IUI.

But my situation isn't what most AMA women are facing. I think you make a really good point about the worth (or potential lack of worth) of IVF for "unexplained infertility." IVF boosts your chances to some extent, a couple of percentage points, but enough to make it worth the price? That's worth some very serious soul-searching.

And of course, there's stats but every individual person is different and has a different fertility profile. So maybe it IS worth it for some women. You're making a choice to do it, but it sounds like a very informed choice.

I agree with what you are saying .

Anonymous wrote:Oh, just to add:

at age 40, if you TTC every single cycle on your own, you will have a child within next 3 years.

I'm not *totally* sure that's correct. Statistics are not my strong suit, let me say that first! But if you're talking about your conception chances over that three year time period, they're going to be higher at age 40 than age 43. It's not an equal chance every month for that 36 months.

Yes, I know the chances change, but still the point holds. If your chance per cycle is 5%, then probability of getting pregnant within 12 cycles (a year of trying, more or less) is almost 50% i.e. very close to getting pregnant with 2 IVF trials with 0.30 probability of success per trial. At 40, the probability of conception is likely higher than 5% per cycle; at say 44 it's lower. But over the span of those years you will still have a cumulative probability of like 70% or so - equivalent of 3 IVFs.

So my point, is, I guess, that the number of trials is no less and probably more important than how "powerful" the trial is, especially since one can afford only so many IVFs.

I think there is a difference between treatment (where IVF can indeed help) and age. I am not sure IVF helps AMAs any more than consistent, timed intercourse.

I'm the PP you're quoting: I definitely understand what you're saying here. I'm single, so my *personal* calculus when deciding to go through IVF is different from someone who can do this for free! My chances with IVF were higher than my chances with IUI.

But my situation isn't what most AMA women are facing. I think you make a really good point about the worth (or potential lack of worth) of IVF for "unexplained infertility." IVF boosts your chances to some extent, a couple of percentage points, but enough to make it worth the price? That's worth some very serious soul-searching.

And of course, there's stats but every individual person is different and has a different fertility profile. So maybe it IS worth it for some women. You're making a choice to do it, but it sounds like a very informed choice.