Quality Management System in Medical Assisted Reproductive Technology (MART)

A quality management system (QMS) refers to an organization’s broader approach to minimize deficiencies and errors, to meet regulatory compliance standards, and to satisfy a specified set of inherent characteristics during the health care services provided to patients. According to the European directives and recommendations (European Commission, 2006a, c, 2012; Council of Europe, 2013), working in compliance with a QMS is mandatory. The requirements cover the organization, management, personnel, equipment and materials, facilities/premises, documentation, records, and quality review. The IVF clinics should consider total quality management (TQM) as an option, especially in these days when escalating regulatory scrutiny increases the pressure for professional accreditation. TQM is an integrative philosophy of management for continuously improving the quality of services and processes and includes quality assurance (QA), quality control (QC), quality improvement (QI), and risk assessment and risk management. QMS must become an essential topic for those who are working in MART

Coding in medically assisted reproduction : the status of the implementation of the Single European Code for reproductive cells and tissues

STUDY QUESTION: To evaluate the implementation of the coding systems in medically assisted reproduction (MAR) centres in the European Union (EU). SUMMARY ANSWER: Our data show that a significant number of MAR centres use the Single European Code (SEC), but it also shows certain limitations to the coding. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Traceability and identification of tissue and cells used for clinical application are extremely important as it is one of the key aspects of quality and safety both for the donors and the recipients. Patients as well as tissues and cells move across the European continent and far beyond, hence a uniform coding system was very much needed. The coding of tissues and cells from human origin was already embedded in the EU directives 2004/23/EC. The use of the Single European Code (SEC) on tissues and cells was enforced in 2017 for tissues and cells distributed within the EU or exported from the EU. The SEC ensures standardization within the EU, allowing the integration of the two existing codes (ISBT-128 and Eurocode) within the SEC structure. Likewise, in the MAR field, the SEC was launched in order to ensure the traceability of reproductive tissues and cells. Gametes and embryos from partner donation as well as reproductive cells and tissues of allogeneic donation were excluded from the SEC as long as they remain in the centre of origin. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A cross-sectional survey aimed to gain insight into the use of SEC by MAR centres was conducted between 5 November and 15 December 2018. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The online survey was distributed among the ESHRE members. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The survey results highlight the strengths and weaknesses in the practical use of the SEC. The data from the survey showed that the SEC code is something that is known in the MAR field. Our data showed that over half of the respondents were using the SEC in their centre. On the other hand, there is also criticism about the use of SEC in MAR, especially that the added value for traceability and identification in ART is found to be rather limited. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The survey response rate was rather low (4.84%). The view of the use of SEC discussed in this paper still provides insight into the use of the SEC in several MAR centres. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The survey highlights some knowledge gaps concerning coding. This information can be used to develop tools to increase knowledge of the SEC.Peer reviewe

ART in Europe, 2017: results generated from European registries by ESHRE

© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Study question: What are the data on ART and IUI cycles, and fertility preservation (FP) interventions reported in 2017 as compared to previous years, as well as the main trends over the years? Summary answer: The 21st ESHRE report on ART and IUI shows the continual increase in reported treatment cycle numbers in Europe, with a decrease in the proportion of transfers with more than one embryo causing an additional slight reduction of multiple delivery rates (DR) as well as higher pregnancy rates (PR) and DR after frozen embryo replacement (FER) compared to fresh IVF and ICSI cycles, while the number of IUI cycles increased and their outcomes remained stable. What is known already: Since 1997, ART aggregated data generated by national registries, clinics or professional societies have been gathered and analyzed by the European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) and communicated in a total of 20 manuscripts published in Human Reproduction and Human Reproduction Open. Study design size duration: Data on European medically assisted reproduction (MAR) are collected by EIM for ESHRE on a yearly basis. The data on treatments performed between 1 January and 31 December 2017 in 39 European countries were provided by either National Registries or registries based on personal initiatives of medical associations and scientific organizations. Participants/materials setting methods: Overall, 1382 clinics offering ART services in 39 countries reported a total of 940 503 treatment cycles, including 165 379 with IVF, 391 379 with ICSI, 271 476 with FER, 37 303 with preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), 69 378 with egg donation (ED), 378 with IVM of oocytes, and 5210 cycles with frozen oocyte replacement (FOR). A total of 1273 institutions reported data on 207 196 IUI cycles using either husband/partner's semen (IUI-H; n = 155 794) or donor semen (IUI-D; n = 51 402) in 30 countries and 25 countries, respectively. Thirteen countries reported 18 888 interventions for FP, including oocyte, ovarian tissue, semen and testicular tissue banking in pre- and postpubertal patients. Main results and the role of chance: In 21 countries (20 in 2016) in which all ART clinics reported to the registry, 473 733 treatment cycles were registered for a total population of approximately 330 million inhabitants, allowing a best-estimate of a mean of 1435 cycles performed per million inhabitants (range: 723-3286).Amongst the 39 reporting countries, the clinical PR per aspiration and per transfer in 2017 were similar to those observed in 2016 (26.8% and 34.6% vs 28.0% and 34.8%, respectively). After ICSI the corresponding rates were also similar to those achieved in 2016 (24% and 33.5% vs 25% and 33.2% in 2016). When freeze all cycles were removed, the clinical PRs per aspiration were 30.8% and 27.5% for IVF and ICSI, respectively.After FER with embryos originating from own eggs the PR per thawing was 30.2%, which is comparable to 30.9% in 2016, and with embryos originating from donated eggs it was 41.1% (41% in 2016). After ED the PR per fresh embryo transfer was 49.2% (49.4% in 2016) and per FOR 43.3% (43.6% in 2016).In IVF and ICSI together, the trend towards the transfer of fewer embryos continues with the transfer of 1, 2, 3 and ≥4 embryos in 46.0%, 49.2%, 4.5% and in 0.3% of all treatments, respectively (corresponding to 41.5%, 51.9%. 6.2% and 0.4% in 2016). This resulted in a reduced proportion of twin DRs of 14.2% (14.9% in 2016) and stable triplet DR of 0.3%. Treatments with FER in 2017 resulted in a twin and triplet DR of 11.2% and 0.2%, respectively (vs 11.9% and 0.2% in 2016).After IUI, the DRs remained similar at 8.7% after IUI-H (8.9% in 2016) and at 12.4% after IUI-D (12.4.0% in 2016). Twin and triplet DRs after IUI-H were 8.1% and 0.3%, respectively (in 2016: 8.8% and 0.3%) and 6.9% and 0.2% after IUI-D (in 2016: 7.7% and 0.4%). Amongst 18 888 FP interventions in 13 countries, cryopreservation of ejaculated sperm (n = 11 112 vs 7877 from 11 countries in 2016) and of oocytes (n = 6588 vs 4907 from eight countries in 2016) were the most frequently reported. Limitations reasons for caution: As the methods of data collection and levels of reporting vary amongst European countries, interpretation of results should remain cautious. Some countries were unable to deliver data about the number of initiated cycles and deliveries. Wider implications of the findings: The 21st ESHRE report on ART, IUI and FP interventions shows a continuous increase of reported treatment numbers and MAR-derived livebirths in Europe. Being already the largest data collection on MAR in Europe, efforts should continue to optimize data collection and reporting with the perspective of improved quality control, transparency and vigilance in the field of reproductive medicine. Study funding/competing interests: The study has received no external funding and all costs are covered by ESHRE. There are no competing interests.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

ART in Europe, 2016 : results generated from European registries by ESHRE

STUDY QUESTION: What are the reported data on cycles in ART, IUI and fertility preservation (FP) interventions in 2016 as compared to previous years, as well as the main trends over the years? SUMMARY ANSWER: The 20th ESHRE report on ART and IUI shows a progressive increase in reported treatment cycle numbers in Europe, with a decrease in the number of transfers with more than one embryo causing a reduction of multiple delivery rates (DR), as well as higher pregnancy rates and DR after frozen embryo replacement (FER) compared to fresh IVF and ICSI cycles, while the outcomes for IUI cycles remained stable. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Since 1997, ART aggregated data generated by national registries, clinics or professional societies have been collected, analysed by the European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) and reported in 19 manuscripts published in Human Reproduction and Human Reproduction Open. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Yearly collection of European medically assisted reproduction (MAR) data by EIM for ESHRE. The data on treatments performed between 1 January and 31 December 2016 in 40 European countries were provided by either National Registries or registries based on personal initiatives of medical associations and scientific organizations. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In all, 1347 clinics offering ART services in 40 countries reported a total of 918 159 treatment cycles, involving 156 002 with IVF, 407 222 with ICSI, 248 407 with FER, 27 069 with preimplantation genetic testing, 73 927 with egg donation (ED), 654 with IVM of oocytes and 4878 cycles with frozen oocyte replacement (FOR). European data on IUI using husband/partner’s semen (IUI-H) and donor semen (IUI-D) were reported from 1197 institutions offering IUI in 29 and 24 countries, respectively. A total of 162 948 treatments with IUI-H and 50 467 treatments with IUI-D were included. A total of 13 689 FP interventions from 11 countries including oocyte, ovarian tissue, semen and testicular tissue banking in pre-and postpubertal patients were reported. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In 20 countries (18 in 2015) with a total population of approximately 325 million inhabitants, in which all ART clinics reported to the registry, a total of 461 401 treatment cycles were performed, corresponding to a mean of 1410 cycles per million inhabitants (range 82–3088 per million inhabitants). In the 40 reporting countries, after IVF the clinical pregnancy rates (PR) per aspiration and per transfer in 2016 were similar to those observed in 2015 (28.0% and 34.8% vs 28.5% and 34.6%, respectively). After ICSI, the corresponding rates were also similar to those achieved in 2015 (25% and 33.2% vs 26.2% and 33.2%). After FER with own embryos, the PR per thawing is still on the rise, from 29.2% in 2015 to 30.9% in 2016. After ED, the PR per fresh embryo transfer was 49.4% (49.6% in 2015) and per FOR 43.6% (43.4% in 2015). In IVF and ICSI together, the trend towards the transfer of fewer embryos continues with the transfer of 1, 2, 3 and 4 embryos in 41.5%, 51.9%, 6.2% and 0.4% of all treatments, respectively (corresponding to 37.7%, 53.9%, 7.9% and 0.5% in 2015). This resulted in a proportion of singleton, twin and triplet DRs of 84.8%, 14.9% and 0.3%, respectively (compared to 83.1%, 16.5% and 0.4%, respectively in 2015). Treatments with FER in 2016 resulted in twin and triplet DR of 11.9% and 0.2%, respectively (vs 12.3% and 0.3% in 2015). After IUI, the DRs remained similar at 8.9% after IUI-H (7.8% in 2015) and at 12.4% after IUI-D (12.0% in 2015). Twin and triplet DRs after IUI-H were 8.8% and 0.3%, respectively (in 2015: 8.9% and 0.5%) and 7.7% and 0.4% after IUI-D (in 2015: 7.3% and 0.6%). The majority of FP interventions included the cryopreservation of ejaculated sperm (n¼7877 from 11 countries) and of oocytes (n¼4907 from eight countries). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: As the methods of data collection and levels of completeness of reported data vary among European countries, the results should be interpreted with caution. A number of countries failed to provide adequate data about the number of initiated cycles and deliveries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The 20th ESHRE report on ART and IUI shows a continuous increase of reported treatment numbers and MAR-derived livebirths in Europe. Being already the largest data collection on MAR in Europe, continuous efforts to stimulate data collection and reporting strive for future quality control of the data, transparency and vigilance in the field of reproductive medicine.The study has no external funding and all costs were covered by ESHRE.peer-reviewe

Oocyte and ovarian tissue cryopreservation in European countries : statutory background, practice, storage and use

STUDY QUESTION: What is known in Europe about the practice of oocyte cryopreservation (OoC), in terms of current statutory background, funding conditions, indications (medical and ‘non-medical’) and specific number of cycles? SUMMARY ANSWER: Laws and conditions for OoC vary in Europe, with just over half the responding countries providing this for medical reasons with state funding, and none providing funding for ‘non-medical’ OoC. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: The practice of OoC is a well-established and increasing practice in some European countries, but data gathering on storage is not homogeneous, and still sparse for use. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OtC) is only practiced and registered in a few countries. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, AND DURATION: A transversal collaborative survey on OoC and OtC, was designed, based on a country questionnaire containing information on statutory or professional background and practice, as well as available data on ovarian cell and tissue collection, storage and use. It was performed between January and September 2015. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING AND METHODS: All ESHRE European IVF Monitoring (EIM) consortium national coordinators were contacted, as well as members of the ESHRE committee of national representatives, and sent a questionnaire. The form included national policy and practice details, whether through current existing law or code of practice, criteria for freezing (age, health status), availability of funding and the presence of a specific register. The questionnaire also included data on both the number of OoC cycles and cryopreserved oocytes per year between 2010 and 2014, specifically for egg donation, fertility preservation for medical disease, ‘other medical’ reasons as part of an ART cycle, as well as for ‘non-medical reasons’ or age-related fertility decline. Another question concerning data on freezing and use of ovarian tissue over 5 years was added and sent after receiving the initial questionnaire. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Out of 34 EIM members, we received answers regarding OoC regulations and funding conditions from 27, whilst 17 countries had recorded data for OoC, and 12 for OtC. The specific statutory framework for OoC and OtC varies from absent to a strict frame. A total of 34 705 OoC cycles were reported during the 5-year-period, with a continuous increase. However, the accurate description of numbers was concentrated on the year 2013 because it was the most complete. In 2013, a total of 9126 aspirations involving OoC were reported from 16 countries. Among the 8885 oocyte aspirations with fully available data, the majority or 5323 cycles (59.9%) was performed for egg donation, resulting in the highest yield per cycle, with an average of 10.4 oocytes frozen per cycle. OoC indication was ‘serious disease’ such as cancer in 10.9% of cycles, other medical indications as ‘part of an ART cycle’ in 16.1%, and a non-medical reason in 13.1%. With regard to the use of OoC, the number of specifically recorded frozen oocyte replacement (FOR) cycles performed in 2013 for all medical reasons was 14 times higher than the FOR for non-medical reasons, using, respectively, 8.0 and 8.4 oocytes per cycle. Finally, 12 countries recorded storage following OtC and only 7 recorded the number of grafted frozen/thawed tissues. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Not all countries have data regarding OoC collection, and some data came from voluntary collaborating centres, rather than a national authority or register. Furthermore, the data related to use of OoC were not included for two major players in the field, Italy and Spain, where numbers were conflated for medical and non-medical reasons. Finally, the number of cycles started with no retrieval is not available. Data are even sparser for OtC. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: There is a need for ART authorities and professional bodies to record precise data for practice and use of OoC (and OtC), according to indications and usage, in order to reliably inform all stakeholders including women about the efficiency of both methods. Furthermore, professional societies should establish professional standards for access to and use of OoC and OtC, and give appropriate guidance to all involved. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was supported by ESHRE. There are no conflicts of interest.peer-reviewe

A picture of medically assisted reproduction activities during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe

STUDY QUESTION: How did coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) impact on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) services in Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic (March to May 2020)? SUMMARY ANSWER: MAR services, and hence treatments for infertile couples, were stopped in most European countries for a mean of 7 weeks. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: With the outbreak of COVID-19 in Europe, non-urgent medical care was reduced by local authorities to preserve health resources and maintain social distancing. Furthermore, ESHRE and other societies recommended to postpone ART pregnancies as of 14 March 2020. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A structured questionnaire was distributed in April among the ESHRE Committee of National Representatives, followed by further information collection through email. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The information was collected through the questionnaire and afterwards summarised and aligned with data from the European Centre for Disease Control on the number of COVID-19 cases per country. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: By aligning the data for each country with respective epidemiological data, we show a large variation in the time and the phase in the epidemic in the curve when MAR/ART treatments were suspended and restarted. Similarly, the duration of interruption varied. Fertility preservation treatments and patient supportive care for patients remained available during the pandemic. LARGE SCALE DATA: N/A. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Data collection was prone to misinterpretation of the questions and replies, and required further follow-up to check the accuracy. Some representatives reported that they, themselves, were not always aware of the situation throughout the country or reported difficulties with providing single generalised replies, for instance when there were regional differences within their country. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The current article provides a basis for further research of the different strategies developed in response to the COVID-19 crisis. Such conclusions will be invaluable for health authorities and healthcare professionals with respect to future similar situations.peer-reviewe

ART in Europe, 2017: results generated from European registries by ESHRE.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the data on ART and IUI cycles, and fertility preservation (FP) interventions reported in 2017 as compared to previous years, as well as the main trends over the years? SUMMARY ANSWER: The 21st ESHRE report on ART and IUI shows the continual increase in reported treatment cycle numbers in Europe, with a decrease in the proportion of transfers with more than one embryo causing an additional slight reduction of multiple delivery rates (DR) as well as higher pregnancy rates (PR) and DR after frozen embryo replacement (FER) compared to fresh IVF and ICSI cycles, while the number of IUI cycles increased and their outcomes remained stable. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Since 1997, ART aggregated data generated by national registries, clinics or professional societies have been gathered and analyzed by the European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) and communicated in a total of 20 manuscripts published in Human Reproduction and Human Reproduction Open. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: Data on European medically assisted reproduction (MAR) are collected by EIM for ESHRE on a yearly basis. The data on treatments performed between 1 January and 31 December 2017 in 39 European countries were provided by either National Registries or registries based on personal initiatives of medical associations and scientific organizations. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Overall, 1382 clinics offering ART services in 39 countries reported a total of 940 503 treatment cycles, including 165 379 with IVF, 391 379 with ICSI, 271 476 with FER, 37 303 with preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), 69 378 with egg donation (ED), 378 with IVM of oocytes, and 5210 cycles with frozen oocyte replacement (FOR). A total of 1273 institutions reported data on 207 196 IUI cycles using either husband/partner's semen (IUI-H; n = 155 794) or donor semen (IUI-D; n = 51 402) in 30 countries and 25 countries, respectively. Thirteen countries reported 18 888 interventions for FP, including oocyte, ovarian tissue, semen and testicular tissue banking in pre- and postpubertal patients. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In 21 countries (20 in 2016) in which all ART clinics reported to the registry, 473 733 treatment cycles were registered for a total population of approximately 330 million inhabitants, allowing a best-estimate of a mean of 1435 cycles performed per million inhabitants (range: 723-3286).Amongst the 39 reporting countries, the clinical PR per aspiration and per transfer in 2017 were similar to those observed in 2016 (26.8% and 34.6% vs 28.0% and 34.8%, respectively). After ICSI the corresponding rates were also similar to those achieved in 2016 (24% and 33.5% vs 25% and 33.2% in 2016). When freeze all cycles were removed, the clinical PRs per aspiration were 30.8% and 27.5% for IVF and ICSI, respectively.After FER with embryos originating from own eggs the PR per thawing was 30.2%, which is comparable to 30.9% in 2016, and with embryos originating from donated eggs it was 41.1% (41% in 2016). After ED the PR per fresh embryo transfer was 49.2% (49.4% in 2016) and per FOR 43.3% (43.6% in 2016).In IVF and ICSI together, the trend towards the transfer of fewer embryos continues with the transfer of 1, 2, 3 and ≥4 embryos in 46.0%, 49.2%, 4.5% and in 0.3% of all treatments, respectively (corresponding to 41.5%, 51.9%. 6.2% and 0.4% in 2016). This resulted in a reduced proportion of twin DRs of 14.2% (14.9% in 2016) and stable triplet DR of 0.3%. Treatments with FER in 2017 resulted in a twin and triplet DR of 11.2% and 0.2%, respectively (vs 11.9% and 0.2% in 2016).After IUI, the DRs remained similar at 8.7% after IUI-H (8.9% in 2016) and at 12.4% after IUI-D (12.4.0% in 2016). Twin and triplet DRs after IUI-H were 8.1% and 0.3%, respectively (in 2016: 8.8% and 0.3%) and 6.9% and 0.2% after IUI-D (in 2016: 7.7% and 0.4%). Amongst 18 888 FP interventions in 13 countries, cryopreservation of ejaculated sperm (n = 11 112 vs 7877 from 11 countries in 2016) and of oocytes (n = 6588 vs 4907 from eight countries in 2016) were the most frequently reported. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: As the methods of data collection and levels of reporting vary amongst European countries, interpretation of results should remain cautious. Some countries were unable to deliver data about the number of initiated cycles and deliveries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The 21st ESHRE report on ART, IUI and FP interventions shows a continuous increase of reported treatment numbers and MAR-derived livebirths in Europe. Being already the largest data collection on MAR in Europe, efforts should continue to optimize data collection and reporting with the perspective of improved quality control, transparency and vigilance in the field of reproductive medicine. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study has received no external funding and all costs are covered by ESHRE. There are no competing interests

ESHRE guideline : number of embryos to transfer during IVF/ICSI

STUDY QUESTION: Which clinical and embryological factors should be considered to apply double embryo transfer (DET) instead of elective single embryo transfer (eSET)? SUMMARY ANSWER: No clinical or embryological factor per se justifies a recommendation of DET instead of eSET in IVF/ICSI. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: DET is correlated with a higher rate of multiple pregnancy, leading to a subsequent increase in complications for both mother and babies. These complications include preterm birth, low birthweight, and other perinatal adverse outcomes. To mitigate the risks associated with multiple pregnancy, eSET is recommended by international and national professional organizations as the preferred approach in ART. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development and update of ESHRE guidelines. Literature searches were performed in PUBMED/MEDLINE and Cochrane databases, and relevant papers published up to May 2023, written in English, were included. Live birth rate, cumulative live birth rate, and multiple pregnancy rate were considered as critical outcomes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were discussed until a consensus was reached within the Guideline Development Group (GDG). A stakeholder review was organized after the guideline draft was finalized. The final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The guideline provides 35 recommendations on the medical and non-medical risks associated with multiple pregnancies and on the clinical and embryological factors to be considered when deciding on the number of embryos to transfer. These recommendations include 25 evidence-based recommendations, of which 24 were formulated as strong recommendations and one as conditional, and 10 good practice points. Of the evidence-based recommendations, seven (28%) were supported by moderate-quality evidence. The remaining recommendations were supported by low (three recommendations; 12%), or very low-quality evidence (15 recommendations; 60%). Owing to the lack of evidence-based research, the guideline also clearly mentions recommendations for future studies. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The guideline assessed different factors one by one based on existing evidence. However, in real life, clinicians' decisions are based on several prognostic factors related to each patient's case. Furthermore, the evidence from randomized controlled trials is too scarce to formulate high-quality evidence-based recommendations. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The guideline provides health professionals with clear advice on best practice in the decision-making process during IVF/ICSI, based on the best evidence currently available, and recommendations on relevant information that should be communicated to patients. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in the field

Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2009: Results generated from European registers by ESHRE

STUDY QUESTIONThe 13th European in vitro fertilization (IVF)-monitoring (EIM) report presents the results of treatments involving assisted reproductive technology (ART) initiated in Europe during 2009: are there any changes in the trends compared with previous years?SUMMARY ANSWERDespite some fluctuations in the number of countries reporting data, the overall number of ART cycles has continued to increase year by year and, while pregnancy rates in 2009 remained similar to those reported in 2008, the number of transfers with multiple embryos (3+) and the multiple delivery rates declined.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADYSince 1997, ART data in Europe have been collected and reported in 12 manuscripts, published in Human Reproduction.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATIONRetrospective data collection of European ART data by the EIM Consortium for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE); cycles started between 1st January and 31st December are collected on a yearly basis; the data are collected by the National Registers, when existing, or on a voluntary basis.PARTICIPANTS/ MATERIALS SETTING, METHODSFrom 34 countries (-2 compared with 2008), 1005 clinics reported 537 463 treatment cycles including: IVF (135 621), intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI, 266 084), frozen embryo replacement (FER, 104 153), egg donation (ED, 21 604), in vitro maturation (IVM, 1334), preimplantation genetic diagnosis/screening (PGD/PGS, 4389) and frozen oocyte replacements (FOR, 4278). European data on intrauterine insemination using husband/partner's semen (IUI-H) and donor (IUI-D) semen were reported from 21 and 18 countries, respectively. A total of 162 843 IUI-H (+12.7%) and 29 235 IUI-D (+17.3%) cycles were included. Data available from each country are presented in the tables; total values (as numbers and percentages) refer to those countries where all data have been reported.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCEIn 21 countries where all clinics reported to the ART register, a total of 399 020 ART cycles were performed in a population of 373.8 million, corresponding to 1067 cycles per million inhabitants. For IVF, the clinical pregnancy rates per aspiration and per transfer were 28.9 and 32.9%, respectively and for ICSI, the corresponding rates were 28.7 and 32.0%. In FER cycles, the pregnancy rate per thawing was 20.9%; in ED cycles, the pregnancy rate per transfer was 42.3%. The delivery rate after IUI-H was 8.3 and 13.4% after IUI-D. In IVF and ICSI cycles, 1, 2, 3 and 4+ embryos were transferred in 24.2, 57.7, 16.9 and 1.2%, respectively. The proportions of singleton, twin and triplet deliveries after IVF and ICSI (combined) were 79.8, 19.4 and 0.8%, respectively, resulting in a total multiple delivery rate of 20.2%, compared with 21.7% in 2008, 22.3% in 2007, 20.8% in 2006 and 21.8% in 2005. In FER cycles, the multiple delivery rate was 13.0% (12.7% twins and 0.3% triplets). Twin and triplet delivery rates associated with IUI cycles were 10.4/0.7% and 10.3/0.5%, following treatment with husband and donor semen, respectively.LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTIONThe method of reporting varies among countries, and registers from a number of countries have been unable to provide some of the relevant data such as initiated cycles and deliveries. As long as data are incomplete and generated through different methods of collection, results should be interpreted with caution.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGSThe 13th ESHRE report on ART shows a continuing expansion of the number of treatment cycles in Europe, with more than half a million of cycles reported in 2009. The use of ICSI has reached a plateau. Pregnancy and delivery rates after IVF and ICSI remained relatively stable compared with 2008 and 2007. The number of multiple embryo transfers (3+ embryos) and the multiple delivery rate have shown a clear decline

Evaluating risk, safety and efficacy of novel reproductive techniques and therapies through the EuroGTP II risk assessment tool

STUDY QUESTION Can risks associated with novelties in assisted reproduction technologies (ARTs) be assessed in a systematic and structured way? SUMMARY ANSWER An ART-specific risk assessment tool has been developed to assess the risks associated with the development of novelties in ART (EuroGTP II-ART). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY How to implement new technologies in ART is well-described in the literature. The successive steps should include testing in animal models, executing pre-clinical studies using supernumerary gametes or embryos, prospective clinical trials and finally, short- and long-term follow-up studies on the health of the offspring. A framework categorizing treatments from experimental through innovative to established according to the extent of the studies conducted has been devised. However, a systematic and standardized methodology to facilitate risk evaluation before innovations are performed in a clinical setting is lacking. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The EuroGTP II-ART risk assessment tool was developed on the basis of a generic risk assessment algorithm developed for tissue and cell therapies and products (TCTPs) in the context of the project 'Good Practices for demonstrating safety and quality through recipient follow-up European Good Tissue and cells Practices II (EuroGTP II)'. For this purpose, a series of four meetings was held in which eight ART experts participated. In addition, several tests and simulations were undertaken to fine-tune the final tool. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The three steps comprising the EuroGTP II methodology were evaluated against its usefulness and applicability in ART. Ways to improve and adapt the methodology into ART risk assessment were agreed and implemented. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Assessment of the novelty (Step 1), consisting of seven questions, is the same as for other TCTPs. Practical examples were included for better understanding. Identification of potential risks and consequences (Step 2), consisting of a series of risks and risk consequences to consider during risk assessment, was adapted from the generic methodology, adding more potential risks for processes involving gonadic tissues. The algorithm to score risks was also adapted, giving a specific range of highest possible risk scores. A list of strategies for risk reduction and definition of extended studies required to ensure effectiveness and safety (Step 3) was also produced by the ART experts, based on generic EuroGTP II methodology. Several explanations and examples were provided for each of the steps for better understanding within this field. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION A multidisciplinary team is needed to perform risk assessment, to interpret results and to determine risk mitigation strategies and/or next steps required to ensure the safety in the clinical use of novelties. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This is a dynamic tool whose value goes beyond assessment of risk before implementing a novel ART in clinical practice, to re-evaluate risks based on information collected during the process