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

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

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

. 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. Study funding / competing interest(s): This study was called EUROGTP II and was funded by the European Commission (Grant agreement number 709567). The authors declare no competing interests concerning the results of this study