Search

Study Question: What are the current national medically assisted reproduction (MAR) data collection systems across EU Member States, and how can these countries contribute to a unique, cycle-by-cycle registry for the European Monitoring of Medically Assisted Reproduction (EuMAR) project?, Summary Answer: The study identified significant variation in MAR data collection practices across Member States, with differences in data types, collection methods, and reporting requirements; the EuMAR project emerges as an opportunity to enhance data standardization and improve MAR data collection in the EU., What Is Known Already: There is a need for new approaches in MAR data collection that include long-term and cross border follow-up. The EuMAR project intends to establish a unified, cycle-by-cycle registry of data on MAR treatments in EU countries, from which accurate cumulative outcomes can be calculated., Study Design, Size, Duration: This cross-sectional study involved a survey and interviews with stakeholders from 26 EU Member States conducted in 2023 over a period of seven months., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Representatives from national competent authorities and professional associations involved in MAR data collection in EU countries were invited to complete the survey and interviewed to assess current data flows, information requirements, and their interest in the EuMAR project., Main Results and the Role of Chance: Half of the participating countries reported having a national MAR registry with cycle-by-cycle data (n = 13), while 31% reported having a national registry with aggregated data (n = 8) and 19% reported having no national registry (n = 5). Of the countries with a national cycle-by-cycle registry, eight countries collect identifiable data, five countries collect pseudonymized data, and one country collects fully anonymized data. Informed consent is required in 10 countries. The main advantages that participants expected from a European registry like EuMAR were the possibility of obtaining national statistics in the absence of a national registry and improving the calculation of cumulative outcomes., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: The results of the study are based on self-reported data, which may be subject to bias, however, the validity of the collected information was verified with different means, including follow-up calls for clarifications and sharing final transcript reports. The feasibility of the proposed data flow models will be tested in a pilot study., Wider Implications of the Findings: Despite the heterogeneity of data collection practices across EU countries, the results show that stakeholders have high expectations of the benefits that the EuMAR registry can bring, namely the improvement of data consistency, cross-border comparability, and cumulative live birth rates, leading to better information for patients, health care providers and policy makers., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The EuMAR project was co-founded by ESHRE and the European Commission (101079865-EuMAR-EU4H-2021-PJ2). No competing interests were declared., Trial Registration Number: N/A., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Study Question: Which recommendations can be provided by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology Special Interest Group (ESHRE SIG) Embryology to support laboratory specialists in the organization and management of IVF laboratories and the optimization of IVF patient care?, Summary Answer: Structured in 13 sections, the guideline development group formulated recommendations for good practice in the organization and management of IVF laboratories, and for good practice of the specific procedures performed within the IVF laboratory., What Is Known Already: NA., Study Design, Size, Duration: The guideline was produced by a group of 10 embryologists representing different European countries, settings and levels of expertise. The group evaluated the document of 2008, and based on this assessment, each group member rewrote one or more sections. Two 2-day meetings were organized during which each of the recommendations was discussed and rewritten until consensus within the guideline group was reached. After finalizing the draft, the members of the ESHRE SIG embryology were invited to review the guideline., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: NA., Main Results and the Role of Chance: The guideline provides recommendations on the general organization of an IVF laboratory (staffing and direction, quality management, laboratory safety), and on the specific aspects of the procedures performed in IVF laboratories (Identification of patients and traceability of their reproductive cells, consumables, handling of biological material, oocyte retrieval, sperm preparation, insemination of oocytes, scoring for fertilization, embryo culture and transfer, and cryopreservation). A last section provides recommendations regarding an Emergency plan for IVF laboratories., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: Evidence on most of the issues described is scarce, and therefore it was decided not to perform a formal search for and assessment of scientific evidence. However, recommendations published in the EUTCD and relevant and recent documents, manuals and consensus papers were taken into account when formulating the recommendations., Wider Implications of the Findings: Despite the limitations, the guideline group is confident that this document will be helpful to directors and managers involved in the management and organization of IVF laboratories, but also to embryologists and laboratory technicians performing daily tasks., Study Funding/competing Interests: The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings. The guideline group members did not receive payment. Dr Coticchio reports speaker's fees from IBSA and Cook, outside the submitted work; Dr Lundin reports grants from Vitrolife, personal fees from Merck Serono, non-financial support from Unisense, outside the submitted work; Dr. Rienzi reports personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees from MSD, grants from GFI, outside the submitted work; the other authors had nothing to disclose., Trial Registration Number: NA., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Successful gametogenesis requires the establishment of an appropriate epigenetic state in developing germ cells. Nevertheless, an association between abnormal spermatogenesis and epigenetic disturbances in germline-specific genes remains to be demonstrated., Methods: In this study, the DNA methylation pattern of the promoter CpG island (CGI) of two germline regulator genes--DAZL and DAZ, was characterized by bisulphite genomic sequencing in quality-fractioned ejaculated sperm populations from normozoospermic (NZ) and oligoasthenoteratozoospermic (OAT) men., Results: OAT patients display increased methylation defects in the DAZL promoter CGI when compared with NZ controls. Such differences are recorded when analyzing sperm fractions enriched either in normal or defective germ cells (P< 0.001 in both cases). Significant differences in DNA methylation profiles are also observable when comparing the qualitatively distinct germ cell fractions inside the NZ and OAT groups (P= 0.003 and P= 0.007, respectively). Contrastingly, the unmethylation pattern of the DAZ promoter CGI remains correctly established in all experimental groups., Conclusions: An association between disrupted DNA methylation of a key spermatogenesis gene and abnormal human sperm is described here for the first time. These results suggest that incorrect epigenetic marks in germline genes may be correlated with male gametogenic defects.

Background: This work addresses the hypothesis that events occurring within the follicle soon after the LH surge are essential for coordinating morphogenesis of the spindle and cytoplasm in mouse oocytes matured in vivo (IVO); we further tested whether in vitro maturation (IVM) fails to support these events., Methods: Oocytes collected at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 h post-hCG or after IVM were analyzed for chromatin, nuclear lamina, microtubules (MTs) and centrosomal proteins by conventional fluorescence and confocal microscopy. In addition, these parameters were monitored in oocytes maintained in 50 microM roscovitine, followed by IVM, or in oocytes retrieved at 1.5 and 5 h post-hCG in vivo and cultured up to 16 h., Results: A G2/M delay was observed in IVO oocytes based upon persistence of cytoplasmic MTs, nuclear lamina and centrosomes at the cortex; rapid meiotic progression in IVM oocytes was related to loss of these markers, indicating that a global activation of MPF occurred in culture. Also, maturating-promoting factor (MPF) inactivation resulted in cultured oocytes that exhibited IVO characteristics after drug removal. IVO-like characteristics were also exhibited by oocytes retrieved at 5 but not at 1.5 h after hCG treatment, even though these oocytes were subsequently cultured., Conclusions: The results emphasize the importance of coupling MT remodeling and cell cycle components during oocyte maturation to achieve a balanced coordination of nuclear and cytoplasmic maturation that under physiological conditions occurs within the first 5 h of LH stimulation.