Search

STUDY QUESTION How are ART and IUI regulated, funded, and registered in European countries, and how has the situation changed since 2018? SUMMARY ANSWER Of the 43 countries performing ART and IUI in Europe, and participating in the survey, specific legislation exists in only 39 countries, public funding varies across and sometimes within countries (and is lacking or minimal in four countries), and national registries are in place in 33 countries; only a small number of changes were identified, most of them in the direction of improving accessibility, through increased public financial support and/or opening access to additional subgroups. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The annual reports of the European IVF-Monitoring Consortium (EIM) clearly show the existence of different approaches across Europe regarding accessibility to and efficacy of ART and IUI treatments. In a previous survey, some coherent information was gathered about how those techniques were regulated, funded, and registered in European countries, showing that diversity is the paradigm in this medical field. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A survey was designed using the SurveyMonkey tool consisting of 90 questions covering several domains (legal, funding, and registry) and considering specific details on the situation of third-party donations. New questions widened the scope of the previous survey. Answers refer to the situation of countries on 31 December 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS All members of the EIM were invited to participate. The received answers were checked and initial responders were asked to address unclear answers and to provide any additional information considered relevant. Tables resulting from the consolidated data were then sent to members of the Committee of National Representatives of ESHRE, requesting a second check. Conflicting information was clarified by direct contact. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Information was received from 43 out of the 45 European countries where ART and IUI are performed. There were 39 countries with specific legislation on ART, and artificial insemination was considered an ART technique in 33 of them. Accessibility is limited to infertile couples only in 8 of the 43 countries. In 5 countries, ART and IUI are permitted also for treatments of single women and all same sex couples, while a total of 33 offer treatment to single women and 19 offer treatment to female couples. Use of donated sperm is allowed in all except 2 countries, oocyte donation is allowed in 38, simultaneous donation of sperm and oocyte is allowed in 32, and embryo donation is allowed in 29 countries. Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT)-M/SR (for monogenetic disorders, structural rearrangements) is not allowed in 3 countries and PGT-A (for aneuploidy) is not allowed in 10; surrogacy is accepted in 15 countries. Except for marital/sexual situation, female age is the most frequently reported limiting criterion for legal access to ART: minimal age is usually set at 18 years and the maximum ranges from 42 to 54 with some countries not using numeric definition. Male maximum age is set in very few countries. Where third-party donors are permitted, age is frequently a limiting criterion (male maximum age ranging from 35 to 50; female maximum age from 30 to 37). Other legal restrictions in third-party donation are the number of children born from the same donor (or, in some countries, the number of families with children from the same donor) and, in 12 countries, there is a maximum number of oocyte donations. How countries deal with the anonymity is diverse: strict anonymity, anonymity just for the recipients (not for children when reaching legal adulthood age), a mixed system (anonymous and non-anonymous donations), and strict non-anonymity. Inquiring about donors' genetic screening showed that most countries have enforced either mandatory or scientific recommendations that exclude the most prevalent genetic diseases, although, again, diversity is evident. Reimbursement/compensation systems exist in more than 30 European countries, with around 10 describing clearly defined maximum amounts considered acceptable. Public funding systems are extremely variable. One country provides no financial assistance to ART/IUI patients and three offer only minimal support. Limits to the provision of funding are defined in the others i.e. age (female maximum age is the most used), existence of previous children, BMI, maximum number of treatments publicly supported, and techniques not entitled for funding. In a few countries reimbursement is linked to a clinical policy. The definitions of the type of expenses covered within an IVF/ICSI cycle, up to which limit, and the proportion of out-of-pocket costs for patients are also extremely dissimilar. National registries of ART are in place in 33 out of the 43 countries contributing to the survey and a registry of donors exists in 19 of them. When comparing with the results of the previous survey, the main changes are: (i) an extension of the beneficiaries of ART techniques (and IUI), evident in nine countries; (ii) public financial support exists now in Albania and Armenia; (iii) in Luxembourg, the only ART centre expanded its on-site activities; (iv) donor-conceived children are entitled to know the donor identity in six countries more than in 2018; and (v) four more countries have set a maximum number of oocyte donations. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Although the responses were provided by well-informed and committed individuals and submitted to double checking, no formal validation by official bodies was in place. Therefore, possible inaccuracies cannot be excluded. The results presented are a cross-section in time, and ART and IUI frameworks within European countries undergo continuous modification. Finally, some domains of ART activity were deliberately left out of the scope of this survey. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Our results offer a detailed updated view of the ART and IUI situation in European countries. It provides extensive answers to many relevant questions related to ART usage at the national level and could be used by institutions and policymakers at both national and European levels. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The study has no external funding, and all costs were covered by ESHRE. There were no competing interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION In oocytes of advanced maternal age (AMA) women, what are the mechanisms leading to aneuploidy and what is the association of aneuploidy with embryo development? SUMMARY ANSWER Known chromosome segregation errors such as precocious separation of sister chromatids explained 90.4% of abnormal chromosome copy numbers in polar bodies (PBs), underlying impaired embryo development. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Meiotic chromosomal aneuploidies in oocytes correlate with AMA (>35 years) and can affect over half of oocytes in this age group. This underlies the rationale for PB biopsy as a form of early preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A), as performed in the 'ESHRE STudy into the Evaluation of oocyte Euploidy by Microarray analysis' (ESTEEM) randomized controlled trial (RCT). So far, chromosome analysis of oocytes and PBs has shown that precocious separation of sister chromatids (PSSC), Meiosis II (MII) non-disjunction (ND), and reverse segregation (RS) are the main mechanisms leading to aneuploidy in oocytes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Data were sourced from the ESTEEM study, a multicentre RCT from seven European centres to assess the clinical utility of PGT-A on PBs using array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) in patients of AMA (36–40 years). This included data on the chromosome complement in PB pairs (PGT-A group), and on embryo morphology in a subset of embryos, up to Day 6 post-insemination, from both the intervention (PB biopsy and PGT-A) and control groups. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS ESTEEM recruited 396 AMA patients: 205 in the intervention group and 191 in the control group. Complete genetic data from 693 PB pairs were analysed. Additionally, the morphology from 1034 embryos generated from fertilized oocytes (two pronuclei) in the PB biopsy group and 1082 in the control group were used for statistical analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Overall, 461/693 PB pairs showed abnormal segregation in 1162/10 810 chromosomes. The main observed abnormal segregations were compatible with PSSC in Meiosis I (MI) (n = 568/1162; 48.9%), ND of chromatids in MII or RS (n = 417/1162; 35.9%), and less frequently ND in MI (n = 65/1162; 5.6%). For 112 chromosomes (112/1162; 9.6%), we observed a chromosome copy number in the first PB (PB1) and second PB (PB2) that is not explained by any of the known mechanisms causing aneuploidy in oocytes. We observed that embryos in the PGT-A arm of the RCT did not have a significantly different morphology between 2 and 6 days post-insemination compared to the control group, indicating that PB biopsy did not affect embryo quality. Following age-adjusted multilevel mixed-effect ordinal logistic regression models performed for each embryo evaluation day, aneuploidy was associated with a decrease in embryo quality on Day 3 (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.62, 95% CI 0.43–0.90), Day 4 (aOR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06–0.39), and Day 5 (aOR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14–0.58). LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION RS cannot be distinguished from normal segregation or MII ND using aCGH. The observed segregations were based on the detected copy number of PB1 and PB2 only and were not confirmed by the analysis of embryos. The embryo morphology assessment was static and single observer. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Our finding of frequent unexplained chromosome copy numbers in PBs indicates that our knowledge of the mechanisms causing aneuploidy in oocytes is incomplete. It challenges the dogma that aneuploidy in oocytes is exclusively caused by mis-segregation of chromosomes during MI and MII. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) Data were mined from a study funded by ESHRE. Illumina provided microarrays and other consumables necessary for aCGH testing of PBs. None of the authors have competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Data were mined from the ESTEEM study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01532284). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION What are the data and trends on ART and IUI cycle numbers and their outcomes, and on fertility preservation (FP) interventions, reported in 2018 as compared to previous years? SUMMARY ANSWER The 22nd ESHRE report shows a continued increase in reported numbers of ART treatment cycles and children born in Europe, a decrease in transfers with more than one embryo with a further reduction of twin delivery rates (DRs) as compared to 2017, higher DRs per transfer after fresh IVF or ICSI cycles (without considering freeze-all cycles) than after frozen embryo transfer (FET) with higher pregnancy rates (PRs) after FET and the number of reported IUI cycles decreased while their PR and DR remained stable. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY ART aggregated data generated by national registries, clinics or professional societies have been gathered and analysed by the European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) since 1997 and reported in 21 manuscripts published in Human Reproduction and Human Reproduction Open. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Data on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) from European countries are collected by EIM for ESHRE on a yearly basis. The data on treatment cycles performed between 1 January and 31 December 2018 were provided by either national registries or registries based on initiatives of medical associations and scientific organizations or committed persons of 39 countries. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Overall, 1422 clinics offering ART services in 39 countries reported a total of more than 1 million (1 007 598) treatment cycles for the first time, including 162 837 with IVF, 400 375 with ICSI, 309 475 with FET, 48 294 with preimplantation genetic testing, 80 641 with egg donation (ED), 532 with IVM of oocytes and 5444 cycles with frozen oocyte replacement (FOR). A total of 1271 institutions reported data on IUI cycles using either husband/partner's semen (IUI-H; n = 148 143) or donor semen (IUI-D; n = 50 609) in 31 countries and 25 countries, respectively. Sixteen countries reported 20 994 interventions in pre- and post-pubertal patients for FP including oocyte, ovarian tissue, semen and testicular tissue banking. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE In 21 countries (21 in 2017) in which all ART clinics reported to the registry, 410 190 treatment cycles were registered for a total population of ∼ 300 million inhabitants, allowing a best estimate of a mean of 1433 cycles performed per million inhabitants (range: 641–3549). Among the 39 reporting countries, for IVF, the clinical PR per aspiration slightly decreased while the PR per transfer remained similar compared to 2017 (25.5% and 34.1% in 2018 versus 26.8% and 34.3% in 2017). In ICSI, the corresponding rates showed similar evolutions in 2018 compared to 2017 (22.5% and 32.1% in 2018 versus 24.0% and 33.5% in 2017). When freeze-all cycles were not considered for the calculations, the clinical PRs per aspiration were 28.8% (29.4% in 2017) and 27.3% (27.3% in 2017) for IVF and ICSI, respectively. After FET with embryos originating from own eggs, the PR per thawing was 33.4% (versus 30.2% in 2017), and with embryos originating from donated eggs 41.8% (41.1% in 2017). After ED, the PR per fresh embryo transfer was 49.6% (49.2% in 2017) and per FOR 44.9% (43.3% in 2017). 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 50.7%, 45.1%, 3.9% and 0.3% of all treatments, respectively (corresponding to 46.0%, 49.2%. 4.5% and 0.3% in 2017). This resulted in a reduced proportion of twin DRs of 12.4% (14.2% in 2017) and similar triplet DR of 0.2%. Treatments with FET in 2018 resulted in twin and triplet DRs of 9.4% and 0.1%, respectively (versus 11.2% and 0.2%, respectively in 2017). After IUI, the DRs remained similar at 8.8% after IUI-H (8.7% in 2017) and at 12.6% after IUI-D (12.4% in 2017). Twin and triplet DRs after IUI-H were 8.4% and 0.3%, respectively (in 2017: 8.1% and 0.3%), and 6.4% and 0.2% after IUI-D (in 2017: 6.9% and 0.2%). Among 20 994 FP interventions in 16 countries (18 888 in 13 countries in 2017), cryopreservation of ejaculated sperm (n = 10 503, versus 11 112 in 2017) and of oocytes (n = 9123 versus 6588 in 2017) were the most frequently reported. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The results should be interpreted with caution as data collection systems and completeness of reporting vary among European countries. Some countries were unable to deliver data about the number of initiated cycles and/or deliveries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The 22nd ESHRE data collection on ART, IUI and FP interventions shows a continuous increase of reported treatment numbers and MAR-derived livebirths in Europe. Although it is the largest data collection on MAR in Europe, further efforts towards optimization of both the collection and reporting, with the aim of improving surveillance and vigilance in the field of reproductive medicine, are awaited. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The study has received no external funding and all costs are covered by ESHRE. There are no competing interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]