Search

More than 20 years ago, the survey of activities in medically assisted reproduction (MAR) was initiated in Europe and resulted in cross-sectional annual reports, as issued by the European IVF Monitoring (EIM) consortium of ESHRE. Over time, these reports mirror the continuous development of the technologies and contribute to increased transparency and surveillance of reproductive care. Meanwhile, progressive changes of existing treatment modalities and the introduction of new technologies resulted in the need of a cumulative approach in the assessment of treatment outcomes, which warrants a prospective cycle-by-cycle data registry on MAR activities, including fertility preservation. This change in the paradigm of data collection in Europe towards the construction of cumulative outcome results is expected to generate additional insights into cross-institutional but also cross-border movements of patients and reproductive material. This is essential to improve vigilance and surveillance. The European monitoring of Medically Assisted Reproduction (EuMAR) project, co-funded by the European Union, will establish a registry for the transnational collection of prospective cycle-by-cycle MAR and fertility preservation data on the basis of an individual reproductive care code (IRCC). The rationale for the project and the objectives are presented here.

STUDY QUESTIONCan risks associated with novelties in assisted reproduction technologies (ARTs) be assessed in a systematic and structured way?SUMMARY ANSWERAn 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 ALREADYHow 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, DURATIONThe 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, METHODSThe 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 CHANCEAssessment 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 CAUTIONA 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 FINDINGSThis 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.

Study question: what is the impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection on the outcome of a pregnancy after medically assisted reproduction (MAR)?. Summary answer: our results suggest that MAR pregnancies are not differentially affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to spontaneous pregnancies. What is known already: information on the effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on pregnancy after MAR is scarce when women get infected during MAR or early pregnancy, even though such information is vital for informing women seeking pregnancy. Study design, size, duration: data from SARS-CoV-2 affected MAR pregnancies were collected between May 2020 and June 2021 through a voluntary data collection, organised by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Participants/materials, setting, methods: all ESHRE members were invited to participate to an online data collection for SARS-CoV-2-infected MAR pregnancies. Main results and the role of chance: the dataset includes 80 cases from 32 countries, including 67 live births, 10 miscarriages, 2 stillbirths and 1 maternal death. An additional 25pregnancies were ongoing at the time of writing. Limitations, reasons for caution: an international data registry based on voluntary contribution can be subject to selective reporting with possible risks of over- or under-estimation. Wider implications of the findings: the current data can be used to guide clinical decisions in the care of women pregnant after MAR, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic., NA

What is the recommended management of ovarian stimulation, based on the best available evidence in the literature?The guideline development group formulated 84 recommendations answering 18 key questions on ovarian stimulation.Ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI has been discussed briefly in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline on fertility problems, and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologist has published a statement on ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. There are, to our knowledge, no evidence-based guidelines dedicated to the process of ovarian stimulation.The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. After formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 8 November 2018 and written in English were included. The critical outcomes for this guideline were efficacy in terms of cumulative live birth rate per started cycle or live birth rate per started cycle, as well as safety in terms of the rate of occurrence of moderate and/or severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline group. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the guideline group and the ESHRE Executive Committee.The guideline provides 84 recommendations: 7 recommendations on pre-stimulation management, 40 recommendations on LH suppression and gonadotrophin stimulation, 11 recommendations on monitoring during ovarian stimulation, 18 recommendations on triggering of final oocyte maturation and luteal support and 8 recommendations on the prevention of OHSS. These include 61 evidence-based recommendations-of which only 21 were formulated as strong recommendations-and 19 good practice points and 4 research-only recommendations. The guideline includes a strong recommendation for the use of either antral follicle count or anti-Müllerian hormone (instead of other ovarian reserve tests) to predict high and poor response to ovarian stimulation. The guideline also includes a strong recommendation for the use of the GnRH antagonist protocol over the GnRH agonist protocols in the general IVF/ICSI population, based on the comparable efficacy and higher safety. For predicted poor responders, GnRH antagonists and GnRH agonists are equally recommended. With regards to hormone pre-treatment and other adjuvant treatments (metformin, growth hormone (GH), testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone, aspirin and sildenafil), the guideline group concluded that none are recommended for increasing efficacy or safety.Several newer interventions are not well studied yet. For most of these interventions, a recommendation against the intervention or a research-only recommendation was formulated based on insufficient evidence. Future studies may require these recommendations to be revised.The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in ovarian stimulation, based on the best evidence available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to promote further studies in ovarian stimulation.The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. F.B. reports research grant from Ferring and consulting fees from Merck, Ferring, Gedeon Richter and speaker's fees from Merck. N.P. reports research grants from Ferring, MSD, Roche Diagnositics, Theramex and Besins Healthcare; consulting fees from MSD, Ferring and IBSA; and speaker's fees from Ferring, MSD, Merck Serono, IBSA, Theramex, Besins Healthcare, Gedeon Richter and Roche Diagnostics. A.L.M reports research grants from Ferring, MSD, IBSA, Merck Serono, Gedeon Richter and TEVA and consulting fees from Roche, Beckman-Coulter. G.G. reports consulting fees from MSD, Ferring, Merck Serono, IBSA, Finox, Theramex, Gedeon-Richter, Glycotope, Abbott, Vitrolife, Biosilu, ReprodWissen, Obseva and PregLem and speaker's fees from MSD, Ferring, Merck Serono, IBSA, Finox, TEVA, Gedeon Richter, Glycotope, Abbott, Vitrolife and Biosilu. E.B. reports research grants from Gedeon Richter; consulting and speaker's fees from MSD, Ferring, Abbot, Gedeon Richter, Merck Serono, Roche Diagnostics and IBSA; and ownership interest from IVI-RMS Valencia. P.H. reports research grants from Gedeon Richter, Merck, IBSA and Ferring and speaker's fees from MSD, IBSA, Merck and Gedeon Richter. J.U. reports speaker's fees from IBSA and Ferring. N.M. reports research grants from MSD, Merck and IBSA; consulting fees from MSD, Merck, IBSA and Ferring and speaker's fees from MSD, Merck, IBSA, Gedeon Richter and Theramex. M.G. reports speaker's fees from Merck Serono, Ferring, Gedeon Richter and MSD. S.K.S. reports speaker's fees from Merck, MSD, Ferring and Pharmasure. E.K. reports speaker's fees from Merck Serono, Angellini Pharma and MSD. M.K. reports speaker's fees from Ferring. T.T. reports speaker's fees from Merck, MSD and MLD. The other authors report no conflicts of interest.

STUDY QUESTIONWhat is good practice in ultrasound (US), and more specifically during the different stages of transvaginal oocyte retrieval, based on evidence in the literature and expert opinion on US practice in ART?SUMMARY ANSWERThis document provides good practice recommendations covering technical aspects of US-guided transvaginal oocyte retrieval (oocyte pick up: OPU) formulated by a group of experts after considering the published data, and including the preparatory stage of OPU, the actual procedure and post-procedure care.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADYUS-guided transvaginal OPU is a widely performed procedure, but standards for best practice are not available.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATIONA working group (WG) collaborated on writing recommendations on the practical aspects of transvaginal OPU. A literature search for evidence of the key aspects of the procedure was carried out. Selected papers (n = 190) relevant to the topic were analyzed by the WG.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODSThe WG members considered the following key points in the papers: whether US practice standards were explained; to what extent the OPU technique was described and whether complications or incidents and how to prevent such events were reported. In the end, only 108 papers could be used to support the recommendations in this document, which focused on transvaginal OPU. Laparoscopic OPU, transabdominal OPU and OPU for IVM were outside the scope of the study.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCEThere was a scarcity of studies on the actual procedural OPU technique. The document presents general recommendations for transvaginal OPU, and specific recommendations for its different stages, including prior to, during and after the procedure. Most evidence focussed on comparing different equipment (needles) and on complications and risks, including the risk of infection. For these topics, the recommendations were largely based on the results of the studies. Recommendations are provided on equipment and materials, possible risks and complications, audit and training. One of the major research gaps was training and competence. This paper has also outlined a list of research priorities (including clarification on the value or full blood count, antibiotic prophylaxis and flushing, and the need for training and proficiency).LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTIONThe recommendations of this paper were mostly based on clinical expertise, as at present, only a few clinical trials have focused on the oocyte retrieval techniques, and almost all available data are observational. In addition, studies focusing on OPU were heterogeneous with significant difference in techniques used, which made drafting conclusions and recommendations based on these studies even more challenging.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGSThese recommendations complement previous guidelines on the management of good laboratory practice in ART. Some useful troubleshooting/checklist recommendations are given for easy implementation in clinical practice. These recommendations aim to contribute to the standardization of a rather common procedure that is still performed with great heterogeneity.STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)The meetings of the WG were funded by ESHRE. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERNA.ESHRE Pages content is not externally peer reviewed. The manuscript has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

STUDY QUESTION What is the recommended management of women with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) based on the best available evidence in the literature? SUMMARY ANSWER The guideline development group formulated 77 recommendations answering 18 key questions on investigations and treatments for RPL, and on how care should be organized. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY A previous guideline for the investigation and medical treatment of recurrent miscarriage was published in 2006 and is in need of an update. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. After formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 31 March 2017 and written in English were included. Cumulative live birth rate, live birth rate and pregnancy loss rate (or miscarriage rate) were considered the critical outcomes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline group. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the guideline group and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The guideline provides 38 recommendations on risk factors, prevention and investigations in couples with RPL, and 39 recommendations on treatments. These include 60 evidence-based recommendations – of which 31 were formulated as strong recommendations and 29 as conditional – and 17 good practice points. The evidence supporting investigations and treatment of couples with RPL is limited and of moderate quality. Of the evidence-based recommendations, only 10 (16.3%) were supported by moderate quality evidence. The remaining recommendations were supported by low (35 recommendations: 57.4%), or very low quality evidence (16 recommendations: 26.2%). There were no recommendations based on high quality evidence. Owing to the lack of evidence-based investigations and treatments in RPL care, the guideline also clearly mentions investigations and treatments that should not be used for couples with RPL. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Several investigations and treatments are offered to couples with RPL, but most of them are not well studied. For most of these investigations and treatments, a recommendation against the intervention or treatment was formulated based on insufficient evidence. Future studies may require these recommendations to be revised. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in RPL, based on the best evidence available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in RPL. One of the most important consequences of the limited evidence is the absence of evidence for a definition of RPL. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. J.E. reports position funding from CARE Fertility. S.L. reports position funding from SpermComet Ltd. S.M. reports research grants, consulting and speaker’s fees from GSK, BMS/Pfizer, Sanquin, Aspen, Bayer and Daiichi Sankyo. S.Q. reports speaker’s fees from Ferring. The other authors report no conflicts of interest. ESHRE Pages are not externally peer reviewed. This article has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

STUDY QUESTION Based on the best available evidence in the literature, what is the optimal management of routine psychosocial care at infertility and medically assisted reproduction (MAR) clinics? SUMMARY ANSWER Using the structured methodology of the Manual for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) Guideline Development, 120 recommendations were formulated that answered the 12 key questions on optimal management of routine psychosocial care by all fertility staff. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN The 2002 ESHRE Guidelines for counselling in infertility has been a reference point for best psychosocial care in infertility for years, but this guideline needed updating and did not focus on routine psychosocial care that can be delivered by all fertility staff. STUDY, DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This guideline was produced by a group of experts in the field according to the 12-step process described in the ESHRE Manual for Guideline Development. After scoping the guideline and listing a set of 12 key questions in PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome) format, thorough systematic searches of the literature were conducted; evidence from papers published until April 2014 was collected, evaluated for quality and analysed. A summary of evidence was written in a reply to each of the key questions and used as the basis for recommendations, which were defined by consensus within the guideline development group (GDG). Patient and additional clinical input was collected during the scoping and the review phase of the guideline development. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The guideline group, comprising psychologists, two medical doctors, a midwife, a patient representative and a methodological expert, met three times to discuss evidence and reach consensus on the recommendations. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: THE GUIDELINE PROVIDES 120 recommendations that aim at guiding fertility clinic staff in providing optimal evidence-based routine psychosocial care to patients dealing with infertility and MAR. The guideline is written in two sections. The first section describes patients' preferences regarding the psychosocial care they would like to receive at clinics and how this care is associated with their well-being. The second section of the guideline provides information about the psychosocial needs patients experience across their treatment pathway (before, during and after treatment) and how fertility clinic staff can detect and address these. Needs refer to conditions assumed necessary for patients to have a healthy experience of the fertility treatment. Needs can be behavioural (lifestyle, exercise, nutrition and compliance), relational (relationship with partner if there is one, family friends and larger network, and work), emotional (well-being, e.g. anxiety, depression and quality of life) and cognitive (treatment concerns and knowledge). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We identified many areas in care for which robust evidence was lacking. Gaps in evidence were addressed by formulating good practice points, based on the expert opinion of the GDG, but it is critical for such recommendations to be empirically validated. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The evidence presented in this guideline shows that providing routine psychosocial care is associated with or has potential to reduce stress and concerns about medical procedures and improve lifestyle outcomes, fertility-related knowledge, patient well-being and compliance with treatment. As only 45 (36.0%) of the 125 recommendations were based on high-quality evidence, the guideline group formulated recommendations to guide future research with the aim of increasing the body of evidence.

Background Premature ovarian insufficiency (POI), often and misleadingly referred to as 'premature menopause', is defined as a loss of ovarian activity before the age of 40 years and is characterized by irregular or absent periods and reduced fertility. Symptoms include those associated with the natural menopause (night sweats and vaginal dryness), and with the long-term adverse effects of estrogen deficiency (osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease): the latter is believed to explain the shorter life expectancy associated with POI. Objective and rationale The objective of the current review was to collect all relevant studies supporting recommendations on the indications, treatment options, and risks of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) (estrogen, progestogens and androgens) for women with POI. Search methods The current review was written based on the best available evidence on the topic collected for the recently published ESHRE guideline on the management of women with POI. PUBMED/MEDLINE and the Cochrane library were searched in a stepwise approach. Relevant references were summarized in evidence tables, with assessment of the quality. Outcomes HRT is strongly recommended for women with POI, mainly for vasomotor and genito-urinary symptom relief. In addition, HRT has been shown to have a role in bone protection and probably also in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. There is little evidence on the optimal type, regimen and dose of HRT; patient preference for route and method of administration of each component of HRT must be considered when prescribing, as should contraceptive needs. In women with POI, physiological replacement of estrogen (and progesterone) is essential for their health, and the controversies that surround the use of HRT in postmenopausal women do not apply. Limitations reasons for caution N/A. Wider implications New areas of study on HRT for women with POI should focus on life expectancy, quality of life and neurological function. Furthermore, randomized controlled trials comparing transdermal estradiol with oral estrogens with regard to efficacy, patient satisfaction and side effects are urgently needed. Study funding/competing interests The authors received no funding for the review. The costs for the development of the ESHRE guideline were covered by ESHRE. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Background: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) carry autoantibodies such as perinuclear antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (pANCA). α-Enolase has been proposed as a target antigen in IBD. We evaluated the prevalence and diagnostic value of anti–α-enolase antibodies in IBD and related disorders.Methods: We used a classic proteomic approach with extracts from granulocytes and pANCA-positive ulcerative colitis (UC) sera to confirm α-enolase as a target antigen. By means of Western blot analysis, we screened a cohort of 525 subjects for the presence of anti–α-enolase antibodies. We performed GeneArray experiments on RNA extracted from colonic mucosal biopsies from 35 IBD and 6 control patients.Results: We detected anti–α-enolase antibodies 49.0% of patients with UC, 50.0% of patients with Crohn’s disease, 30.5% of patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis, 37.8% of patients with autoimmune hepatitis, 34.0% of patients with ANCA-positive vasculitis, 31.0% of non-IBD gastrointestinal controls, and 8.5% of healthy controls. Gene array experiments showed a significant upregulation of α-enolase mRNA in colonic mucosal biopsies from patients with IBD, but not from controls. There was no association between the presence of pANCA and anti–α-enolase antibodies. Preabsorption with α-enolase did not eliminate the pANCA pattern on indirect immunofluorescence.Conclusions: Anti–α-enolase antibodies are present in a substantial proportion of patients with IBD, patients with various inflammatory/autoimmune disorders, and non-IBD gastrointestinal controls. Therefore, anti–α-enolase antibodies are of limited diagnostic value for the diagnosis of IBD.

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.