Search

Fatty acids (FA) in follicular fluid (FF) are present in an esterified form [triglycerides, cholesterol esters and phospholipids] or as non-esterified FA, which partly originate from blood. However, a comprehensive comparison of blood vs. FF FA in various lipid classes is missing. The aim of this study was to determine the distribution of the FA composition in each lipid class of serum and FF, and to investigate their mutual correlations. A total of 74 patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology treatment were involved in the study. Both in serum as well as FF, saturated FA and mono-unsaturated FA were predominant in non-esterified FA and triglycerides fractions while poly-unsaturated FA were mainly present in phospholipids and cholesterol esters fractions, although phospholipids also contained high proportions of saturated FA. Irrespective of the lipid class, the FA proportions differed between serum and FF (P < 0.05). Despite these differences, most of the FA in triglycerides, phospholipids and cholesterol esters of FF were well correlated with their proportions in serum. Nevertheless, only weak to moderate associations (r < 0.60) were observed for the majority of the FA in the non-esterified FA fraction. Differences in FA product/precursor-ratios were found between serum and FF, such as higher C20:4n-6 to C18:2n-6 and C20:5n-3 to C18:3n-3 in FF. FA metabolism (e.g. desaturation and elongation) takes place in cells of the intrafollicular micro-environment. Moreover, good correlations between esterified FA in serum and FF suggest esterified FA in blood could be representative of esterified FA in FF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Advanced maternal age and obesity are associated with impaired female fertility. Moreover, fatty acids (FA) in follicular fluid (FF) play important roles in oocyte maturation and embryo development. However, the effects of body mass index (BMI), age, and FF FA composition on embryo development between days 3 and 5 and blastocyst stage on day 5 are still unclear. Methods: This study included 138 patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART), which were divided into three BMI groups (18.5–24.9 kg/m2 vs. 25.0–29.9 kg/m2 vs. ≥ 30.0 kg/m2) and three age-related groups (20–30 years vs. 31–34 years vs. ≥ 35 years) which were compared for ART outcomes. Further, observations were divided into quartiles based on either of three parameters related to embryo outcome, i.e. (i) embryos developing between days 3 and 5 (ED3-5) and (ii) expanded blastocysts on day 5 (EB5), both expressed proportionally to the number of oocytes with two pronuclei (2PN), as well as (iii) the embryo utilization rate (EUR). Proportions of FF FA were then compared between Q1 and Q4, representing the quartile with the worst vs. the best embryo outcome, respectively. Finally, regression models were created to assess the relationships between BMI, age, FF total FA (TFA) concentration, relative proportions of specific FA and embryo outcome. Results: Patients of Q1 had higher proportions of FF C20:5n-3, C22:6n-3 and total n-3 PUFA than Q4 patients. Furthermore, Q4 patients tended to be younger than Q1 patients. Within the whole cohort, the proportion of C20:5n-3 negatively correlated with ED3-5/2PN and EUR, while EB5/2PN tended to be negatively correlated with age. Regression models within the overweight and obese group confirmed the negative relation between C20:5n-3 and ED3-5/2PN, but also indicated additional associations: C18:1n-9 and C20:4n-6 were positively associated with ED3-5/2PN and EUR, respectively while the proportion of C18:0 was negatively associated with EUR. Conclusion: The proportions of n-3 PUFA, particularly C20:5n-3 and C22:6n-3 were reduced in the patients' quartile with the best embryo outcome. This group of patients was also younger. However, the embryo quality parameters of overweight/obese patients were not associated with age but were positively associated with FF C18:1n-9 and negatively with the proportions of C18:0 or C20:5n-3. Trial registration: This study' registration number was B670201627735. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION What information and support should be offered to donors, intended parents and donor-conceived people, in general and in consideration of the availability of direct-to-consumer genetic testing and matching services? SUMMARY ANSWER For donors, intended parents and donor-conceived offspring, recommendations are made that cover information needs and informed consent, psychosocial implications and disclosure. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Trends indicate that the use of donor-assisted conception is growing and guidance is needed to help these recipients/intended parents, the donors and offspring, navigate the rapidly changing environment in which donor-assisted conception takes place. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A working group (WG) collaborated on writing recommendations based, where available, on evidence collected from a literature search and expert opinion. Draft recommendations were published for stakeholder review and adapted where relevant based on the comments received. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Papers retrieved from PUBMED were included from 1 January 2014 up to 31 August 2020, focusing on studies published since direct-to-consumer genetic testing has become more widespread and accessible. The current paper is limited to reproductive donation performed in medically assisted reproduction (MAR) centres (and gamete banks): donation outside the medical context was not considered. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE In total, 32 recommendations were made for information provision and support to donors, 32 for intended parents and 27 for donor-conceived offspring requesting information/support. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The available evidence in the area of reproductive donation is limited and diverse with regards to the context and types of donation. General conclusions and recommendations are largely based on expert opinion and may need to be adapted in light of future research. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS These recommendations provide guidance to MAR centres and gamete banks on good practice in information provision and support but should also be considered by regulatory bodies and policymakers at a national and international level to guide regulatory and legislative efforts towards the protection of donors and donor-conceived offspring. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The development of this good practice paper was funded by European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), covering expenses associated with the WG meetings, the literature searches and dissemination. The WG members did not receive any payment. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. DISCLAIMER This document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and where relevant based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. The recommendations should be used for informational and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care, or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. †ESHRE pages content is not externally peer reviewed. The manuscript has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION What is the recommended management for medically assisted reproduction (MAR) in patients with a viral infection or disease, based on the best available evidence in the literature? SUMMARY ANSWER The ESHRE guideline on MAR in patients with a viral infection/disease makes 78 recommendations on prevention of horizontal and vertical transmission before, during and after MAR, and the impact on its outcomes, and these also include recommendations regarding laboratory safety on the processing and storage of gametes and embryos testing positive for viral infections. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The development of new and improved anti-viral medications has resulted in improved life expectancy and quality of life for patients with viral infections/diseases. Patients of reproductive age are increasingly exploring their options for family creation. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for the development of ESHRE guidelines. After the formulation of nine key questions for six viruses (hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, human immunodeficiency virus, human papilloma virus, human T-lymphotropic virus I/II and Zika virus) by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 2 November 2020 and written in English were included in the review. Evidence was analyzed by female, male or couple testing positive for the virus. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline group. There were 61 key questions to be answered by the guideline development group (GDG), of which 12 were answered as narrative questions and 49 as PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) questions. A stakeholder review was organized after the finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE This guideline aims to help providers meet a growing demand for guidance on the management of patients with a viral infection/disease presenting in the fertility clinic. The guideline makes 78 recommendations on prevention of viral transmission before and during MAR, and interventions to reduce/avoid vertical transmission to the newborn. Preferred MAR treatments and interventions are described together with the effect of viral infections on outcomes. The GDG formulated 44 evidence-based recommendations—of which 37 were formulated as strong recommendations and 7 as weak—33 good practice points (GPP) and one research only recommendation. Of the evidence-based recommendations, none were supported by high-quality evidence, two by moderate-quality evidence, 15 by low-quality evidence and 27 by very low-quality evidence. To support future research in the field of MAR in patients with a viral infection/disease, a list of research recommendations is provided. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Most interventions included are not well-studied in patients with a viral infection/disease. For a large proportion of interventions, evidence was very limited and of very low quality. More evidence is required for these interventions, especially in the field of human papilloma virus (HPV). Such future studies may require the current recommendations to be revised. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in MAR for patients with a viral infection/disease, based on the best evidence currently available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in the field. 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 any financial incentives, all work was provided voluntarily. A.D. reports research fees from Ferring and Merck, consulting fees from Ferring, outside the submitted work. C.P. reports speakers fees from Merck and MSD outside the submitted work. K.T. reports speakers fees from Cooper Surgical and Ferring and consultancy fees as member of the advisory board BioTeam of Ferring, outside the submitted work. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. DISCLAIMER This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgment to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What are the incidence of and indications for sperm donor restriction due to suspected/confirmed disease risk, and the future treatment choices of patients using these sperm donors? This single-centre retrospective study involved donors who had restrictions on the use of their imported spermatozoa from January 2010 to December 2019, and current or previous recipients. Indications for sperm restriction and the characteristics of patients undergoing medically assisted reproduction (MAR) treatment with these specimens at the time of restriction were collected. Differential characteristics of women who decided on whether or not to contintue the procedure were assessed. Characteristics potentially leading to treatment continuation were identified. Of 1124 sperm donors identified, 200 (17.8%) were restricted, most commonly for multifactorial (27.5%) and autosomal recessive (17.5%) disorders. The spermatozoa had been used for 798 recipients, of whom 172, receiving spermatozoa from 100 donors, were informed about the restriction and constituted the 'decision cohort'. The specimens from the restricted donors were accepted by 71 (approximately 40%) patients, with 45 (approximately 63%) eventually using the restricted donor for their future MAR treatment. The odds of accepting the restricted spermatozoa decreased with increasing age (OR 0.857, 95% CI 0.800–0.918, P < 0.001) and the time between MAR treatment and the restriction date (OR 0.806, 95% CI 0.713–0.911, P < 0.001). Donor restriction due to suspected/confirmed disease risk is relatively frequent. This affected a relevant number of women (around 800), of whom 172 (approximately 20%) had to decide whether or not to use these donors further. Although donor screening is being performed thoroughly, there remain health risks for donor children. Realistic counselling of all stakeholders involved is necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]