Search

STUDY QUESTION Which add-ons are safe and effective to be used in ART treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER Forty-two recommendations were formulated on the use of add-ons in the diagnosis of fertility problems, the IVF laboratory and clinical management of IVF treatment. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The innovative nature of ART combined with the extremely high motivation of the patients has opened the door to the wide application of what has become known as 'add-ons' in reproductive medicine. These supplementary options are available to patients in addition to standard fertility procedures, typically incurring an additional cost. A diverse array of supplementary options is made available, encompassing tests, drugs, equipment, complementary or alternative therapies, laboratory procedures, and surgical interventions. These options share the common aim of stating to enhance pregnancy or live birth rates, mitigate the risk of miscarriage, or expedite the time to achieving pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION ESHRE aimed to develop clinically relevant and evidence-based recommendations focusing on the safety and efficacy of add-ons currently used in fertility procedures in order to improve the quality of care for patients with infertility. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS ESHRE appointed a European multidisciplinary working group consisting of practising clinicians, embryologists, and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of infertility. Patient representatives were included in the working group. To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, recommendations were based on the professional experience and consensus of the working group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 46 independent international reviewers. A total of 272 comments were received and incorporated where relevant. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The multidisciplinary working group formulated 42 recommendations in three sections; diagnosis and diagnostic tests, laboratory tests and interventions, and clinical management. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Of the 42 recommendations, none could be based on high-quality evidence and only four could be based on moderate-quality evidence, implicating that 95% of the recommendations are supported only by low-quality randomized controlled trials, observational data, professional experience, or consensus of the development group. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS These guidelines offer valuable direction for healthcare professionals who are responsible for the care of patients undergoing ART treatment for infertility. Their purpose is to promote safe and effective ART treatment, enabling patients to make informed decisions based on realistic expectations. The guidelines aim to ensure that patients are fully informed about the various treatment options available to them and the likelihood of any additional treatment or test to improve the chance of achieving a live birth. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) All costs relating to the development process were covered from ESHRE funds. There was no external funding of the development process or manuscript production. K.L. reports speakers fees from Merck and was part of a research study by Vitrolife (unpaid). T.E. reports consulting fees from Gynemed, speakers fees from Gynemed and is part of the scientific advisory board of Hamilton Thorne. N.P.P. reports grants from Merck Serono, Ferring Pharmaceutical, Theramex, Gedeon Richter, Organon, Roche, IBSA and Besins Healthcare, speakers fees from Merck Serono, Ferring Pharmaceutical, Theramex, Gedeon Richter, Organon, Roche, IBSA and Besins Healthcare. S.R.H. declares being managing director of Fertility Europe, a not-for-profit organization receiving financial support from ESHRE. I.S. is a scientific advisor for and has stock options from Alife Health, is co-founder of IVFvision LTD (unpaid) and received speakers' fee from the 2023 ART Young Leader Prestige workshop in China. A.P. reports grants from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck A/S, consulting fees from Preglem, Novo Nordisk, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Gedeon Richter, Cryos and Merck A/S, speakers fees from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S, Theramex and Organon, travel fees from Gedeon Richter. The other authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. DISCLAIMER This Good Practice Recommendations (GPRs) document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and are based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. ESHRE GPRs should be used for information and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care or bedeemedinclusive of all proper methods of care, or be exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results.Theydo not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, or variations based on locality and facility type. Furthermore, ESHRE GPRs do not constitute or imply the endorsement, or favouring, of any of the included technologies by ESHRE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The widespread interest in male reproductive health (MRH), fueled by emerging evidence, such as the global decline in sperm counts, has intensified concerns about the status of MRH. Consequently, there is a pressing requirement for a strategic, systematic approach to identifying critical questions, collecting pertinent information, and utilizing these data to develop evidence-based strategies. The methods for addressing these questions and the pathways toward their answers will inevitably vary based on the variations in cultural, geopolitical, and health-related contexts. To address these issues, a conjoint ESHRE and Male Reproductive Health Initiative (MRHI) Campus workshop was convened., Objective and Rationale: The three objectives were: first, to assess the current state of MRH around the world; second, to identify some of the key gaps in knowledge; and, third, to examine how MRH stakeholders can collaboratively generate intelligent and effective paths forward., Search Methods: Each expert reviewed and summarized the current literature that was subsequently used to provide a comprehensive overview of challenges related to MRH., Outcomes: This narrative report is an overview of the data, opinions, and arguments presented during the workshop. A number of outcomes are presented and can be summarized by the following overarching themes: MRH is a serious global issue and there is a plethora of gaps in our understanding; there is a need for widespread international collaborative networks to undertake multidisciplinary research into fundamental issues, such as lifestyle/environmental exposure studies, and high-quality clinical trials; and there is an urgent requirement for effective strategies to educate young people and the general public to safeguard and improve MRH across diverse population demographics and resources., Limitations Reasons for Caution: This was a workshop where worldwide leading experts from a wide range of disciplines presented and discussed the evidence regarding challenges related to MRH. While each expert summarized the current literature and placed it in context, the data in a number of areas are limited and/or sparse. Equally, important areas for consideration may have been missed. Moreover, there are clear gaps in our knowledge base, which makes some conclusions necessarily speculative and warranting of further study., Wider Implications: Poor MRH is a global issue that suffers from low awareness among the public, patients, and heathcare professionals. Addressing this will require a coordinated multidisciplinary approach. Addressing the significant number of knowledge gaps will require policy makers prioritizing MRH and its funding., Study Funding/competing Interests: The authors would like to extend their gratitude to ESHRE for providing financial support for the Budapest Campus Workshop, as well as to Microptic S.L. (Barcelona) for kindly sponsoring the workshop. P.B. is the Director of the not-for-profit organization Global Action on Men's Health and receives fees and expenses for his work, (which includes the preparation of this manuscript). Conflicts of interest: C.J.D.J., C.L.R.B., R.A.A., P.B., M.P.C., M.L.E., N.G., N.J., C.K., AAP, M.K.O., S.R.-H., M.H.V.-L.: ESHRE Campus Workshop 2022 (Travel support-personal). C.J.D.J.: Cambridge University Press (book royalties-personal). ESHRE Annual Meeting 2022 and Yale University Panel Meeting 2023 (Travel support-personal). C.L.R.B.: Ferring and IBSA (Lecture), RBMO editor (Honorarium to support travel, etc.), ExSeed and ExScentia (University of Dundee), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (for research on contraception). M.P.C.: Previously received funding from pharmaceutical companies for health economic research. The funding was not in relation to this work and had no bearing on the contents of this work. No funding from other sources has been provided in relation to this work (funding was provided to his company Global Market Access Solutions). M.L.E.: Advisor to Ro, Doveras, Next, Hannah, Sandstone. C.K.: European Academy of Andrology (Past president UNPAID), S.K.: CEO of His Turn, a male fertility Diagnostic and Therapeutic company (No payments or profits to date). R.I.M.: www.healthymale.org.au (Australian Government funded not for profit in men's health sector (Employed as Medical Director 0.2 FET), Monash IVF Pty Ltd (Equity holder)). N.J.: Merck (consulting fees), Gedeon Richter (honoraria). S.R.-H.: ESHRE (Travel reimbursements). C.N.: LLC (Nursing educator); COMMIT (Core Outcomes Measures for Infertility Trials) Advisor, meeting attendee, and co-author; COMMA (Core Outcomes in Menopause) Meeting attendee, and co-author; International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Delegate Letters and Sciences; ReproNovo, Advisory board; American Board of Urology Examiner; American Urological Association Journal subsection editor, committee member, guidelines co-author Ferring Scientific trial NexHand Chief Technology Officer, stock ownership Posterity Health Board member, stock ownership. A.P.: Economic and Social Research Council (A collaborator on research grant number ES/W001381/1). Member of an advisory committee for Merck Serono (November 2022), Member of an advisory board for Exceed Health, Speaker fees for educational events organized by Mealis Group; Chairman of the Cryos External Scientific Advisory Committee: All fees associated with this are paid to his former employer The University of Sheffield. Trustee of the Progress Educational Trust (Unpaid). M.K.O.: National Health and Medical Research Council and Australian Research Council (Funding for research of the topic of male fertility), Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Funding aimed at the development of male gamete-based contraception), Medical Research Future Fund (Funding aimed at defining the long-term consequences of male infertility). M.H.V.-L.: Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research (SRH)/Human Reproduction Programme (HRP) Research Project Panel RP2/WHO Review Member; MRHI (Core Group Member), COMMIT (member), EGOI (Member); Human Reproduction (Associate Editor), Fertility and Sterility (Editor), AndroLATAM (Founder and Coordinator)., Competing Interests: C.J.D.J., C.L.R.B., R.A.A., P.B., M.P.C., M.L.E., N.G., N.J., C.K., A.P., M.K.O., S.R.-H., M.H.V.-L.: ESHRE Campus Workshop 2022 (Travel support—personal). C.J.D.J.: Cambridge University Press (book royalties—personal). ESHRE Annual Meeting 2022 and Yale University Panel Meeting 2023 (Travel support—personal). C.L.R.B.: Ferring and IBSA (Lecture), RBMO editor (Honorarium to support travel, etc.), ExSeed and ExScentia (University of Dundee), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (for research on contraception). M.P.C.: Previously received funding from pharmaceutical companies for health economic research. The funding was not in relation to this work and had no bearing on the contents of this work. No funding from other sources has been provided in relation to this work (funding was provided to his company Global Market Access Solutions). M.L.E.: Advisor to Ro, Doveras, Next, Hannah, Sandstone. C.K.: European Academy of Andrology (Past president UNPAID), S.K.: CEO of His Turn, a male fertility Diagnostic and Therapeutic company (No payments or profits to date). R.I.M.: www.healthymale.org.au (Australian Government funded not for profit in men’s health sector (Employed as Medical Director 0.2 FET), Monash IVF Pty Ltd (Equity holder)). N.J.: Merck (consulting fees), Gedeon Richter (honoraria). C.N.: LLC (Nursing educator); COMMIT (Core Outcomes Measures for Infertility Trials) Advisor, meeting attendee, and co‐author; COMMA (Core Outcomes in Menopause) Meeting attendee, and co‐author; International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Delegate Letters and Sciences; ReproNovo, Advisory board; American Board of Urology Examiner; American Urological Association Journal subsection editor, committee member, guidelines co‐author Ferring Scientific trial NexHand Chief Technology Officer, stock ownership Posterity Health Board member, stock ownership. A.P.: Economic and Social Research Council (A collaborator on research grant number ES/W001381/1). Member of an advisory committee for Merck Serono (November 2022), Member of an advisory board for Exceed Health, Speaker fees for educational events organized by Mealis Group; Chairman of the Cryos External Scientific Advisory Committee: All fees associated with this are paid to his former employer The University of Sheffield. Trustee of the Progress Educational Trust (Unpaid). M.K.O.: National Health and Medical Research Council and Australian Research Council (Funding for research of the topic of male fertility), Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Funding aimed at the development of male gamete-based contraception), Medical Research Future Fund (Funding aimed at defining the long-term consequences of male infertility). M.H.V.-L.: Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research (SRH)/Human Reproduction Programme (HRP) Research Project Panel RP2/WHO Review Member; MRHI (Core Group Member), COMMIT (member), EGOI (Member); Human Reproduction (Associate Editor), Fertility and Sterility (Editor), AndroLATAM (Founder and Coordinator)., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Background: In 2020, SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic had a huge impact on the access to and provision of ART treatments. Gradually, knowledge of the virus and its transmission has become available, allowing ART activities to resume. Still, questions on the impact of the virus on human gametes and fertility remain., Objective and Rationale: This article summarizes published data, aiming to clarify the impact of SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 disease on human fertility and assisted reproduction, as well as the impact of vaccination, and from this, provide answers to questions that are relevant for people contemplating pregnancy and for health care professionals., Search Methods: PUBMED/MEDLINE and the WHO COVID-19 database were searched from inception to 5 October 2022 with search terms focusing on 'SARS-CoV-2' and gametes, embryos, reproductive function, fertility and ART. Non-English studies and papers published prior to 2020 were excluded, as well as reviews and non-peer reviewed publications. Full papers were assessed for relevance and quality, where feasible., Outcomes: From the 148 papers included, the following observations were made. The SARS-CoV-2-binding proteins, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and type II transmembrane serine protease (TMPRSS2), are expressed in the testis, but co-expression remains to be proven. There is some evidence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the ejaculate of COVID-19 patients with severe disease, but not in those with mild/moderate disease. SARS-CoV-2 infection can impair spermatogenesis, but this seems to resolve after one spermatogenic cycle. Testosterone levels seem to be lower during and after COVID-19, but long-term data are lacking; disease severity may be associated with testosterone levels. COVID-19 cannot be considered a sexually transmitted disease. There is no co-expression of ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in the myometrium, uterus, ovaries or fallopian tubes. Oocytes seem to have the receptors and protease machinery to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, viral RNA in oocytes has not been detected so far. Women contemplating pregnancy following COVID-19 may benefit from screening for thyroid dysfunction. There is a possible (transient) impact of COVID-19 on menstrual patterns. Embryos, and particularly late blastocysts, seem to have the machinery to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most studies have not reported a significant impact of COVID-19 on ovarian reserve, ovarian function or follicular fluid parameters. Previous asymptomatic or mild SARS-CoV-2 infection in females does not seem to negatively affect laboratory and clinical outcomes of ART. There are no data on the minimum required interval, if any, between COVID-19 recovery and ART. There is no evidence of a negative effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on semen parameters or spermatogenesis, ovarian function, ovarian reserve or folliculogenesis. A transient effect on the menstrual cycle has been documented. Despite concerns, cross reactivity between anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibodies and Syncytin-1, an essential protein in human implantation, is absent. There is no influence of mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine on patients' performance during their immediate subsequent ART cycle. Pregnancy rates post-vaccination are similar to those in unvaccinated patients., Wider Implications: This review highlights existing knowledge on the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 on fertility and assisted reproduction, but also identifies gaps and offers suggestions for future research. The knowledge presented should help to provide evidence-based advice for practitioners and couples contemplating pregnancy alike, facilitating informed decision-making in an environment of significant emotional turmoil., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Purpose: In general, men are less likely to seek health care than women. Infertility is a global disease that afflicts approximately 15% of reproductive age couples and the male contributes to 40% of the diagnosable cause. Remarkably, no large or multi-national population data exist regarding men's perceptions about their infertility. The purpose of this study was to advance our knowledge about the infertile male's social experience regarding: (1) how they feel about their infertility, (2) what motivated them to seek health care, (3) how likely are they to talk with others about their infertility, (4) their awareness of male infertility support groups, and (5) what their primary source for information is regarding male infertility? Based on the results from this study, these simple questions now have clearer definition., Materials and Methods: An Institutional Review Board-approved, male-directed, anonymous questionnaire translated into 20 languages was made globally available through the Fertility Europe website (https://fertilityeurope.eu). Males (n=1,171) age 20-49 years were invited to complete the online survey after informed consent., Results: Most respondents were European (86%). Of European men, <15.8% were self-motivated to seek medical help. Further, their physician was not the primary source of information regarding their infertility. While most men (59%) viewed their infertility positively, a large majority were not very likely (73%) to talk about it. Most respondents indicated a lack of awareness or absence of male infertility support groups., Conclusions: These are the first multi-national population data revealing men's feelings about their infertility, what motivates them to seek help and their awareness of resources for peer support and information. These findings also serve to highlight significant gaps that exist in the provision of male reproductive health care and in supportive resources for men suffering from infertility. We offer recommendations on how to address the problem(s)., Competing Interests: Christopher J. De Jonge is Associate Editor, Frontiers in Molecular and Cellular Reproduction. Steven A. Gellatly: no conflicts to disclose. Mónica H. Vazquez-Levin (MHVL) is Editor for Fertility & Sterility and for F&S Science, and Associate Editor for Human Reproduction. Christopher L.R. Barratt (CLRB), as an employee of the University of Dundee, serves on the Scientific Advisory board of ExSeed Health (from October 2021, financial compensation to the University of Dundee) and is a scientific consultant for Exscientia (from September 2021-Feb 2022, financial compensation to the University of Dundee). CLRB has previously received a fee from Cooper Surgical for lectures on scientific research methods outside the submitted work (2020) and Ferring for a lecture on male reproductive health (2021). CLRB is Editor for RBMO. Satu Rautakallio-Hokkanen: no conflicts to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 Korean Society for Sexual Medicine and Andrology.)

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., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The authors acknowledge the support of ESHRE for the data registry and meetings. J.S.T. reports grants or contracts from Sigrid Juselius Foundation, EU and Helsinki University Hospital Funds, outside the scope of the current work. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., Trial Registration Number: N/A., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Male infertility is a global health issue; yet to a large extent, our knowledge of its causes, impact and consequence is largely unknown. Recent data indicate that infertile men have an increased risk of somatic disorders such as cancer and die younger compared to fertile men. Moreover, several studies point to a significant adverse effect on the health of the offspring. From the startling lack of progress in male contraception combined with the paucity of improvements in the diagnosis of male infertility, we conclude there is a crisis in male reproductive health. The Male Reproductive Health Initiative has been organized to directly address these issues (www.eshre.eu/Specialty-groups/Special-Interest-Groups/Andrology/MRHI). The Working Group will formulate an evidence-based strategic road map outlining the ways forward. This is an open consortium desiring to engage with all stakeholders and governments., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic created a significant impact on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) services. ESHRE decided to mobilize resources in order to collect, analyse, monitor, prepare and disseminate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) knowledge specifically related to ART and early pregnancy. This article presents the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic focusing on reproductive healthcare. It details the rationale behind the guidance prepared to support MAR services in organizing and managing the re-start of treatments or in case of any future wave of COVID-19 disease. The guidance includes information on patient selection and informed consent, staff and patient triage and testing, adaptation of ART services, treatment planning and code of conduct. The initiatives detailed in this article are not necessarily COVID-specific and such action plans could be applied effectively to manage similar emergency situations in different areas of medicine, in the future., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Study Question: Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified?, Summary Answer: The top 10 research priorities for the four areas of male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care for people with fertility problems were identified., What Is Known Already: Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems., Study Design, Size, Duration: Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, diverse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance., Main Results and the Role of Chance: The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties was entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI and IVF) and ethics, access and organization of care were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from 11 countries. These research priorities were diverse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require diverse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research and population science., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, methodological decisions informed by professional judgment and arbitrary consensus definitions., Wider Implications of the Findings: We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The study was funded by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. G.D.A. reports research sponsorship from Abbott, personal fees from Abbott and LabCorp, a financial interest in Advanced Reproductive Care, committee membership of the FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, International Federation of Fertility Societies and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, and research sponsorship of the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies from Abbott and Ferring. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. A.W.H. reports research sponsorship from the Chief Scientist's Office, Ferring, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research and Wellbeing of Women and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Ferring, Nordic Pharma and Roche Diagnostics. M.L.H. reports grants from Merck, grants from Myovant, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work and ownership in Embrace Fertility, a private fertility company. N.P.J. reports research sponsorship from AbbVie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy fees from Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Roche Diagnostics and Vifor Pharma. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring and retains a financial interest in NexHand. J.S. reports being employed by a National Health Service fertility clinic, consultancy fees from Merck for educational events, sponsorship to attend a fertility conference from Ferring and being a clinical subeditor of Human Fertility. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. J.W. reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. A.V. reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the present work. All authors have completed the disclosure form., Trial Registration Number: N/A., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Study Question: Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection and reporting across future infertility research be developed?, Summary Answer: A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility., What Is Known Already: Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret., Study Design, Size, Duration: A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries)., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods., Main Results and the Role of Chance: The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition and an arbitrary consensus threshold., Wider Implications of the Findings: Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Fertility and Sterility and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study, the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of data, or manuscript preparation. B.W.J.M. is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). S.B. was supported by University of Auckland Foundation Seelye Travelling Fellowship. S.B. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form., Trial Registration Number: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

Study Question: Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting?, Summary Answer: Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements and a standardized reporting table have been developed., What Is Known Already: Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development., Study Design, Size, Duration: Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods., Main Results and the Role of Chance: Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries., Wider Implications of the Findings: A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals have committed to implementing this core outcome set., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and a financial interest in NexHand. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. J.W. reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. A.V. reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form., Trial Registration Number: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)

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., Study Funding/competing Interests: There was no funding for the study, apart from technical support from ESHRE. The authors had no COI to disclose., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.)