Search

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 is the recommended management for couples presenting with unexplained infertility (UI), based on the best available evidence in the literature? SUMMARY ANSWER The evidence-based guideline on UI makes 52 recommendations on the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of UI. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY UI is diagnosed in the absence of any abnormalities of the female and male reproductive systems after 'standard' investigations. However, a consensual standardization of the diagnostic work-up is still lacking. The management of UI is traditionally empirical. The efficacy, safety, costs, and risks of treatment options have not been subjected to robust evaluation. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for ESHRE guidelines. Following formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches, and assessments were undertaken. Papers written in English and published up to 24 October 2022 were evaluated. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Based on the available evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline development group (GDG). Following stakeholder review of an initial 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 clinicians provide the best care for couples with UI. As UI is a diagnosis of exclusion, the guideline outlined the basic diagnostic procedures that couples should/could undergo during an infertility work-up, and explored the need for additional tests. The first-line treatment for couples with UI was deemed to be IUI in combination with ovarian stimulation. The place of additional and alternative options for treatment of UI was also evaluated. The GDG made 52 recommendations on diagnosis and treatment for couples with UI. The GDG formulated 40 evidence-based recommendations—of which 29 were formulated as strong recommendations and 11 as weak—10 good practice points and two research only recommendations. Of the evidence-based recommendations, none were supported by high-quality evidence, one by moderate-quality evidence, nine by low-quality evidence, and 31 by very low-quality evidence. To support future research in UI, a list of research recommendations was provided. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Most additional diagnostic tests and interventions in couples with UI have not been subjected to robust evaluation. For a large proportion of these tests and treatments, evidence was very limited and of very low quality. More evidence is required, and the results of future studies may result in the current recommendations being revised. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in the care of couples with UI, based on the best evidence currently available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in the field. The full guideline and a patient leaflet are available in www.eshre.eu/guideline/UI. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The guideline was developed by ESHRE, who funded the guideline meetings, literature searches, and dissemination of the guideline in collaboration with the Monash University led Australian NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Women's Health in Reproductive Life (CREWHIRL). The guideline group members did not receive any financial incentives; all work was provided voluntarily. D.R. reports honoraria from IBSA and Novo Nordisk. B.A. reports speakers' fees from Merck, Gedeon Richter, Organon and Intas Pharma; is part of the advisory board for Organon Turkey and president of the Turkish Society of Reproductive Medicine. S.B. reports speakers' fees from Merck, Organon, Ferring, the Ostetric and Gynaecological Society of Singapore and the Taiwanese Society for Reproductive Medicine; editor and contributing author, Reproductive Medicine for the MRCOG, Cambridge University Press; is part of the METAFOR and CAPE trials data monitoring committee. E.B. reports research grants from Roche diagnostics, Gedeon Richter and IBSA; speaker's fees from Merck, Ferring, MSD, Roche Diagnostics, Gedeon Richter, IBSA; E.B. is also a part of an Advisory Board of Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Roche Diagnostics, IBSA, Merck, Abbott and Gedeon Richter. M.M. reports consulting fees from Mojo Fertility Ltd. R.J.N. reports research grant from Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC); consulting fees from Flinders Fertility Adelaide, VinMec Hospital Hanoi Vietnam; speaker's fees from Merck Australia, Cadilla Pharma India, Ferring Australia; chair clinical advisory committee Westmead Fertility and research institute MyDuc Hospital Vietnam. T.P. is a part of the Research Council of Finland and reports research grants from Roche Diagnostics, Novo Nordics and Sigrid Juselius foundation; consulting fees from Roche Diagnostics and organon; speaker's fees from Gedeon Richter, Roche, Exeltis, Organon, Ferring and Korento patient organization; is a part of NFOG, AE-PCOS society and several Finnish associations. S.S.R. reports research grants from Roche Diagnostics, Organon, Theramex; consulting fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD and Organon; speaker's fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD/Organon, Besins, Theramex, Gedeon Richter; travel support from Gedeon Richter; S.S.R. is part of the Data Safety Monitoring Board of TTRANSPORT and deputy of the ESHRE Special Interest Group on Safety and Quality in ART; stock or stock options from IVI Lisboa, Clínica de Reprodução assistida Lda; equipment/medical writing/gifts from Roche Diagnostics and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. S.K.S. reports speakers' fees from Merck, Ferring, MSD, Pharmasure. HRV reports consulting and travel fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. The other authors have nothing to disclose. 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 early pregnancies be accurately and cost-effectively diagnosed and managed using a new medical computerized tool? SUMMARY ANSWER Compared to the standard clinical approach, retrospective implementation of the new medical software in a gynaecological emergency unit was correlated with more accurate diagnosis and more cost-effective management. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Early pregnancy complications are responsible for a large percentage of consultations, mostly in emergency units, with guidelines becoming complex and poorly known/misunderstood by practitioners. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A total of 780 gynaecological emergency consultations (446 patients), recorded between November 2018 and June 2019 in a tertiary university hospital, were retrospectively encoded in a new medical computerized tool. The inclusion criteria were a positive hCG test result, ultrasonographical visualization of gestational sac, and/or embryo corresponding to a gestational age of 14 weeks or less. Diagnosis and management suggested by the new computerized tool are named eDiagnoses, while those provided by a gynaecologist member of the emergency department staff are called medDiagnoses. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Usability was the primary endpoint, with accuracy and cost reduction, respectively, as secondary and tertiary endpoints. Identical eDiagnoses/medDiagnoses were considered as accurate. During follow-up visits, if the updated eDiagnoses and medDiagnoses became both identical to a previously discrepant eDiagnosis or medDiagnosis, this previous eDiagnosis or medDiagnosis was also considered as correct. Four double-blinded experts reviewed persistent discrepancies, determining the accurate diagnoses. eDiagnoses/medDiagnoses accuracies were compared using McNemar's Chi square test, sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Only 1 (0.1%) from 780 registered medical records lacked data for full encoding. Out of the 779 remaining consultations, 675 eDiagnoses were identical to the medDiagnoses (86.6%) and 104 were discrepant (13.4%). From these 104, 60 reached an agreement during follow-up consultations, with 59 medDiagnoses ultimately changing into the initial eDiagnoses (98%) and only one discrepant eDiagnosis turning later into the initial medDiagnosis (2%). Finally, 24 remained discrepant at all subsequent checks and 20 were not re-evaluated. Out of these 44, the majority of experts agreed on 38 eDiagnoses (86%) and 5 medDiagnoses (11%, including four twin pregnancies whose twinness was the only discrepancy). No majority was reached for one discrepant eDiagnosis/medDiagnosis (2%). In total, the accuracy of eDiagnoses was 99.1% (675 + 59 + 38 = 772 eDiagnoses out of 779), versus 87.4% (675 + 1 + 5 = 681) for medDiagnoses (P  < 0.0001). Calculating all basic costs of extra consultations, extra-medications, extra-surgeries, and extra-hospitalizations induced by incorrect medDiagnoses versus eDiagnoses, the new medical computerized tool would have saved 3623.75 Euros per month. Retrospectively, the medical computerized tool was usable in almost all the recorded cases (99.9%), globally more accurate (99.1% versus 87.4%), and for all diagnoses except twinning reports, and it was more cost-effective than the standard clinical approach. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The retrospective study design is a limitation. Some observed improvements with the medical software could derive from the encoding by a rested and/or more experienced physician who had a better ultrasound interpretation. This software cannot replace clinical and ultrasonographical skills but may improve the compliance to published guidelines. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This medical computerized tool is improving. A new version considers diagnosis and management of multiple pregnancies with their specificities (potentially multiple locations, chorioamnionicity). Prospective evaluations will be required. Further developmental steps are planned, including software incorporation into ultrasound devices and integration of previously published predictive/prognostic factors (e.g. serum progesterone, corpus luteum scoring). STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) No external funding was obtained for this study. F.B. and D.G. created the new medical software. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT03993015 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: What is the likelihood of success of a single cycle of preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders (PGT-M), measured as the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) and based on various patient demographics?Summary Answer: For all women aged ≤40 years, the CLBR was at least 10% when the number of oocytes was ≥7 (range 10-30%) or was at least 5% when the number of oocytes was ≥3 (range 5-17%).What Is Known Already: The number of oocytes is significantly associated with the number of embryos for genetic testing and the clinical outcome in PGT-M. Embryos diagnosed as affected or embryos that remain without diagnosis cannot be used for embryo transfer. The size of the group of embryos non-suitable for transfer varies between 25% and 81%, depending on the indication. Thus, PGT-M is more likely to be more severely impacted by suboptimal ovarian response, poor fertilization and suboptimal embryo development than conventional IVF/ICSI schemes without PGT.Study Design, Size, Duration: This was a single-centre retrospective comparative cohort study, of cycles between January 2011 and December 2015. A total number of 2265 PGT-M cycles were compared to 2833 conventional ICSI cycles. The principal aim of our study was the identification of the parameters of poor CLBR in couples undergoing PGT-M using multiplex short tandem repeat (STR) markers on blastomere biopsy DNA. The secondary aim was to compare the parameters of poor CLBR of the PGT-M population to those of couples undergoing ICSI without PGT.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: The baseline characteristics of the PGT-M group were compared to the conventional ICSI group. A multiple regression analysis was applied to account for the following potential confounding factors: female age, number of previous ART cycles, number of oocytes/suitable embryos for transfer and dosage of gonadotrophins used for ovarian stimulation.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: The PGT-M group was younger (female age 32.0 vs 34.5 years), had a higher number of previous ART cycles (1.1 vs 0.9 cycles) and used more gonadotrophins (2367 vs 1984 IU). Per cycle, the PGT-M group had more retrieved oocytes (11.8 vs 8.3 oocytes), fewer suitable embryos for transfer (1.7 vs 2.8 embryos) and a lower CLBR (29.4% vs 35.0%). Multiple regression analysis showed that the CLBR in the PGT-M group was significantly influenced by female age, the number of previous ART cycles, the number of oocytes and the dose of ovarian stimulation. In both groups, the predicted CLBR increased with increasing numbers of oocytes and suitable embryos. At least two retrieved oocytes or one embryo per single PGT-M cycle could confer an estimated CLBR above 10%. By assessing female age and the number of retrieved oocytes together, it was shown that for all women aged ≤40 years, the predicted CLBR per single PGT-M cycle was ≥10% when the number of oocytes was ≥7 or was ≥5% when the number of oocytes was ≥3.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: Despite the large sample size, the findings are confined by limited confounder adjustment and the lack of specific PGT-M comparators.Wider Implications Of the Findings: This study aimed to describe the likelihood of success of PGT-M treatment, measured as CLBR, based on various patient demographics. In a PGT-M program, couples need to be informed of the prognosis more specifically when it is futile. The table of predicted CLBRs presented in this study is a useful tool in counselling PGT-M couples for making reproductive choices.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): No funding was required and there are no competing interests.Trial Registration Number: N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]