Suchergebnisse

QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY The impact of assisted reproductive technology (ART) on Swiss demography was quantified. From 1993 to 2012 the number of deliveries, including multiples, generated by ART was compared with overall delivery numbers. Swiss experts in ART collaborated in a consensus to increase successful outcomes, to reduce the incidence of complications of ART and to validate recommendations through statistical review of available data. METHODS Data generated between 1993 and 2012 and published by the Federal Office of Statistics (BfS) were compared with the Swiss database on ART (FIVNAT-CH) as organised by the Swiss Society of Reproductive Medicine (SGRM). From these analyses a panel of Swiss experts in ART extracted recommendations to improve current practice, to prevent complications related to ART and to recommend changes in current Swiss legislation dealing with ART. RESULTS Since 1993 the age of women giving birth rose together with the number of women asking for ART. This demographic trend was reflected in a rise in the number of deliveries generated by ART (in 2012: 2.2%) and the proportion of multiple births (in 2012: 17.6%). The outcome of ART was most negatively influenced by the age of the treated patient. The number of retrieved oocytes decisively impacted the likelihood of delivery, the risk of multiple births and the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. CONCLUSIONS Optimal ovarian stimulation should be designed for the retrieval of 10 to 15 oocytes per treatment. Swiss legislation should enable and stimulate a policy of elective single embryo transfer to avoid multiple births.

STUDY QUESTION: How has the performance of the European regional register of the European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM)/European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) evolved from 1997 to 2016, as compared to the register of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the USA and the Australia and New Zealand Assisted Reproduction Database (ANZARD)? SUMMARY ANSWER: It was found that coherent and analogous changes are recorded in the three regional registers over time, with a different intensity and pace, that new technologies are taken up with considerable delay and that incidental complications and adverse events are only recorded sporadically. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: European data on ART have been collected since 1997 by EIM. Data collection on ART in Europe is particularly difficult due to its fragmented political and legal landscape. In 1997, approximately 78.1% of all known institutions offering ART services in 23 European countries submitted data and in 2016 this number rose to 91.8% in 40 countries. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We compared the changes in European ART data as published in the EIM reports (2001-2020) with those of the USA, as published by CDC, and with those of Australia and New Zealand, as published by ANZARD. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of the published EIM data sets spanning the 20 years observance period from 1997 to 2016, together with the published data sets of the USA as well as of Australia and New Zealand. By comparing the data sets in these three large registers, we analysed differences in the completeness of the recordings together with differences in the time intervals on the occurrence of important trends in each of them. Effects of suspected over- and under-reporting were also compared between the three registers. X2 log-rank analysis was used to assess differences in the data sets. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: During the period 1997-2016, the numbers of recorded ART treatments increased considerably (5.3-fold in Europe, 4.6-fold in the USA, 3.0-fold in Australia and New Zealand), while the number of registered treatment modalities rose from 3 to 7 in Europe, from 4 to 10 in the USA and from 5 to 8 in Australia and New Zealand, as published by EIM, CDC and ANZARD, respectively. The uptake of new treatment modalities over time has been very different in the three registers. There is a considerable degree of underreporting of the number of initiated treatment cycles in Europe. The relationship between IVF and ICSI and between fresh and thawing cycles evolved similarly in the three geographical areas. The freeze-all strategy is increasingly being adopted by all areas, but in Europe with much delay. Fewer cycles with the transfer of two or more embryos were reported in all three geographical areas. The delivery rate per embryo transfer in thawing cycles bypassed that in fresh cycles in the USA in 2012, in Australia and New Zealand in 2013, but not yet in Europe. As a result of these changing approaches, fewer multiple deliveries have been reported. Since 2012, the most documented adverse event of ART in all three registers has been premature birth (<37 weeks). Some adverse events, such as maternal death, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, haemorrhage and infections, were only recorded by EIM and ANZARD. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The methods of data collection and reporting were very different among European countries, but also among the three registers. The better the legal background on ART surveillance, the more complete are the data sets. Until the legal obligation to report is installed in all European countries together with an appropriate quality control of the submitted data the reported numbers and incidences should be interpreted with caution. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The growing number of reported treatments in ART, the higher variability in treatment modalities and the rising contribution to the birth rates over the last 20 years point towards the increasing impact of ART. High levels of completeness in data reporting have been reached, but inconsistencies and inaccuracies still remain and need to be identified and quantified. The current trend towards a higher diversity in treatment modalities and the rising impact of cryostorage, resulting in improved safety during and after ART treatment, require changes in the organization of surveillance in ART. The present comparison must stimulate all stakeholders in ART to optimize surveillance and data quality assurance in ART. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study has no external funding and all costs are covered by ESHRE. There are no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

STUDY QUESTION: How has the performance of the European regional register of the European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM)/European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) evolved from 1997 to 2016, as compared to the register of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the USA and the Australia and New Zealand Assisted Reproduction Database (ANZARD)? SUMMARY ANSWER: It was found that coherent and analogous changes are recorded in the three regional registers over time, with a different intensity and pace, that new technologies are taken up with considerable delay and that incidental complications and adverse events are only recorded sporadically. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: European data on ART have been collected since 1997 by EIM. Data collection on ART in Europe is particularly difficult due to its fragmented political and legal landscape. In 1997, approximately 78.1% of all known institutions offering ART services in 23 European countries submitted data and in 2016 this number rose to 91.8% in 40 countries. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We compared the changes in European ART data as published in the EIM reports (2001-2020) with those of the USA, as published by CDC, and with those of Australia and New Zealand, as published by ANZARD. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of the published EIM data sets spanning the 20 years observance period from 1997 to 2016, together with the published data sets of the USA as well as of Australia and New Zealand. By comparing the data sets in these three large registers, we analysed differences in the completeness of the recordings together with differences in the time intervals on the occurrence of important trends in each of them. Effects of suspected over- and under-reporting were also compared between the three registers. X2 log-rank analysis was used to assess differences in the data sets. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: During the period 1997-2016, the numbers of recorded ART treatments increased considerably (5.3-fold in Europe, 4.6-fold in the USA, 3.0-fold in Australia and New Zealand), while the number of registered treatment modalities rose from 3 to 7 in Europe, from 4 to 10 in the USA and from 5 to 8 in Australia and New Zealand, as published by EIM, CDC and ANZARD, respectively. The uptake of new treatment modalities over time has been very different in the three registers. There is a considerable degree of underreporting of the number of initiated treatment cycles in Europe. The relationship between IVF and ICSI and between fresh and thawing cycles evolved similarly in the three geographical areas. The freeze-all strategy is increasingly being adopted by all areas, but in Europe with much delay. Fewer cycles with the transfer of two or more embryos were reported in all three geographical areas. The delivery rate per embryo transfer in thawing cycles bypassed that in fresh cycles in the USA in 2012, in Australia and New Zealand in 2013, but not yet in Europe. As a result of these changing approaches, fewer multiple deliveries have been reported. Since 2012, the most documented adverse event of ART in all three registers has been premature birth (<37 weeks). Some adverse events, such as maternal death, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, haemorrhage and infections, were only recorded by EIM and ANZARD. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The methods of data collection and reporting were very different among European countries, but also among the three registers. The better the legal background on ART surveillance, the more complete are the data sets. Until the legal obligation to report is installed in all European countries together with an appropriate quality control of the submitted data the reported numbers and incidences should be interpreted with caution. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The growing number of reported treatments in ART, the higher variability in treatment modalities and the rising contribution to the birth rates over the last 20 years point towards the increasing impact of ART. High levels of completeness in data reporting have been reached, but inconsistencies and inaccuracies still remain and need to be identified and quantified. The current trend towards a higher diversity in treatment modalities and the rising impact of cryostorage, resulting in improved safety during and after ART treatment, require changes in the organization of surveillance in ART. The present comparison must stimulate all stakeholders in ART to optimize surveillance and data quality assurance in ART. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study has no external funding and all costs are covered by ESHRE. There are no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

STUDY QUESTION: How are ART and IUI regulated, funded and registered in European countries? SUMMARY ANSWER: Of the 43 countries performing ART and IUI in Europe, and participating in the survey, specific legislation exists in only 39 countries, public funding (also available in the 39 countries) varies across and sometimes within countries and national registries are in place in 31 countries. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Some information devoted to particular aspects of accessibility to ART and IUI is available, but most is fragmentary or out-dated. Annual reports from the European IVF-Monitoring (EIM) Consortium for ESHRE clearly mirror different approaches in European countries regarding accessibility to and efficacy of those techniques. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: A survey was designed using the online SurveyMonkey tool consisting of 55 questions concerning three domains-legal, funding and registry. Answers refer to the countries' situation on 31 December 2018. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTINGS METHODS: All members of EIM plus representatives of countries not yet members of the Consortium were invited to participate. Answers received were checked, and initial responders were asked to address unclear answers and to provide any additional information they considered important. Tables of individual countries resulting from the consolidated data were then sent to members of the Committee of National Representatives of ESHRE, asking for a second check. Conflicting information was clarified by direct contact. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Information was received from 43 out of the 44 European countries where ART and IUI are performed. Thirty-nine countries reported specific legislation on ART, and artificial insemination was considered an ART technique in 35 of them. Accessibility is limited to infertile couples in 11 of the 43 countries. A total of 30 countries offer treatments to single women and 18 to female couples. In five countries ART and IUI are permitted for treatment of all patient groups, being infertile couples, single women and same sex couples, male and female. Use of donated sperm is allowed in 41 countries, egg donation in 38, the simultaneous donation of sperm and egg in 32 and embryo donation in 29. Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) for monogenic disorders or structural rearrangements is not allowed in two countries, and PGT for aneuploidy is not allowed in 11; surrogacy is accepted in 16 countries. With the exception of marital/sexual situation, female age is the most frequently reported limiting criteria for legal access to ART-minimal age is usually set at. 18 years and maximum ranging from 45 to 51 years with some countries not using numeric definition. Male maximum age is set in very few countries. Where permitted, age is frequently a limiting criterion for third-party donors (male maximum age 35 to 55 years; female maximum age 34 to 38 years). Other legal constraints in third-party donation are the number of children born from the same donor (in some countries, number of families with children from the same donor) and, in 10 countries, a maximum number of egg donations. How countries deal with the anonymity is diverse-strict anonymity, anonymity just for the recipients (not for children when reaching legal adulthood age), mixed system (anonymous and non-anonymous donations) and strict non-anonymity.Public funding systems are extremely variable. Four countries provide no financial assistance to patients. Limits to the provision of funding are defined in all the others i.e. age (female maximum age is the most used), existence of previous children, maximum number of treatments publicly supported and techniques not entitled for funding. In a few countries, reimbursement is linked to a clinical policy. The definition of the type of expenses covered within an IVF/ICSI cycle, up to what limit and the proportion of out-of-pocket costs for patients is also extremely dissimilar.National registries of ART and IUI are in place in 31 out of the 43 countries contributing to the survey, and a registry of donors exists in 18 of them. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The responses were provided by well-informed and committed individuals and submitted to double checking. Since no formal validation was in place, possible inaccuracies cannot be excluded. Also, results are a cross section in time and ART and IUI legislations within European countries undergo continuous evolution. Finally, several domains of ART activity were deliberately left out of the scope of this ESHRE survey. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Results of this survey offer a detailed view of the ART and IUI situation in European countries. It provides updated and extensive answers to many relevant questions related to ART usage at national level and could be used by institutions and policymakers in planning services at both national and European levels. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study has no external funding, and all costs were covered by ESHRE. There were no competing interests.ESHRE Pages are not externally peer reviewed. This article has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

STUDY QUESTION: How are ART and IUI regulated, funded and registered in European countries? SUMMARY ANSWER: Of the 43 countries performing ART and IUI in Europe, and participating in the survey, specific legislation exists in only 39 countries, public funding (also available in the 39 countries) varies across and sometimes within countries and national registries are in place in 31 countries. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Some information devoted to particular aspects of accessibility to ART and IUI is available, but most is fragmentary or out-dated. Annual reports from the European IVF-Monitoring (EIM) Consortium for ESHRE clearly mirror different approaches in European countries regarding accessibility to and efficacy of those techniques. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: A survey was designed using the online SurveyMonkey tool consisting of 55 questions concerning three domains-legal, funding and registry. Answers refer to the countries' situation on 31 December 2018. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTINGS METHODS: All members of EIM plus representatives of countries not yet members of the Consortium were invited to participate. Answers received were checked, and initial responders were asked to address unclear answers and to provide any additional information they considered important. Tables of individual countries resulting from the consolidated data were then sent to members of the Committee of National Representatives of ESHRE, asking for a second check. Conflicting information was clarified by direct contact. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Information was received from 43 out of the 44 European countries where ART and IUI are performed. Thirty-nine countries reported specific legislation on ART, and artificial insemination was considered an ART technique in 35 of them. Accessibility is limited to infertile couples in 11 of the 43 countries. A total of 30 countries offer treatments to single women and 18 to female couples. In five countries ART and IUI are permitted for treatment of all patient groups, being infertile couples, single women and same sex couples, male and female. Use of donated sperm is allowed in 41 countries, egg donation in 38, the simultaneous donation of sperm and egg in 32 and embryo donation in 29. Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) for monogenic disorders or structural rearrangements is not allowed in two countries, and PGT for aneuploidy is not allowed in 11; surrogacy is accepted in 16 countries. With the exception of marital/sexual situation, female age is the most frequently reported limiting criteria for legal access to ART-minimal age is usually set at. 18 years and maximum ranging from 45 to 51 years with some countries not using numeric definition. Male maximum age is set in very few countries. Where permitted, age is frequently a limiting criterion for third-party donors (male maximum age 35 to 55 years; female maximum age 34 to 38 years). Other legal constraints in third-party donation are the number of children born from the same donor (in some countries, number of families with children from the same donor) and, in 10 countries, a maximum number of egg donations. How countries deal with the anonymity is diverse-strict anonymity, anonymity just for the recipients (not for children when reaching legal adulthood age), mixed system (anonymous and non-anonymous donations) and strict non-anonymity.Public funding systems are extremely variable. Four countries provide no financial assistance to patients. Limits to the provision of funding are defined in all the others i.e. age (female maximum age is the most used), existence of previous children, maximum number of treatments publicly supported and techniques not entitled for funding. In a few countries, reimbursement is linked to a clinical policy. The definition of the type of expenses covered within an IVF/ICSI cycle, up to what limit and the proportion of out-of-pocket costs for patients is also extremely dissimilar.National registries of ART and IUI are in place in 31 out of the 43 countries contributing to the survey, and a registry of donors exists in 18 of them. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The responses were provided by well-informed and committed individuals and submitted to double checking. Since no formal validation was in place, possible inaccuracies cannot be excluded. Also, results are a cross section in time and ART and IUI legislations within European countries undergo continuous evolution. Finally, several domains of ART activity were deliberately left out of the scope of this ESHRE survey. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Results of this survey offer a detailed view of the ART and IUI situation in European countries. It provides updated and extensive answers to many relevant questions related to ART usage at national level and could be used by institutions and policymakers in planning services at both national and European levels. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study has no external funding, and all costs were covered by ESHRE. There were no competing interests.ESHRE Pages are not externally peer reviewed. This article has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.