Good practice recommendations on add-ons in reproductive medicine†

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.

ESHRE survey results and good practice recommendations on managing chromosomal mosaicism

STUDY QUESTION

How should ART/preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) centres manage the detection of chromosomal mosaicism following PGT?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Thirty good practice recommendations were formulated that can be used by ART/PGT centres as a basis for their own policy with regards to the management of ‘mosaic’ embryos.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The use of comprehensive chromosome screening technologies has provided a variety of data on the incidence of chromosomal mosaicism at the preimplantation stage of development and evidence is accumulating that clarifies the clinical outcomes after transfer of embryos with putative mosaic results, with regards to implantation, miscarriage and live birth rates, and neonatal outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This document was developed according to a predefined methodology for ESHRE good practice recommendations. Recommendations are supported by data from the literature, a large survey evaluating current practice and published guidance documents. The literature search was performed using PubMed and focused on studies published between 2010 and 2022. The survey was performed through a web-based questionnaire distributed to members of the ESHRE special interest groups (SIG) Reproductive Genetics and Embryology, and the ESHRE PGT Consortium members. It included questions on ART and PGT, reporting, embryo transfer policy and follow-up of transfers. The final dataset represents 239 centres.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The working group (WG) included 16 members with expertise on the ART/PGT process and chromosomal mosaicism. The recommendations for clinical practice were formulated based on the expert opinion of the WG, while taking into consideration the published data and results of the survey.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Eighty percent of centres that biopsy three or more cells report mosaicism, even though only 66.9% of all centres have validated their technology and only 61.8% of these have validated specifically for the calling of chromosomal mosaicism. The criteria for designating mosaicism, reporting and transfer policies vary significantly across the centres replying to the survey. The WG formulated recommendations on how to manage the detection of chromosomal mosaicism in clinical practice, considering validation, risk assessment, designating and reporting mosaicism, embryo transfer policies, prenatal testing and follow-up. Guidance is also provided on the essential elements that should constitute the consent forms and the genetic report, and that should be covered in genetic counselling. As there are several unknowns in chromosomal mosaicism, it is recommended that PGT centres monitor emerging data on the topic and adapt or refine their policy whenever new insights are available from evidence.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Rather than providing instant standardized advice, the recommendations should help ART/PGT centres in developing their own policy towards the management of putative mosaic embryos in clinical practice.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This document will help facilitate a more knowledge-based approach for dealing with chromosomal mosaicism in different centres. In addition to recommendations for clinical practice, recommendations for future research were formulated. Following up on these will direct research towards existing research gaps with direct translation to clinical practice. Emerging data will help in improving guidance, and a more evidence-based approach of managing chromosomal mosaicism.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The WG received technical support from ESHRE. M.D.R. participated in the EQA special advisory group, outside the submitted work, and is the chair of the PGT WG of the Belgian society for human genetics. D.W. declared receiving salary from Juno Genetics, UK. A.C. is an employee of Igenomix, Italy and C.R. is an employee of Igenomix, Spain. C.S. received a research grant from FWO, Belgium, not related to the submitted work. I.S. declared being a Co-founder of IVFvision Ltd, UK. J.R.V. declared patents related to ‘Methods for haplotyping single-cells’ and ‘Haplotyping and copy number typing using polymorphic variant allelic frequencies’, and being a board member of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis International Society (PGDIS) and International Society for Prenatal Diagnosis (ISPD). K.S. reported being Chair-elect of ESHRE. The other authors had nothing to disclose.

DISCLAIMER

This Good Practice Recommendations (GPR) 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 be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care, or be 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, 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. 

O-042 ESHRE good practice recommendations on chromosomal mosaicism

The implementation of high-resolution genome-wide methods, usually next-generation sequencing-based, in preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), has led to the frequent detection of embryos with chromosomal mosaicism (whole chromosome and/or segmental aberrations). Despite a growing series of papers showing the birth of healthy babies following the transfer of embryos indicating mosaicism on PGT-A analysis - albeit with lower implantation rates and higher miscarriage rates in comparison with euploid embryo transfer - many questions remain, making it difficult to decide on how to handle chromosomally mosaic embryos in the clinic.

A dedicated ESHRE working group developed good practice recommendations on how to manage chromosomal mosaicism in clinical practice. The recommendations were formulated based on the expert opinion of the working group while taking into consideration the published data and outcomes of a survey on current practices in 239 PGT laboratories and ART clinics, mostly within Europe, Asia and America. The recommendations with regards to detection and management of chromosomal mosaicism were developed following the manual for development of ESHRE good practice recommendations with a stakeholder review of the paper on the ESHRE website. In addition to the recommendations, the working group identified missing information and scientific questions, which should guide further research in PGT, with relevance to the occurrence, detection and impact of chromosomal mosaicism.

Trial registration number:

P-280 Potential for improvement and current limitations of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for embryo selection: analysis of external validation data

Study question

What are the prospects of improvement and the limitations of an AI system for embryo selection?

Summary answer

The predictive performance of AI can be enhanced by including additional factors, on top of embryo images, and by assessing images with centered blastocysts.

What is known already

We previously reported the external validation of IVFvision.ai, an AI algorithm that differentiates between Day-5 blastocysts with a positive or negative implantation outcome. IVFvision.ai had higher AUC and overall accuracy in predicting implantation compared to KIDScoreD5 and senior embryologists. Here we report a secondary analysis of external validation data, focusing on a) the improvement of the predictive ability of IVFvision.ai by incorporating data from additional sources, and b) the impact of the blastocyst image quality on the performance of IVFvision.ai.

Study design, size, duration

This is a secondary analysis of external validation data. External validation of IVFvision.ai was performed at a University IVF Clinic using 113 anonymised Embryoscope images of single D5 blastocyst transfers with known implantation outcome.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

The performance of IVFvision.ai and three senior Embryologists to correctly classify blastocysts according to implantation outcome were compared in images in which the whole blastocyst was visible (centred blastocysts, n = 62) vs images in which part of the blastocyst was not visible (off-centred blastocysts, n = 51). Logistic regression models were created: a) IVFvision alone, b) IVFvision+age, c) IVFvision+fertilisation_method, d) IVFvision+KIDScoreD5, e) IVFvision+age+Fertilisation_method+KIDScoreD5. The AUC of each model in predicting implantation was estimated using ROC curve analysis.

Main results and the role of chance

The AUC of IVFVision.ai (0.675 vs 0.432), Embryologist 1 (0.570 vs 0.390), Embryologist 2 (0.663 vs 0.448) and Embryologist 3 (0.628 vs 0.485) were higher for images with centered blastocysts compared to non-centered blastocysts, respectively. There was a progressive increase of AUC with the addition of more factors in the predictive models. a) IVFvision alone: AUC=0.675, b) IVFvision+age: AUC=0.675 c) IVFvision+KIDScoreD5: AUC=0.721 d) IVFvision+fertilisation_method=0.740, e) IVFvision+age+Fertilisation_method+KIDScoreD5=0.768.

Limitations, reasons for caution

The retrospective nature of the study and the small sample of the study raise the need for further prospective studies with a larger number of embryos.

Wider implications of the findings

The highest performance of IVFvision.ai is achieved in images with centred blastocysts, suggesting that implantation cannot be predicted accurately in images with non-centred blastocysts. In addition, we provide provide proof of concept that training AI systems using data from different sources, in addition to embryo images, may increase overall accuracy.

Trial registration number

not applicable

Fertilization signatures as biomarkers of embryo quality

Fertilization underpins the vital transition from gametic meiosis to embryonic mitosis. For decades, in human IVF, microscopic observation at a single time point has limited our appreciation of the morphokinetic complexity of this process. More recently, the introduction of time lapse technology-also enhanced by combination with artificial intelligence-has revealed the finest morphokinetic details of the beginning of human development. Overall, a picture has finally emerged in which the precise timing, morphology and geometry of several fertilization events offer clues to predict the fate of the embryo-a key aspect of assisted reproduction. In this scenario, correct unfolding of intra- and interpronuclear rearrangements emerge as a crucial factor to create a platform able to preserve genetic and cellular integrity at the first mitotic cleavage.

P–755 Perinatal outcomes following Day–4 embryo transfer compared to Day–2, Day–3 and Day–5 embryo transfer: an analysis of 56,346 singleton live births

Study question

Are perinatal outcomes of singleton live births following Day–4 embryo transfer (ET) different to Day–2, Day–3 and Day–5 ET?

Summary answer

Perinatal outcomes of singleton live births following Day–4 ET are similar with those following Day–2, Day–3 and Day–5 ET.

What is known already

The morula represents a critical stage in preimplantation embryo development, but the usage of morula transfer on Day–4 has received little attention. Recent work from our group suggested that live birth rates following Day–4 ET appear higher than cleavage-stage ET, but lower than blastocyst ET. Therefore, Day–4 appears an alternative day to perform ET, offering the benefits of extended culture for embryo selection, but with shorter in-vitro culture exposure, as well as improving flexibility and planning in the IVF Clinic. However, there are extremely limited data available on the perinatal outcomes after Day–4 ET compared to cleavage-stage and blastocyst ET.

Study design, size, duration

Retrospective cohort study using data from the anonymised dataset of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) in the UK between 2000 and 2016. Data from singleton live births of women undergoing their first IVF/ICSI cycle were analysed to compare perinatal outcomes after fresh Day–2,3,4,5 embryo transfers.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

Births resulting from the first, fresh, autologous, stimulated, non-PGT cycles, with full data, were included. After exclusions, a total 56,346 singleton live births were included in the analysis (17,613 from Day–2 ET, 15,533 from Day–3 ET, 508 from Day–4, 22,692 from Day–5 ET).

Binary/multinomial logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust for important cofounders. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated. The level of significance was set at < 0.05.

Main results and the role of chance

The probabilities of birth at full-term (FT) and normal birthweight (NBW) after Day–4 transfer (FT 90.4%; NBW 84.6%) were similar to Day–2 (FT 89.7%, aOR 0.994, [0.734–1.344]; NBW 81.9%, aOR 0.881, [0.708–1.096]), Day–3 (FT 90.2%, aOR 1.026, [0.760–1.386]; NBW 82.4%, aOR 0.894, [0.719–1.111]) and Day–5 transfer (FT 90.4%, aOR 1.001, [0.743–1.350]; NBW 83.7%, aOR 0.920, [0.741–1.142]).

The probabilities of preterm birth (PTB) and very preterm birth (VPTB) after Day–4 transfer (PTB 9.3%; VPTB 0.4%) were similar to Day–2 (PTB 9.5%; aOR=0.952; VPTB 0.8%; aOR=2.172), Day–3 (PTB 9.0%, aOR=0.920; VPTB 0.9%, aOR=2.174), and Day–5 transfer (PTB 8.8%; aOR=0.955; VPTB 0.8%, aOR=1.956).

The probabilities of very-low birthweight (VLBW), low birthweight (LBW), high birthweight (HBW) and very-high birthweight (VHBW) after Day–4 transfer (VLBW 0.9%, LBW 7.9%, HBW 6.3%, VHBW 0.3%) were similar to Day–2 (VLBW 1.8%, aOR=1.827; LBW 8.0%, aOR=1.015; HBW 8.1%, aOR=1.174; VHBW 0.2%, aOR=0.590), Day–3 (VLBW 1.8%, aOR=1.788; LBW 7.4%, aOR=0.927; HBW 8.3%, aOR=1.256; VHBW 0.2%, aOR=0.503) and Day–5 transfer (VLBW 1.6%, aOR=1.782; LBW 6.9%, aOR=0.894; HBW 7.5%, aOR=1.215; VHBW 0.2%, aOR=0.796).

The probability of having a female baby after Day–4 transfer (51.6%) was similar to Day–2 (49.2%, aOR 0.940), Day–3 (49.3%, aOR 0.931) and Day–5 transfer (48.3%, aOR 0.869).

Limitations, reasons for caution

The study is limited by its retrospective nature, the inability to adjust for additional confounders and the small number of singleton births after Day–4 ET. It is not known how Day–4 ET was decided. The incidence of congenital abnormalities was not analysed due to incomplete registration in the dataset.

Wider implications of the findings: Perinatal outcomes of singleton live births following Day–4 ET are similar with those following Day–2, Day–3 and Day–5 ET, suggesting that morula transfer is equally safe as cleavage-stage and blastocyst transfer. Data on a larger number of live births from well-designed RCTs are required to confirm these findings.

Trial registration number

Not applicable

ESHRE PGT Consortium and SIG Embryology good practice recommendations for polar body and embryo biopsy for PGT

The field of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) is evolving fast, and best practice advice is essential for regulation and standardisation of diagnostic testing. The previous ESHRE guidelines on best practice for PGD, published in 2005 and 2011, are considered outdated, and the development of new papers outlining recommendations for good practice in PGT was necessary.

The current paper provides recommendations on the technical aspects of embryo biopsy and covers recommendations on the biopsy procedure, cryopreservation and laboratory issues and training, in addition to technical aspects and strengths and limitations specific for currently used techniques at different stages (polar body, cleavage stage and blastocyst biopsy). Furthermore, alternative sampling methods are briefly described.This paper is one of a series of four papers on good practice recommendations on PGT. The other papers cover the organisation of PGT, and the different technical aspects of PGT for monogenic/single-gene defects (PGT-M) and PGT for chromosomal structural rearrangements/aneuploidies (PGT-SR/PGT-A).

Together, these papers should assist everyone interested in PGT in developing the best laboratory and clinical practice possible.