RESUMO
STUDY QUESTION: How are ART and IUI regulated, funded, and registered in European countries, and how has the situation changed since 2018? 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 varies across and sometimes within countries (and is lacking or minimal in four countries), and national registries are in place in 33 countries; only a small number of changes were identified, most of them in the direction of improving accessibility, through increased public financial support and/or opening access to additional subgroups. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The annual reports of the European IVF-Monitoring Consortium (EIM) clearly show the existence of different approaches across Europe regarding accessibility to and efficacy of ART and IUI treatments. In a previous survey, some coherent information was gathered about how those techniques were regulated, funded, and registered in European countries, showing that diversity is the paradigm in this medical field. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A survey was designed using the SurveyMonkey tool consisting of 90 questions covering several domains (legal, funding, and registry) and considering specific details on the situation of third-party donations. New questions widened the scope of the previous survey. Answers refer to the situation of countries on 31 December 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS: All members of the EIM were invited to participate. The received answers were checked and initial responders were asked to address unclear answers and to provide any additional information considered relevant. Tables resulting from the consolidated data were then sent to members of the Committee of National Representatives of ESHRE, requesting 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 45 European countries where ART and IUI are performed. There were 39 countries with specific legislation on ART, and artificial insemination was considered an ART technique in 33 of them. Accessibility is limited to infertile couples only in 8 of the 43 countries. In 5 countries, ART and IUI are permitted also for treatments of single women and all same sex couples, while a total of 33 offer treatment to single women and 19 offer treatment to female couples. Use of donated sperm is allowed in all except 2 countries, oocyte donation is allowed in 38, simultaneous donation of sperm and oocyte is allowed in 32, and embryo donation is allowed in 29 countries. Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT)-M/SR (for monogenetic disorders, structural rearrangements) is not allowed in 3 countries and PGT-A (for aneuploidy) is not allowed in 10; surrogacy is accepted in 15 countries. Except for marital/sexual situation, female age is the most frequently reported limiting criterion for legal access to ART: minimal age is usually set at 18 years and the maximum ranges from 42 to 54 with some countries not using numeric definition. Male maximum age is set in very few countries. Where third-party donors are permitted, age is frequently a limiting criterion (male maximum age ranging from 35 to 50; female maximum age from 30 to 37). Other legal restrictions in third-party donation are the number of children born from the same donor (or, in some countries, the number of families with children from the same donor) and, in 12 countries, there is a maximum number of oocyte donations. How countries deal with the anonymity is diverse: strict anonymity, anonymity just for the recipients (not for children when reaching legal adulthood age), a mixed system (anonymous and non-anonymous donations), and strict non-anonymity. Inquiring about donors' genetic screening showed that most countries have enforced either mandatory or scientific recommendations that exclude the most prevalent genetic diseases, although, again, diversity is evident. Reimbursement/compensation systems exist in more than 30 European countries, with around 10 describing clearly defined maximum amounts considered acceptable. Public funding systems are extremely variable. One country provides no financial assistance to ART/IUI patients and three offer only minimal support. Limits to the provision of funding are defined in the others i.e. age (female maximum age is the most used), existence of previous children, BMI, maximum number of treatments publicly supported, and techniques not entitled for funding. In a few countries reimbursement is linked to a clinical policy. The definitions of the type of expenses covered within an IVF/ICSI cycle, up to which limit, and the proportion of out-of-pocket costs for patients are also extremely dissimilar. National registries of ART are in place in 33 out of the 43 countries contributing to the survey and a registry of donors exists in 19 of them. When comparing with the results of the previous survey, the main changes are: (i) an extension of the beneficiaries of ART techniques (and IUI), evident in nine countries; (ii) public financial support exists now in Albania and Armenia; (iii) in Luxembourg, the only ART centre expanded its on-site activities; (iv) donor-conceived children are entitled to know the donor identity in six countries more than in 2018; and (v) four more countries have set a maximum number of oocyte donations. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although the responses were provided by well-informed and committed individuals and submitted to double checking, no formal validation by official bodies was in place. Therefore, possible inaccuracies cannot be excluded. The results presented are a cross-section in time, and ART and IUI frameworks within European countries undergo continuous modification. Finally, some domains of ART activity were deliberately left out of the scope of this survey. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our results offer a detailed updated view of the ART and IUI situation in European countries. It provides extensive answers to many relevant questions related to ART usage at the national level and could be used by institutions and policymakers at both national and European levels. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study has no external funding, and all costs were covered by ESHRE. There were no competing interests.
RESUMO
STUDY QUESTION: Does unilateral volume-adjusted laparoscopic diathermy increase the chances of ovulation in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Although unilateral laparoscopic ovarian drilling (ULOD) using adjusted thermal doses was more efficient than bilateral laparoscopic ovarian drilling (BLOD) using fixed doses, the chances of ovulation were improved in patients irrespective of the technique used. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The adjustment of the thermal dose to ovarian volume in BLOD increases ovulation and pregnancy rates compared with fixed-dose treatment, but BLOD causes the formation of adhesions, particularly on the left ovary, and increases the risk of damage to ovarian tissue. In contrast, ULOD with a fixed thermal dose minimizes the risk of ovarian tissue damage, and can increase the activity in both right and left ovaries, although this varies in humans and in other species. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This prospective, longitudinal, study, between September 2009 and January 2013, included 96 infertile women with PCOS who were unresponsive to clomiphene citrate treatment and had underwent either ULOD or BLOD. After surgery, the groups were followed up for 6 months to assess ovulatory response. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Patients were assigned to two groups; one group underwent laparoscopic ovarian drilling of the right ovary alone, while both ovaries were treated in the second group. The ULOD group (n = 49) received thermal doses adjusted to the volume of the right ovary (60 J/cm³). The BLOD group (n = 47) received fixed doses of 600 J per ovary, regardless of its volume. The two treatment groups were matched by the number of participants, age and baseline parameters. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The ovulation rate during the first menstrual cycle after LOD was significantly higher in the ULOD group than in the BLOD group [73 versus 49%; absolute risk reduction (ARR), -0.25; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.44 to -0.03; P = 0.014]. Treatment with ULOD on the right ovary significantly increased the chances of ovulation in patients with a larger right ovary compared with those who had a smaller right ovary (100 versus 36%; ARR, -0.64; 95% CI, -0.84 to -0.37; P = 0.004). Interestingly, the chances of ovulation were also significantly higher in patients in the BLOD group who had a larger right ovary compared with those who had a smaller right ovary (88 versus 33%; ARR, -0.55; 95% CI, -0.73 to -0.28; P = 0.002). The pregnancy rate was also significantly higher in patients with a larger right ovary compared with those with a smaller right ovary, regardless of the treatment group. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The 6-month follow-up was too short to demonstrate any long-term differences in the ovulation rates. Future research should therefore extend the follow-up beyond 6 months. Another limitation is that ULOD was used to treat only the right ovary. Future studies should investigate whether ULOD treatment of the larger ovary, whether left or right, would significantly increase the ovulation rate. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study represents an advance in the determination of the optimal laparoscopic treatment for women with PCOS, as it was shown that improved results can be achieved using less thermal energy in volume-adjusted ULOD.
