ESHRE guideline: medically assisted reproduction in patients with a viral infection/disease.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the recommended management for medically assisted reproduction (MAR) in patients with a viral infection or disease, based on the best available evidence in the literature? SUMMARY ANSWER: The ESHRE guideline on MAR in patients with a viral infection/disease makes 78 recommendations on prevention of horizontal and vertical transmission before, during and after MAR, and the impact on its outcomes, and these also include recommendations regarding laboratory safety on the processing and storage of gametes and embryos testing positive for viral infections. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The development of new and improved anti-viral medications has resulted in improved life expectancy and quality of life for patients with viral infections/diseases. Patients of reproductive age are increasingly exploring their options for family creation. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for the development of ESHRE guidelines. After the formulation of nine key questions for six viruses (hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, human immunodeficiency virus, human papilloma virus, human T-lymphotropic virus I/II and Zika virus) by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 2 November 2020 and written in English were included in the review. Evidence was analyzed by female, male or couple testing positive for the virus. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline group. There were 61 key questions to be answered by the guideline development group (GDG), of which 12 were answered as narrative questions and 49 as PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) questions. A stakeholder review was organized after the finalization of the 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 providers meet a growing demand for guidance on the management of patients with a viral infection/disease presenting in the fertility clinic.The guideline makes 78 recommendations on prevention of viral transmission before and during MAR, and interventions to reduce/avoid vertical transmission to the newborn. Preferred MAR treatments and interventions are described together with the effect of viral infections on outcomes. The GDG formulated 44 evidence-based recommendations-of which 37 were formulated as strong recommendations and 7 as weak-33 good practice points (GPP) and one research only recommendation. Of the evidence-based recommendations, none were supported by high-quality evidence, two by moderate-quality evidence, 15 by low-quality evidence and 27 by very low-quality evidence. To support future research in the field of MAR in patients with a viral infection/disease, a list of research recommendations is provided. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Most interventions included are not well-studied in patients with a viral infection/disease. For a large proportion of interventions, evidence was very limited and of very low quality. More evidence is required for these interventions, especially in the field of human papilloma virus (HPV). Such future studies may require the current recommendations to be revised. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in MAR for patients with a viral infection/disease, based on the best evidence currently available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in the field. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive any financial incentives, all work was provided voluntarily. A.D. reports research fees from Ferring and Merck, consulting fees from Ferring, outside the submitted work. C.P. reports speakers fees from Merck and MSD outside the submitted work. K.T. reports speakers fees from Cooper Surgical and Ferring and consultancy fees as member of the advisory board BioTeam of Ferring, outside the submitted work. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. 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.).

A comparison of perinatal outcomes in singletons and multiples born after in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection stratified for neonatal risk criteria.

OBJECTIVE: To compare perinatal singleton and multiple outcomes in a large Dutch in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) population and within risk subgroups. Newborns were assigned to a risk category based on gestational age, birthweight, Apgar score and congenital malformation. DESIGN: Register-based retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Netherlands Perinatal Registry data. SAMPLE: A total of 3041 singletons and 1788 multiple children born from IVF/ICSI in 2003-2005. METHODS: Student's t-test or Mann-Whitney U-test was used to analyze continuous data, chi-squared analyses were used for categorical data. Multivariate logistic and linear regression analysis was performed to analyze whether the risk stratification criteria were associated with neonatal hospital admission and length of stay. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Start of labor, mode of delivery, gestational age, birthweight, 5-min Apgar score, congenital malformation, neonatal hospital admission, neonatal intensive care unit admission and mortality. RESULTS: IVF/ICSI-conceived multiples had considerably poorer outcomes than singletons in terms of cesarean section rate, preterm birth, birthweight, being small-for-gestational-age, Apgar score, neonatal hospital admission, neonatal intensive care unit admission and neonatal mortality. As opposed to the results found in the total study population and the low-risk and moderate-risk populations, high-risk multiples showed better outcomes than high-risk singletons regarding cesarean section rate, birthweight and Apgar score. All risk stratification variables were associated with being hospitalized after birth. Length of stay was associated with all risk stratification criteria except Apgar score. CONCLUSIONS: Perinatal outcomes in IVF/ICSI-conceived multiples are considerably poorer than in singletons. This finding mainly pertains to low-risk children. High-risk multiples had significantly better perinatal outcomes than high-risk singletons.

Modified natural cycle versus controlled ovarian hyperstimulation IVF: a cost-effectiveness evaluation of three simulated treatment scenarios.

STUDY QUESTION: Can modified natural cycle IVF or ICSI (MNC) be a cost-effective alternative for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation IVF or ICSI (COH)? SUMMARY ANSWER: The comparison of simulated scenarios indicates that a strategy of three to six cycles of MNC with minimized medication is a cost-effective alternative for one cycle of COH with strict application of single embryo transfer (SET). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: MNC is cheaper per cycle than COH but also less effective in terms of live birth rate (LBR). However, strict application of SET in COH cycles reduces effectiveness and up to three MNC cycles can be performed at the same costs as one COH cycle. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The cost-effectiveness of MNC versus COH was evaluated in three simulated treatment scenarios: three cycles of MNC versus one cycle of COH with SET or double embryo transfer (DET) and subsequent transfer of cryopreserved embryos (Scenario 1); six cycles of MNC versus one cycle of COH with strictly SET and subsequent transfer of cryopreserved embryos (Scenario 2); six cycles of MNC with minimized medication (hCG ovulation trigger only) versus one cycle of COH with SET or DET and subsequent transfer of cryopreserved embryos (Scenario 3). We used baseline data obtained from two retrospective cohorts of consecutive patients (2005-2008) undergoing MNC in the University Medical Center Groningen (n = 499, maximum six cycles per patient) or their first COH cycle with subsequent transfer of cryopreserved embryos in the Academic Medical Center Amsterdam (n = 392). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Data from 1994 MNC cycles (958 MNC-IVF and 1036 MNC-ICSI) and 392 fresh COH cycles (one per patient, 196 COH-IVF and 196 COH-ICSI) with subsequent transfer of cryopreserved embryos (n = 72 and n = 94 in MNC and COH cycles, respectively) in ovulatory, subfertile women <36 years of age served as baseline for the three simulated scenarios. To compare the scenarios, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, defined as the ratio of the difference in IVF costs up to 6 weeks postpartum to the difference in LBR. Live birth was the primary outcome measure and was defined as the birth of at least one living child after a gestation of ≥25 weeks. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In the baseline data, MNC was not cost-effective, as COH dominated MNC with a higher cumulative LBR (27.0 versus 24.0%) and lower cost per patient (€3694 versus €5254). The simulations showed that in scenario 1 three instead of six cycles lowered the costs of MNC to below the level of COH (€3390 versus €3694, respectively), but also lowered the LBR per patient (from 24.0 to 16.2%, respectively); Scenario 2: COH with strict SET was less effective than six cycles MNC (LBR 17.5 versus 24.0%, respectively), but also less expensive per patient (€2908) than MNC (€5254); Scenario 3: improved the cost-effectiveness of MNC but COH still dominated MNC when medication was minimized in terms of costs, i.e. €855 difference in favor of COH and 3% difference in LBR in favor of COH (ICER: €855/-3.0%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Owing to the retrospective nature of the study, the analyses required some assumptions, for example regarding the costs of pregnancy and delivery, which had to be based on the literature rather than on individual data. Furthermore, costs of IVF treatment were based on tariffs and not on actual costs. Although this may limit the external generalizability of the results, the limitations will influence both treatments equally, and would therefore not bias the comparison of MNC versus COH. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The combined results suggest that MNC with minimized medication might be a cost-effective alternative for COH with strict SET. The scenarios reflect realistic alternatives for daily clinical practice. A preference for MNC depends on the willingness to trade off effectiveness in terms of LBR against the benefits of a milder stimulation regimen, including a very low rate of multiple pregnancies and hyperstimulation syndrome and ensuing lower costs per live birth. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was supported by research grants from Merck Serono and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Long term costs and effects of reducing the number of twin pregnancies in IVF by single embryo transfer: the TwinSing study.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancies induced by in vitro fertilisation (IVF) often result in twin gestations, which are associated with both maternal and perinatal complications. An effective way to reduce the number of IVF twin pregnancies is to decrease the number of embryos transferred from two to one. The interpretation of current studies is limited because they used live birth as outcome measure and because they applied limited time horizons. So far, research on long-term outcomes of IVF twins and singletons is scarce and inconclusive. The objective of this study is to investigate the short (1-year) and long-term (5 and 18-year) costs and health outcomes of IVF singleton and twin children and to consider these in estimating the cost-effectiveness of single embryo transfer compared with double embryo transfer, from a societal and a healthcare perspective. METHODS/DESIGN: A multi-centre cohort study will be performed, in which IVF singletons and IVF twin children born between 2003 and 2005 of whom parents received IVF treatment in one of the five participating Dutch IVF centres, will be compared. Data collection will focus on children at risk of health problems and children in whom health problems actually occurred. First year of life data will be collected in approximately 1,278 children (619 singletons and 659 twin children). Data up to the fifth year of life will be collected in approximately 488 children (200 singletons and 288 twin children). Outcome measures are health status, health-related quality of life and costs. Data will be obtained from hospital information systems, a parent questionnaire and existing registries. Furthermore, a prognostic model will be developed that reflects the short and long-term costs and health outcomes of IVF singleton and twin children. This model will be linked to a Markov model of the short-term cost-effectiveness of single embryo transfer strategies versus double embryo transfer strategies to enable the calculation of the long-term cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This is, to our knowledge, the first study that investigates the long-term costs and health outcomes of IVF singleton and twin children and the long-term cost-effectiveness of single embryo transfer strategies versus double embryo transfer strategies.