Person:

Racowsky, Catherine

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Can a consensus and evidence-driven set of terms and definitions be generated to be used globally in order to ensure consistency when reporting on infertility issues and fertility care interventions, as well as to harmonize communication among the medical and scientific communities, policy-makers, and lay public including individuals and couples experiencing fertility problems? SUMMARY ANSWER A set of 283 consensus-based and evidence-driven terminologies used in infertility and fertility care has been generated through an inclusive consensus-based process with multiple stakeholders. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY In 2006 the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ICMART) published a first glossary of 53 terms and definitions. In 2009 ICMART together with WHO published a revised version expanded to 87 terms, which defined infertility as a disease of the reproductive system, and increased standardization of fertility treatment terminology. Since 2009, limitations were identified in several areas and enhancements were suggested for the glossary, especially concerning male factor, demography, epidemiology and public health issues. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Twenty-five professionals, from all parts of the world and representing their expertise in a variety of sub-specialties, were organized into five working groups: clinical definitions; outcome measurements; embryology laboratory; clinical and laboratory andrology; and epidemiology and public health. Assessment for revisions, as well as expansion on topics not covered by the previous glossary, were undertaken. A larger group of independent experts and representatives from collaborating organizations further discussed and assisted in refining all terms and definitions. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Members of the working groups and glossary co-ordinators interacted through electronic mail and face-to-face in international/regional conferences. Two formal meetings were held in Geneva, Switzerland, with a final consensus meeting including independent experts as well as observers and representatives of international/regional scientific and patient organizations. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE A consensus-based and evidence-driven set of 283 terminologies used in infertility and fertility care was generated to harmonize communication among health professionals and scientists as well as the lay public, patients and policy makers. Definitions such as ‘fertility care’ and ‘fertility awareness’ together with terminologies used in embryology and andrology have been introduced in the glossary for the first time. Furthermore, the definition of ‘infertility’ has been expanded in order to cover a wider spectrum of conditions affecting the capacity of individuals and couples to reproduce. The definition of infertility remains as a disease characterized by the failure to establish a clinical pregnancy; however, it also acknowledges that the failure to become pregnant does not always result from a disease, and therefore introduces the concept of an impairment of function which can lead to a disability. Additionally, subfertility is now redundant, being replaced by the term infertility so as to standardize the definition and avoid confusion. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION All stakeholders agreed to the vast majority of terminologies included in this glossary. In cases where disagreements were not resolved, the final decision was reached after a vote, defined before the meeting as consensus if passed with 75%. Over the following months, an external expert group, which included representatives from non-governmental organizations, reviewed and provided final feedback on the glossary. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Some terminologies have different definitions, depending on the area of medicine, for example demographic or clinical as well as geographic differences. These differences were taken into account and this glossary represents a multinational effort to harmonize terminologies that should be used worldwide. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS None. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.

Abstract BACKGROUND Successful cryopreservation of oocytes and embryos is essential not only to maximize the safety and efficacy of ovarian stimulation cycles in an IVF treatment, but also to enable fertility preservation. Two cryopreservation methods are routinely used: slow-freezing or vitrification. Slow-freezing allows for freezing to occur at a sufficiently slow rate to permit adequate cellular dehydration while minimizing intracellular ice formation. Vitrification allows the solidification of the cell(s) and of the extracellular milieu into a glass-like state without the formation of ice. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE The objective of our study was to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes following slow-freezing/thawing versus vitrification/warming of oocytes and embryos and to inform the development of World Health Organization guidance on the most effective cryopreservation method. SEARCH METHODS A Medline search was performed from 1966 to 1 August 2016 using the following search terms: (Oocyte(s) [tiab] OR (Pronuclear[tiab] OR Embryo[tiab] OR Blastocyst[tiab]) AND (vitrification[tiab] OR freezing[tiab] OR freeze[tiab]) AND (pregnancy[tiab] OR birth[tiab] OR clinical[tiab]). Queries were limited to those involving humans. RCTs and cohort studies that were published in full-length were considered eligible. Each reference was reviewed for relevance and only primary evidence and relevant articles from the bibliographies of included articles were considered. References were included if they reported cryosurvival rate, clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), live-birth rate (LBR) or delivery rate for slow-frozen or vitrified human oocytes or embryos. A meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model to calculate relative risk ratios (RR) and 95% CI. OUTCOMES One RCT study comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification of oocytes was included. Vitrification was associated with increased ongoing CPR per cycle (RR = 2.81, 95% CI: 1.05–7.51; P = 0.039; 48 and 30 cycles, respectively, per transfer (RR = 1.81, 95% CI 0.71–4.67; P = 0.214; 47 and 19 transfers) and per warmed/thawed oocyte (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.02–1.28; P = 0.018; 260 and 238 oocytes). One RCT comparing vitrification versus fresh oocytes was analysed. In vitrification and fresh cycles, respectively, no evidence for a difference in ongoing CPR per randomized woman (RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.87–1.21; P = 0.744, 300 women in each group), per cycle (RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.86–1.18; P = 0.934; 267 versus 259 cycles) and per oocyte utilized (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.82–1.26; P = 0.873; 3286 versus 3185 oocytes) was reported. Findings were consistent with relevant cohort studies. Of the seven RCTs on embryo cryopreservation identified, three met the inclusion criteria (638 warming/thawing cycles at cleavage and blastocyst stage), none of which involved pronuclear-stage embryos. A higher CPR per cycle was noted with embryo vitrification compared with slow-freezing, though this was of borderline statistical significance (RR = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.00–3.59; P = 0.051; three RCTs; I2 = 71.9%). LBR per cycle was reported by one RCT performed with cleavage-stage embryos and was higher for vitrification (RR = 2.28; 95% CI: 1.17–4.44; P = 0.016; 216 cycles; one RCT). A secondary analysis was performed focusing on embryo cryosurvival rate. Pooled data from seven RCTs (3615 embryos) revealed a significant improvement in embryo cryosurvival following vitrification as compared with slow-freezing (RR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.30–1.93; P < 0.001; I2 = 93%). WIDER IMPLICATIONS Data from available RCTs suggest that vitrification/warming is superior to slow-freezing/thawing with regard to clinical outcomes (low quality of the evidence) and cryosurvival rates (moderate quality of the evidence) for oocytes, cleavage-stage embryos and blastocysts. The results were confirmed by cohort studies. The improvements obtained with the introduction of vitrification have several important clinical implications in ART. Based on this evidence, in particular regarding cryosurvival rates, laboratories that continue to use slow-freezing should consider transitioning to the use of vitrification for cryopreservation.