ESHRE PGT Consortium good practice recommendations for the organisation of PGT.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: ESHRE PGT Consortium Steering Committee
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7257038 | biostudies-literature | 2020
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
ESHRE PGT Consortium good practice recommendations for the organisation of PGT.
Carvalho Filipa F Coonen Edith E Goossens Veerle V Kokkali Georgia G Rubio Carmen C Meijer-Hoogeveen Madelon M Moutou Céline C Vermeulen Nathalie N De Rycke Martine M
Human reproduction open 20200529 3
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ESHRE guidelines on best practice for preimplantation genetic diagnosis, published in 2005 and 2011, are considered outdated and the development of new papers outlining recommendations for good practice in PGT was necessary.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 updated version of the recommendations for good practice is, similar to the 2011 vers ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: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 The previous ESHRE guidelines on best practice for PGD, published in 2005 and 2011, are considered outdated, and the development of new papers outlining recommendations for good practice in PGT was necessary.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 PGT for monogenic/single-gene defects (PGT-M) and covers recommendations on basic methods for PGT-M and testing strategies. Furthermore, some specific recommendations are formulated for special cases, including de novo pathogenic variants, consanguineous couples, HLA typing, exclusion testing and disorders caused by pathogenic variants in the mitochondrial DNA. This paper is one of a series of four papers on good practice recommendations on PGT. The other papers cover the organisation of a PGT centre, embryo biopsy and tubing and the technical aspects of PGT for chromosomal structural rearrangements/aneuploidies. Together, these papers should assist scientists interested in PGT in developing the best laboratory and clinical practice possible.
| S-EPMC7257022 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7257009 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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 PGT for chromosomal structural rearrangements (PGT-SR) and PGT for aneuploidies (PGT-A) and covers recommendations on array-based comparative genomic hybridisation (aCGH) and next-generation sequencing (NGS) for PGT-SR and PGT-A and on fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array for PGT-SR, including laboratory issues, work practice controls, pre-examination validation, preclinical work-up, risk assessment and limitations. Furthermore, some general recommendations on PGT-SR/PGT-A are formulated around training and general risk assessment, and the examination and post-examination process. This paper is one of a series of four papers on good practice recommendations on PGT. The other papers cover the organisation of a PGT centre, embryo biopsy and tubing and the technical aspects of PGT for monogenic/single-gene defects (PGT-M). Together, these papers should assist everyone interested in PGT in developing the best laboratory and clinical practice possible.
| S-EPMC7257111 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study questionWhat are the trends and developments in pre-implantation genetic testing (PGT) in 2016-2017 as compared to previous years?Summary answerThe main trends observed in this 19th and 20th data set on PGT are that trophectoderm biopsy has become the main biopsy stage for PGT for aneuploidies (PGT-A) and that the implementation of comprehensive testing technologies is the most advanced with PGT-A.What is known alreadySince it was established in 1997, the ESHRE PGT Consortium has been collecting and analysing data from mainly European PGT centres. To date, 18 data sets and an overview of the first 10 years of data collections have been published.Study design size durationThe data for PGT analyses performed between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2017 with a 2-year follow-up after analysis were provided by participating centres on a voluntary basis. Data were collected using a new online platform, which is based on genetic analysis as opposed to the former cycle-based format.Participants/materials setting methodsData on biopsy method, diagnostic technology and clinical outcome were submitted by 61 centres. Records with analyses for more than one PGT for monogenic/single gene defects (PGT-M) and/or PGT for chromosomal structural rearrangements (PGT-SR) indication or with inconsistent data regarding the PGT modality were excluded. All transfers performed within 2 years after the analysis were included enabling the calculation of cumulative pregnancy rates. Data analysis, calculations, figures and tables were made by expert co-authors.Main results and the role of chanceThe current data collection from 2016 to 2017 covers a total of 3098 analyses for PGT-M, 1018 analyses for PGT-SR, 4033 analyses for PGT-A and 654 analyses for concurrent PGT-M/SR with PGT-A.The application of blastocyst biopsy is gradually rising for PGT-M (from 8-12% in 2013-2015 to 19% in 2016-2017), is status quo for PGT-R (from 22-36% in 2013-2015 to 30% in 2016-2017) and has become the preferential biopsy stage for PGT-A (from 23-36% in 2013-2015 to 87% in 2016-2017). For concurrent PGT-M/SR with PGT-A, biopsy was primarily performed at the blastocyst stage (93%). The use of comprehensive diagnostic technology showed a similar trend with a small increased use for PGT-M (from 9-12% in 2013-2015 to 15% in 2016-2017) and a status quo for PGT-SR (from 36-58% in 2013-2015 to 50% in 2016-2017). Comprehensive testing was the main technology for PGT-A (from 66-75% in 2013-2015 to 93% in 2016-2017) and for concurrent PGT-M/SR with PGT-A (93%).Limitations reasons for cautionThe findings apply to the data submitted by 61 participating centres and do not represent worldwide trends in PGT. Details on the health of babies born were not provided in this manuscript.Wider implications of the findingsBeing the largest data collection on PGT in Europe/worldwide, the data sets provide a valuable resource for following trends in PGT practice.Study funding/competing interestsThe study has no external funding and all costs are covered by ESHRE. There are no competing interests declared.Trial registration numberN/A.
| S-EPMC8313404 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study questionWhat are the trends and developments in preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) in 2013-2015 as compared to previous years?Summary answerThe main trends observed in the retrospective data collections 2013-2015, representing valuable data on PGT activity in (mainly) Europe, are the increased application of trophectoderm biopsy at the cost of cleavage stage biopsy and the continuing expansion of comprehensive testing technology in PGT for chromosomal structural rearrangements and for aneuploidies (PGT-SR and PGT-A).What is known alreadySince it was established in 1997, the ESHRE PGT Consortium has been collecting data from international PGT centres. To date, 15 data sets and an overview of the first 10 years of data collections have been published.Study design size durationCollection of (mainly) European data by the PGT Consortium for ESHRE. The data for PGT cycles performed between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2015 were provided by participating centres on a voluntary basis. For the collection of cycle, pregnancy and baby data, separate, pre-designed MS Excel tables were used.Participants/materials setting methodsData were submitted by 59, 60 and 59 centres respectively for 2013, 2014 and 2015 (full PGT Consortium members). Records with incomplete or inconsistent data were excluded from the calculations. Corrections, calculations, figures and tables were made by expert co-authors.Main results and the role of chanceFor data collection XVI/XVII/XVIII, 59/60/59 centres reported data on 8164/9769/11 120 cycles with oocyte retrieval: 5020/6278/7155 cycles for PGT-A, 2026/2243/2661 cycles for PGT for monogenic/single gene defects, 1039/1189/1231 cycles for PGT-SR and 79/59/73 cycles for sexing for X-linked diseases. From 2013 until 2015, the uptake of biopsy at the blastocyst stage was mainly observed in cycles for PGT-A (from 23% to 36%) and PGT-SR (from 22% to 36%), alongside the increased application of comprehensive testing technology (from 66% to 75% in PGT-A and from 36% to 58% in PGT-SR).Limitations reasons for cautionThe findings apply to the 59/60/59 participating centres and may not represent worldwide trends in PGT. Data were collected retrospectively and no details of the follow-up on PGT pregnancies and babies born were provided.Wider implications of the findingsBeing the largest data collection on PGT worldwide, detailed information about ongoing developments in the field is provided.Study funding/competing interestsThe study has no external funding and all costs are covered by ESHRE. There are no competing interests declared.Trial registration numberN/A.
| S-EPMC7532546 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study questionWhat recommendations can be provided to improve terminology for normal and ectopic pregnancy description on ultrasound?Summary answerThe present ESHRE document provides 17 consensus recommendations on how to describe normally sited and different types of ectopic pregnancies on ultrasound.What is known alreadyCurrent diagnostic criteria stipulate that each type of ectopic pregnancy can be defined by clear anatomical landmarks which facilitates reaching a correct diagnosis. However, a clear definition of normally sited pregnancies and a comprehensive classification of ectopic pregnancies are still lacking.Study design size durationA working group of members of the ESHRE Special Interest Group in Implantation and Early Pregnancy (SIG-IEP) and selected experts in ultrasound was formed in order to write recommendations on the classification of ectopic pregnancies.Participants/materials setting methodsThe working group included nine members of different nationalities with internationally recognised experience in ultrasound and diagnosis of ectopic pregnancies on ultrasound. This document is developed according to the manual for development of ESHRE recommendations for good practice. The recommendations were discussed until consensus by the working group, supported by a survey among the members of the ESHRE SIG-IEP.Main results and the role of chanceA clear definition of normally sited pregnancy on ultrasound scan is important to avoid misdiagnosis of uterine ectopic pregnancies. A comprehensive classification of ectopic pregnancy must include definitions and descriptions of each type of ectopic pregnancy. Only a classification which provides descriptions and diagnostic criteria for all possible locations of ectopic pregnancy would be fit for use in routine clinical practice. The working group formulated 17 recommendations on the diagnosis of the different types of ectopic pregnancies on ultrasound. In addition, for each of the types of ectopic pregnancy, a schematic representation and examples on 2D and 3D ultrasound are provided.Limitations reasons for cautionOwing to the limited evidence available, recommendations are mostly based on clinical and technical expertise.Wider implications of the findingsThis document is expected to have a significant impact on clinical practice in ultrasound for early pregnancy. The development of this terminology will help to reduce the risk of misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment.Study funding/competing interestsThe meetings of the working group were funded by ESHRE. T.T. declares speakers' fees from GE Healthcare. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.Trial registration numberN/A.DisclaimerThis Good Practice Recommendations (GPR) document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and where relevant based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. ESHRE's GPRs should be used for informational and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor 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, nor variations based on locality and facility type. Furthermore, ESHRE's GPRs do not constitute or imply the endorsement, recommendation or favouring of any of the included technologies by ESHRE.
| S-EPMC7738750 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cardiologists undertaking percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are excited by the combination of patient and physician satisfaction and technological advance occurring on the background of the necessary manual dexterity. Progress and applicability of percutaneous techniques since their inception in 1977 have been remarkable; a sound evidence base coupled with the enthusiasm and ingenuity of the medical device industry has resulted in a sea change in the treatment of coronary heart disease (CHD), which continues to evolve at breakneck speed. This is the third set of guidelines produced by the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society and the British Cardiac Society. Following the last set of guidelines published in 2000, we have seen PCI activity in the UK increase from 33,652 to 62,780 (87% in four years) such that the PCI to coronary artery bypass grafting ratio has increased to 2.5:1. The impact of drug eluting stents has been profound, and the Department of Health is investigating the feasibility of primary PCI for acute myocardial infarction. Nevertheless, the changes in the structure of National Health Service funding are likely to focus our attention on cost effective treatments and will require physician engagement and sensitive handling if we are to continue the rapid and appropriate growth in our chosen field. It is important with this burgeoning development now occurring on a broad front (in both regional centres and district general hospitals) that we maintain our vigilance on audit and outcome measures so that standards are maintained for both operators and institutions alike. This set of guidelines includes new sections on training, informed consent, and a core evidence base, which we hope you will find useful and informative.
| S-EPMC1876395 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Discharge Medicines Review (DMR) referral system, Refer-to-Pharmacy (RTP), PharmOutcomes and Help for Harry are UK transfer of care systems that aim to reduce the risks associated with hospital discharge. These systems use technology to facilitate the transmission of discharge information to community pharmacy, allowing community pharmacists to provide an adherence-support service. Despite the evidence that these systems benefit patient safety, there is a paucity of literature on their use. This study aimed to describe, compare and contrast these systems to highlight areas that could inform good practice recommendations. A rapid literature review was completed, and from the twenty-six sources of literature that were synthesised, three themes were identified for further exploration in semi-structured interviews with key informants: implementation, system attributes and stakeholder engagement. The key informants were purposively sampled for their role in the development and/or strategic implementation of each transfer of care system (n = 4). Audio recordings were transcribed ad verbatim and analysed both deductively and inductively. One interview was undertaken for each of the DMR, RTP and PharmOutcomes systems. Although all systems shared the same aim, differences were identified such as automated feedback for referrals, marketing strategies and practitioner accountability. Good practice recommendations suggested in this study could be applied to the future development of such systems.
| S-EPMC8005999 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study questionWhat is good practice in ultrasound (US), and more specifically during the different stages of transvaginal oocyte retrieval, based on evidence in the literature and expert opinion on US practice in ART?Summary answerThis document provides good practice recommendations covering technical aspects of US-guided transvaginal oocyte retrieval (oocyte pick up: OPU) formulated by a group of experts after considering the published data, and including the preparatory stage of OPU, the actual procedure and post-procedure care.What is known alreadyUS-guided transvaginal OPU is a widely performed procedure, but standards for best practice are not available.Study design size durationA working group (WG) collaborated on writing recommendations on the practical aspects of transvaginal OPU. A literature search for evidence of the key aspects of the procedure was carried out. Selected papers (n = 190) relevant to the topic were analyzed by the WG.Participants/materials setting methodsThe WG members considered the following key points in the papers: whether US practice standards were explained; to what extent the OPU technique was described and whether complications or incidents and how to prevent such events were reported. In the end, only 108 papers could be used to support the recommendations in this document, which focused on transvaginal OPU. Laparoscopic OPU, transabdominal OPU and OPU for IVM were outside the scope of the study.Main results and the role of chanceThere was a scarcity of studies on the actual procedural OPU technique. The document presents general recommendations for transvaginal OPU, and specific recommendations for its different stages, including prior to, during and after the procedure. Most evidence focussed on comparing different equipment (needles) and on complications and risks, including the risk of infection. For these topics, the recommendations were largely based on the results of the studies. Recommendations are provided on equipment and materials, possible risks and complications, audit and training. One of the major research gaps was training and competence. This paper has also outlined a list of research priorities (including clarification on the value or full blood count, antibiotic prophylaxis and flushing, and the need for training and proficiency).Limitations reasons for cautionThe recommendations of this paper were mostly based on clinical expertise, as at present, only a few clinical trials have focused on the oocyte retrieval techniques, and almost all available data are observational. In addition, studies focusing on OPU were heterogeneous with significant difference in techniques used, which made drafting conclusions and recommendations based on these studies even more challenging.Wider implications of the findingsThese recommendations complement previous guidelines on the management of good laboratory practice in ART. Some useful troubleshooting/checklist recommendations are given for easy implementation in clinical practice. These recommendations aim to contribute to the standardization of a rather common procedure that is still performed with great heterogeneity.Study funding/competing interestsThe meetings of the WG were funded by ESHRE. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.Trial registration numberNA.ESHRE Pages content is not externally peer reviewed. The manuscript has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.
| S-EPMC6903452 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPerioperative cardiac arrest is a rare complication with an incidence of around 1 in 1400 cases, but it carries a high burden of mortality reaching up to 70% at 30 days. Despite its specificities, guidelines for treatment of perioperative cardiac arrest are lacking. Gathering the available literature may improve quality of care and outcome of patients.MethodsThe PERIOPCA Task Force identified major clinical questions about the management of perioperative cardiac arrest and framed them into the therapy population [P], intervention [I], comparator [C], and outcome [O] (PICO) format. Systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for articles published until September 2020 were performed. Consensus-based treatment recommendations were created using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The strength of consensus among the Task Force members about the recommendations was assessed through a modified Delphi consensus process.ResultsTwenty-two PICO questions were addressed, and the recommendations were validated in two Delphi rounds. A summary of evidence for each outcome is reported and accompanied by an overall assessment of the evidence to guide healthcare providers.ConclusionsThe main limitations of our work lie in the scarcity of good quality evidence on this topic. Still, these recommendations provide a basis for decision making, as well as a guide for future research on perioperative cardiac arrest.
| S-EPMC8323279 | biostudies-literature