Dataset Information

ESHRE PGT Consortium data collection XVI–XVIII: cycles from 2013 to 2015†

ABSTRACT: Abstract STUDY QUESTION What are the trends and developments in preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) in 2013–2015 as compared to previous years? SUMMARY ANSWER The 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 ALREADY Since 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, DURATION Collection 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, METHODS Data 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 CHANCE For 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 CAUTION The 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 FINDINGS Being the largest data collection on PGT worldwide, detailed information about ongoing developments in the field is provided. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The study has no external funding and all costs are covered by ESHRE. There are no competing interests declared. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.

SUBMITTER: Coonen E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7532546 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Substance use is common among people living with HIV and has been associated with suboptimal HIV treatment outcomes. Integrating substance use services into HIV care is a promising strategy to improve patient outcomes. METHODS:We report on substance use education, screening, and referral practices from two surveys of HIV care and treatment sites participating in the International epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) consortium. HIV care and treatment sites participating in IeDEA are primarily public-sector health facilities and include both academic and community-based hospitals and health facilities. A total of 286 sites in 45 countries participated in the 2014-2015 survey and 237 sites in 44 countries participated in the 2017 survey. We compared changes over time for 147 sites that participated in both surveys. RESULTS:In 2014-2015, most sites (75%) reported providing substance use-related education on-site (i.e., at the HIV clinic or the same health facility). Approximately half reported on-site screening for substance use (52%) or referrals for substance use treatment (51%). In 2017, the proportion of sites providing on-site substance use-related education, screening, or referrals increased by 9%, 16%, and 8%, respectively. In 2017, on-site substance use screening and referral were most commonly reported at sites serving only adults (compared to only children/adolescents or adults and children/adolescents; screening: 86%, 37%, and 59%, respectively; referral: 76%, 47%, and 46%, respectively) and at sites in high-income countries (compared to upper middle income, lower middle income or low-income countries; screening: 89%, 76%, 68%, and 45%, respectively; referral: 82%, 71%, 57%, and 34%, respectively). CONCLUSION:Although there have been increases in the proportion of sites reporting substance use education, screening, and referral services across IeDEA sites, gaps persist in the integration of substance use services into HIV care, particularly in relation to screening and referral practices, with reduced availability for children/adolescents and those receiving care within resource-constrained settings.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2)-oxygen at pressures higher than atmospheric-is approved for 14 indications by the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society. HBO2's main effect is to increase oxygen content in plasma and body tissues, which can counteract hypoxia or ischemia. Laboratory studies show that HBO2 has effects beyond relieving hypoxia (eg, promoting angiogenesis in irradiated tissue, anti-inflammatory effects, radiosensitization of tumors, hypoxia preconditioning, and fungal growth inhibition) and has potential to treat conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease and pyoderma gangrenosum. Lack of consistently collected outcome data on a large cohort of individuals receiving HBO2 therapy limits its use for both established and new indications. A course of therapy often involves 30-40 visits to a hyperbaric chamber, so the number of patients seen at any given center is constrained by chamber capacity. As a result, published HBO2 outcome data tend to be from small case series because few patients with a particular condition are treated at a given center. To solve this problem, a registry that collects and pools data systematically from multiple institutions has been established. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study is to collect consistent outcome data across multiple hyperbaric centers to assess treatment effectiveness and establish a research consortium. METHODS:A consortium of hyperbaric centers who have agreed to collect consistent outcome data on all patients seen has been assembled. Data are collected at each participating center using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap), a web-based, data collection system used frequently for research. Standard outcome measures have been defined for each condition, which are programmed into the REDCap data collection templates. Governance is through a consortium agreement that defines data security, data sharing, publications, liability, and other issues. Centers obtain Institutional Review Board (IRB) and ethics approval to participate, either from their own institutions or by relying on the IRB at the coordinating center at Dartmouth College. Dissemination will occur through a yearly report and by publications based on the data in the registry. RESULTS:Early results from some common indications show significant pretreatment to posttreatment changes. Additional indications and outcome measures are being added using the procedures outlined in the consortium agreement. CONCLUSIONS:The registry collects consistent outcome information for a therapy that needs further study and a stronger evidence base. It also overcomes the challenge of collecting data from an adequate number of patients for both established and emerging indications by combining data collection from multiple centers. The data entry requirements should be within the capabilities of existing staff at any given hyperbaric center. By using REDCap, the registry can be expanded to include detailed information on particular indications and long-term follow-up on selected patients without significantly increasing the basic data entry requirements. Through the registry, a network of enrolled hyperbaric centers has been established that provides the basis for a clinical trial network. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):DERR1-10.2196/18857.

Dataset Information

ESHRE PGT Consortium data collection XVI–XVIII: cycles from 2013 to 2015†

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets