Survey on ART and IUI: legislation, regulation, funding, and registries in European countries-an update.

How are ART and IUI regulated, funded, and registered in European countries, and how has the situation changed since 2018? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The study has no external funding, and all costs were covered by ESHRE. There were no competing interests.

European IVF-Monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) ，Calhaz-Jorge C ，Smeenk J ，Wyns C ，De Neubourg D ，Baldani DP ，Bergh C ，Cuevas-Saiz I ，De Geyter C ，Kupka MS ，Rezabek K ，Tandler-Schneider A ，Goossens V ... -  《-》

Survey on ART and IUI: legislation, regulation, funding and registries in European countries: The European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE).

How are ART and IUI regulated, funded and registered in European countries? Of the 43 countries performing ART and IUI in Europe, and participating in the survey, specific legislation exists in only 39 countries, public funding (also available in the 39 countries) varies across and sometimes within countries and national registries are in place in 31 countries. Some information devoted to particular aspects of accessibility to ART and IUI is available, but most is fragmentary or out-dated. Annual reports from the European IVF-Monitoring (EIM) Consortium for ESHRE clearly mirror different approaches in European countries regarding accessibility to and efficacy of those techniques. A survey was designed using the online SurveyMonkey tool consisting of 55 questions concerning three domains-legal, funding and registry. Answers refer to the countries' situation on 31 December 2018. All members of EIM plus representatives of countries not yet members of the Consortium were invited to participate. Answers received were checked, and initial responders were asked to address unclear answers and to provide any additional information they considered important. Tables of individual countries resulting from the consolidated data were then sent to members of the Committee of National Representatives of ESHRE, asking for a second check. Conflicting information was clarified by direct contact. Information was received from 43 out of the 44 European countries where ART and IUI are performed. Thirty-nine countries reported specific legislation on ART, and artificial insemination was considered an ART technique in 35 of them. Accessibility is limited to infertile couples in 11 of the 43 countries. A total of 30 countries offer treatments to single women and 18 to female couples. In five countries ART and IUI are permitted for treatment of all patient groups, being infertile couples, single women and same sex couples, male and female. Use of donated sperm is allowed in 41 countries, egg donation in 38, the simultaneous donation of sperm and egg in 32 and embryo donation in 29. Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) for monogenic disorders or structural rearrangements is not allowed in two countries, and PGT for aneuploidy is not allowed in 11; surrogacy is accepted in 16 countries. With the exception of marital/sexual situation, female age is the most frequently reported limiting criteria for legal access to ART-minimal age is usually set at. 18 years and maximum ranging from 45 to 51 years with some countries not using numeric definition. Male maximum age is set in very few countries. Where permitted, age is frequently a limiting criterion for third-party donors (male maximum age 35 to 55 years; female maximum age 34 to 38 years). Other legal constraints in third-party donation are the number of children born from the same donor (in some countries, number of families with children from the same donor) and, in 10 countries, a maximum number of egg donations. How countries deal with the anonymity is diverse-strict anonymity, anonymity just for the recipients (not for children when reaching legal adulthood age), mixed system (anonymous and non-anonymous donations) and strict non-anonymity.Public funding systems are extremely variable. Four countries provide no financial assistance to patients. Limits to the provision of funding are defined in all the others i.e. age (female maximum age is the most used), existence of previous children, maximum number of treatments publicly supported and techniques not entitled for funding. In a few countries, reimbursement is linked to a clinical policy. The definition of the type of expenses covered within an IVF/ICSI cycle, up to what limit and the proportion of out-of-pocket costs for patients is also extremely dissimilar.National registries of ART and IUI are in place in 31 out of the 43 countries contributing to the survey, and a registry of donors exists in 18 of them. The responses were provided by well-informed and committed individuals and submitted to double checking. Since no formal validation was in place, possible inaccuracies cannot be excluded. Also, results are a cross section in time and ART and IUI legislations within European countries undergo continuous evolution. Finally, several domains of ART activity were deliberately left out of the scope of this ESHRE survey. Results of this survey offer a detailed view of the ART and IUI situation in European countries. It provides updated and extensive answers to many relevant questions related to ART usage at national level and could be used by institutions and policymakers in planning services at both national and European levels. The study has no external funding, and all costs were covered by ESHRE. There were no competing interests.ESHRE Pages are not externally peer reviewed. This article has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

Calhaz-Jorge C ，De Geyter CH ，Kupka MS ，Wyns C ，Mocanu E ，Motrenko T ，Scaravelli G ，Smeenk J ，Vidakovic S ，Goossens V ... -  《-》

ART in Europe, 2019: results generated from European registries by ESHRE†.

What are the data and trends on ART and IUI cycle numbers and their outcomes, and on fertility preservation (FP) interventions, reported in 2019 as compared to previous years? The 23rd ESHRE report highlights the rising ART treatment cycles and children born, alongside a decline in twin deliveries owing to decreasing multiple embryo transfers; fresh IVF or ICSI cycles exhibited higher delivery rates, whereas frozen embryo transfers (FET) showed higher pregnancy rates (PRs), and reported IUI cycles decreased while maintaining stable outcomes. ART aggregated data generated by national registries, clinics, or professional societies have been gathered and analyzed by the European IVF-Monitoring (EIM) Consortium since 1997 and reported in a total of 22 manuscripts published in Human Reproduction and Human Reproduction Open. Data on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) from European countries are collected by EIM for ESHRE each year. The data on treatment cycles performed between 1 January and 31 December 2019 were provided by either national registries or registries based on initiatives of medical associations and scientific organizations or committed persons in one of the 44 countries that are members of the EIM Consortium. Overall, 1487 clinics offering ART services in 40 countries reported, for the second time, a total of more than 1 million (1 077 813) treatment cycles, including 160 782 with IVF, 427 980 with ICSI, 335 744 with FET, 64 089 with preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), 82 373 with egg donation (ED), 546 with IVM of oocytes, and 6299 cycles with frozen oocyte replacement (FOR). A total of 1169 institutions reported data on IUI cycles using either husband/partner's semen (IUI-H; n = 147 711) or donor semen (IUI-D; n = 51 651) in 33 and 24 countries, respectively. Eighteen countries reported 24 139 interventions in pre- and post-pubertal patients for FP, including oocyte, ovarian tissue, semen, and testicular tissue banking. In 21 countries (21 in 2018) in which all ART clinics reported to the registry 476 760 treatment cycles were registered for a total population of approximately 300 million inhabitants, allowing the best estimate of a mean of 1581 cycles performed per million inhabitants (range: 437-3621). Among the reporting countries, for IVF the clinical PRs per aspiration slightly decreased while they remained similar per transfer compared to 2018 (21.8% and 34.6% versus 25.5% and 34.1%, respectively). In ICSI, the corresponding PRs showed similar trends compared to 2018 (20.2% and 33.5%, versus 22.5% and 32.1%) When freeze-all cycles were not considered for the calculations, the clinical PRs per aspiration were 28.5% (28.8% in 2018) and 26.2% (27.3% in 2018) for IVF and ICSI, respectively. After FET with embryos originating from own eggs, the PR per thawing was at 35.1% (versus 33.4% in 2018), and with embryos originating from donated eggs at 43.0% (41.8% in 2018). After ED, the PR per fresh embryo transfer was 50.5% (49.6% in 2018) and per FOR 44.8% (44.9% in 2018). In IVF and ICSI together, the trend toward the transfer of fewer embryos continues with the transfer of 1, 2, 3, and ≥4 embryos in 55.4%, 39.9%, 2.6%, and 0.2% of all treatments, respectively (corresponding to 50.7%, 45.1%, 3.9%, and 0.3% in 2018). This resulted in a reduced proportion of twin delivery rates (DRs) of 11.9% (12.4% in 2018) and a similar triplet DR of 0.3%. Treatments with FET in 2019 resulted in twin and triplet DR of 8.9% and 0.1%, respectively (versus 9.4% and 0.1% in 2018). After IUI, the DRs remained similar at 8.7% after IUI-H (8.8% in 2018) and at 12.1% after IUI-D (12.6% in 2018). Twin and triplet DRs after IUI-H were 8.7% and 0.4% (in 2018: 8.4% and 0.3%) and 6.2% and 0.2% after IUI-D (in 2018: 6.4% and 0.2%), respectively. Eighteen countries (16 in 2018) provided data on FP in a total number of 24 139 interventions (20 994 in 2018). Cryopreservation of ejaculated sperm (n = 11 592 versus n = 10 503 in 2018) and cryopreservation of oocytes (n = 10 784 versus n = 9123 in 2018) were most frequently reported. Caution with the interpretation of results should remain as data collection systems and completeness of reporting vary among European countries. Some countries were unable to deliver data about the number of initiated cycles and/or deliveries. The 23rd ESHRE data collection on ART, IUI, and FP interventions shows a continuous increase of reported treatment numbers and MAR-derived livebirths in Europe. Although it is the largest data collection on MAR in Europe, further efforts toward optimization of both the collection and the reporting, from the perspective of improving surveillance and vigilance in the field of reproductive medicine, are awaited. The study has received no external funding and all costs are covered by ESHRE. There are no competing interests.

European IVF Monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) ，Smeenk J ，Wyns C ，De Geyter C ，Kupka M ，Bergh C ，Cuevas Saiz I ，De Neubourg D ，Rezabek K ，Tandler-Schneider A ，Rugescu I ，Goossens V ... -  《-》

ART in Europe, 2014: results generated from European registries by ESHRE: The European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE).

De Geyter C ，Calhaz-Jorge C ，Kupka MS ，Wyns C ，Mocanu E ，Motrenko T ，Scaravelli G ，Smeenk J ，Vidakovic S ，Goossens V ，European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) ... -  《-》

ART in Europe, 2018: results generated from European registries by ESHRE.

What are the data and trends on ART and IUI cycle numbers and their outcomes, and on fertility preservation (FP) interventions, reported in 2018 as compared to previous years? The 22nd ESHRE report shows a continued increase in reported numbers of ART treatment cycles and children born in Europe, a decrease in transfers with more than one embryo with a further reduction of twin delivery rates (DRs) as compared to 2017, higher DRs per transfer after fresh IVF or ICSI cycles (without considering freeze-all cycles) than after frozen embryo transfer (FET) with higher pregnancy rates (PRs) after FET and the number of reported IUI cycles decreased while their PR and DR remained stable. ART aggregated data generated by national registries, clinics or professional societies have been gathered and analysed by the European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) since 1997 and reported in 21 manuscripts published in Human Reproduction and Human Reproduction Open. Data on medically assisted reproduction (MAR) from European countries are collected by EIM for ESHRE on a yearly basis. The data on treatment cycles performed between 1 January and 31 December 2018 were provided by either national registries or registries based on initiatives of medical associations and scientific organizations or committed persons of 39 countries. Overall, 1422 clinics offering ART services in 39 countries reported a total of more than 1 million (1 007 598) treatment cycles for the first time, including 162 837 with IVF, 400 375 with ICSI, 309 475 with FET, 48 294 with preimplantation genetic testing, 80 641 with egg donation (ED), 532 with IVM of oocytes and 5444 cycles with frozen oocyte replacement (FOR). A total of 1271 institutions reported data on IUI cycles using either husband/partner's semen (IUI-H; n = 148 143) or donor semen (IUI-D; n = 50 609) in 31 countries and 25 countries, respectively. Sixteen countries reported 20 994 interventions in pre- and post-pubertal patients for FP including oocyte, ovarian tissue, semen and testicular tissue banking. In 21 countries (21 in 2017) in which all ART clinics reported to the registry, 410 190 treatment cycles were registered for a total population of ∼ 300 million inhabitants, allowing a best estimate of a mean of 1433 cycles performed per million inhabitants (range: 641-3549). Among the 39 reporting countries, for IVF, the clinical PR per aspiration slightly decreased while the PR per transfer remained similar compared to 2017 (25.5% and 34.1% in 2018 versus 26.8% and 34.3% in 2017). In ICSI, the corresponding rates showed similar evolutions in 2018 compared to 2017 (22.5% and 32.1% in 2018 versus 24.0% and 33.5% in 2017). When freeze-all cycles were not considered for the calculations, the clinical PRs per aspiration were 28.8% (29.4% in 2017) and 27.3% (27.3% in 2017) for IVF and ICSI, respectively. After FET with embryos originating from own eggs, the PR per thawing was 33.4% (versus 30.2% in 2017), and with embryos originating from donated eggs 41.8% (41.1% in 2017). After ED, the PR per fresh embryo transfer was 49.6% (49.2% in 2017) and per FOR 44.9% (43.3% in 2017). In IVF and ICSI together, the trend towards the transfer of fewer embryos continues with the transfer of 1, 2, 3 and ≥4 embryos in 50.7%, 45.1%, 3.9% and 0.3% of all treatments, respectively (corresponding to 46.0%, 49.2%. 4.5% and 0.3% in 2017). This resulted in a reduced proportion of twin DRs of 12.4% (14.2% in 2017) and similar triplet DR of 0.2%. Treatments with FET in 2018 resulted in twin and triplet DRs of 9.4% and 0.1%, respectively (versus 11.2% and 0.2%, respectively in 2017). After IUI, the DRs remained similar at 8.8% after IUI-H (8.7% in 2017) and at 12.6% after IUI-D (12.4% in 2017). Twin and triplet DRs after IUI-H were 8.4% and 0.3%, respectively (in 2017: 8.1% and 0.3%), and 6.4% and 0.2% after IUI-D (in 2017: 6.9% and 0.2%). Among 20 994 FP interventions in 16 countries (18 888 in 13 countries in 2017), cryopreservation of ejaculated sperm (n = 10 503, versus 11 112 in 2017) and of oocytes (n = 9123 versus 6588 in 2017) were the most frequently reported. The results should be interpreted with caution as data collection systems and completeness of reporting vary among European countries. Some countries were unable to deliver data about the number of initiated cycles and/or deliveries. The 22nd ESHRE data collection on ART, IUI and FP interventions shows a continuous increase of reported treatment numbers and MAR-derived livebirths in Europe. Although it is the largest data collection on MAR in Europe, further efforts towards optimization of both the collection and reporting, with the aim of improving surveillance and vigilance in the field of reproductive medicine, are awaited. The study has received no external funding and all costs are covered by ESHRE. There are no competing interests.

European IVF Monitoring Consortium (EIM), for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) ，Wyns C ，De Geyter C ，Calhaz-Jorge C ，Kupka MS ，Motrenko T ，Smeenk J ，Bergh C ，Tandler-Schneider A ，Rugescu IA ，Goossens V ... -  《-》