Recomendaciones en el manejo de pacientes de medicina reproductiva en tiempos de SARS-CoV-2: Un resumen de la literatura / Management recommendation of reproductive medicine patients in SARS-CoV-2 time: A literature summarize

La pandemia de SARS-CoV-2 es una emergencia sanitaria sin precedentes, que ha implicado un reordenamiento en la priorización de procedimientos médicos electivos, frente a un potencial colapso del sistema de salud a nivel mundial y riesgo de contagio del personal y pacientes. Al igual que en el resto del mundo, en Chile la mayoría de los centros de medicina reproductiva han debido suspender sus diferentes terapias de reproducción asistida (TRA). Sin embargo, a raiz de la disminución del número de contagios y mayor evidencia científica disponible, la Sociedad Europea de Reproducción Humana y Embriología (ESHRE) ha recomendado reiniciar los ciclos de medicina reproductiva de forma gradual, a través de sistemas de triage, priorizando pacientes por medio de la generación de distintos escenarios. Considerando esta recomendación, se realizó una revisión sobre la evidencia existente respecto a SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 en medicina reproductiva recopilando diferentes directrices de las principales sociedades internacionales, con el objetivo de generar una recomendación ajustada a la realidad nacional.

SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is an unprecedented health emergency, which involves a reorganization of elective procedures, facing a potential global health system collapse. In Chile, as in the rest of the world. most reproductive medicine centers have suspended their different assisted reproduction therapies (ART). However, due to the decrease in the number of infections and due to a greater collection of scientific evidence, the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) have recommended restarting cycles gradually through triage systems, prioritizing patients through the generation of different scenarios. With this in mind, we carried out a review of the existing evidence so far regarding SARS-CoV-2 and reproductive medicine, and we tried to compile the different guidelines of the main international societies, to generate a recommendation adjusted to our local scenario.

Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Latin America and Europe: a Comparative Analysis of Reported Databases for 2013 / Técnicas de reprodução assistida na América Latina e Europa: Uma análise comparativa das bases de dados de 2013

Abstract Objective To compare the Latin American and European assisted reproductive technology (ART) registries regarding data accessibility and quality, treatment utilization, effectiveness, safety, and quality of services. Methods We performed an ecological study using data from scientific publications of Latin American and European registries that report cycles initiated during 2013 (the most recent registries available until December of 2017). The summarized data are presented as frequencies, percentages, minimum-maximum values, and absolute numbers. Results Reporting clinics and cycle treatments were unevenly distributed between the participating countries for both registries, although access to ART is 15 times greater in Europe. In Latin America, individual services participate voluntarily reporting started cycles until cancellation, birth or miscarriage, while in Europe it varied among countries. It makes the data available from Latin America more uniform, although lesser representative when compared with European ones, given that reporting is compulsory formost countries. The cumulative live birth rate was better in Latin America. Female age, use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), cycles with transfer of ≥ 3 embryos, as well as multiple pregnancy rates were greater in the Latin American Register of Assisted Reproduction (RLA, in the Portuguese acronym). Assisted reproductive technology complications, such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, hemorrhage, and infections were also higher in LatinAmerica, although they are extremely uncommon in both regions. Conclusion Both regions have points to improve in the quality of their reports. Latin America has produced a more uniform reporting, their clinical results are generally

Resumo Objetivo Comparar os registros das técnicas de reprodução assistida da América Latina e da Europa em relação à qualidade dos dados e acesso, utilização do tratamento, efetividade, segurança e qualidade dos serviços. Métodos Estudo ecológico usando os dados das publicações científicas dos registros da América Latina e da Europa com os ciclos iniciados durante o ano de 2013 (que são os dadosmais recentes disponíveis até dezembro de 2017). Os dados são apresentados como porcentagens, valores mínimos e máximos e números absolutos. Resultados Em comum, vemos que o número de clínicas e de ciclos de tratamento varia bastante entre os países dentro de cada região emambos os registros, embora o acesso às técnicas de reprodução assistida seja 15 vezes maior na Europa. Na América Latina, os serviços reportam voluntariamente os ciclos iniciados até o cancelamento, o nascimento ou aborto, enquanto que na Europa o que é reportado varia entre os países. Isso faz o registro da América Latina mais uniforme, apesar de ser menos representativo quando comparado ao Europeu, dado o caráter compulsório na maioria dos países deste último. A taxa de gravidez cumulativa, idade feminina, uso de injeção intracitoplasmática de espermatozoides (ICSI), ciclos comtransferência ≥ 3 embriões e taxa de gestação múltipla foram mais elevados na América Latina. Complicações da reprodução assistida, como síndrome de hiperestimulação ovariana, hemorragia, e infecções também foram mais comuns na América Latina, embora sejam incomuns em ambas as regiões. Conclusão Ambas as regiões têm pontos a melhorar na qualidade dos registros. A América Latina tem produzido um registro mais uniforme, e seus resultados clínicos são comparáveis e, algumas vezes, superiores aos Europeus. Por outro lado, a segurança do tratamento foi maior na Europa, com menores taxas de complicações, especialmente gestações múltiplas.

High miscarriage rate in women treated with Essure® for hydrosalpinx before embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Essure® has been tested as an alternative treatment for hydrosalpinx before embryo transfer (ET) in women undergoing assisted reproduction techniques. However, the persistence of a foreign body inside the uterine cavity might have a negative impact on the outcome of pregnancy. The present systematic review aimed at identifying, appraising and summarizing the available evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of using Essure prior to ET for women with hydrosalpinx. METHODS: We searched for studies in PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov and the reference lists of eligible studies. All studies including at least 10 women with hydrosalpinx who received Essure, any other intervention or no treatment prior to ET were considered eligible. Study selection, data extraction and evaluation of the risk of bias were performed independently by two authors. Study outcomes were miscarriage per clinical pregnancy, singleton preterm birth per singleton live birth and live birth/ongoing pregnancy and clinical pregnancy per ET. The pooled results for each outcome and intervention were summarized as proportions with their respective 95% CIs, using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Our electronic search of databases was performed on 7 November 2015, and 26 studies with 43 study arms were considered eligible: eight study arms evaluating Essure; seven assessing tubal aspiration; seven appraising effects of no treatment; 12 evaluating salpingectomy; two assessing tubal division; and seven evaluating tubal occlusion. When compared with women who had no intervention, women with Essure had a higher clinical pregnancy rate per ET (36% (95% CI, 0-43%) vs 13% (95% CI, 9-17%)). When compared with women who had other interventions, women with Essure had a higher miscarriage rate per clinical pregnancy (38% (95% CI, 27-49%) vs 15% (95% CI, 10-19%)). CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that, although Essure prior to ET in women with hydrosalpinx improves the chance of achieving a clinical pregnancy compared with no intervention, it is associated with a higher rate of miscarriage when compared with the other interventions. Although this evidence is based on observational studies, we believe that salpingectomy should be the first option for women who are eligible for videolaparoscopy. However, it is still premature to make recommendations for women who are not eligible for surgery, and randomized controlled trials are needed to clarify which is the best treatment alternative in such a scenario. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Dydrogesterone vs progesterone for luteal-phase support: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of dydrogesterone and progesterone for luteal-phase support (LPS) in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques (ART). METHODS: We performed a systematic review to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by searching the following electronic databases: Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN Registry and WHO ICTRP. RESULTS: The last search was performed in October 2015. Eight RCTs were considered eligible and were included in the review and meta-analyses. There was no relevant difference between oral dydrogesterone and vaginal progesterone for LPS with respect to rate of ongoing pregnancy (risk ratio (RR), 1.04 (95% CI, 0.92-1.18); I(2) , 0%; seven RCTs, 3134 women), clinical pregnancy (RR, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.93-1.23); I(2) , 34%; eight RCTs, 3809 women) or miscarriage (RR, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.53-1.10); I(2) , 0%; seven RCTs, 906 clinical pregnancies). Two of the three studies reporting on dissatisfaction of treatment identified lower levels of dissatisfaction among women using oral dydrogesterone than among women using vaginal progesterone (oral dydrogesterone vs vaginal progesterone capsules: 2/79 (2.5%) vs 90/351 (25.6%), respectively; oral dydrogesterone vs vaginal progesterone gel: 19/411 (4.6%) vs 74/411 (18.0%), respectively). The third study showed no difference in dissatisfaction rate (oral dydrogesterone vs vaginal progesterone capsules: 8/96 (8.3%) vs 8/114 (7.0%), respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Oral dydrogesterone seems to be as effective as vaginal progesterone for LPS in ART cycles, and appears to be better tolerated . Copyright © 2015 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.