To study whether preimplantation genetic screening with comprehensive chromosome screening (PGS-CCS) improves clinical implantation rates (IR) and sustained IR (beyond 20 weeks) compared with routine ...care for embryo selection in IVF cycles.
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OSs).
University-affiliated teaching hospital.
Infertile couples undergoing IVF.
PGS-CCS with the use of different genetic platforms performed on polar body (PB), cleavage embryo, or blastocyst following embryo biopsy.
Clinical IR and sustained IR in RCTs as well as OSs comparing PGS-CCS and routine care were determined after a complete review of the literature. Pooled estimates of risk ratios (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) according to a fixed-effects model with the use of the Mantel-Haenszel method were calculated after the meta-analysis. Forest plots are provided for comparative purposes.
Out of 763 citations identified, 29 articles met initial eligibility criteria and were further analyzed. Of these, only three RCTs and eight OSs met full inclusion criteria, allowing direct comparison of PGS-CCS and routine IVF care based on embryo morphology selection. In the RCTs, all embryo biopsies were performed on day 5-6 of embryo development. In the OSs, biopsies were performed on different stages of embryo development, including PB, day 3, or day 5-6. Meta-analysis of the RCTs (3 studies; n = 659) showed that PGS-CCS was associated with a significantly higher clinical IR, with a pooled RR of 1.29 (95% CI 1.15-1.45), as well as a significantly higher sustained IR, with a pooled RR of 1.39 (95% CI 1.21-1.60). Similar findings were shown in the OSs, where the pooled RR for clinical IR was 1.78 (95% CI 1.60-1.99; 7 studies; n = 2,993) and for sustained IR was 1.75 (95% CI 1.48-2.07; 4 studies; n = 1,124). Statistical heterogeneity (I(2)) was minimal for RCTs and substantial among OSs.
PGS with the use of CCS technology increases clinical and sustained IRs, thus improving embryo selection, particularly in patients with normal ovarian reserve. Results from ongoing RCTs conducted on different patient populations (e.g., decreased ovarian reserve) and different embryo stage biopsy (e.g., PB, day 3) may further clarify the role of this technology.
Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy was developed as an invasive embryo-selection technique and is extensively used in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. Around 95,000 preimplantation ...genetic testing cycles were carried out in the United States between 2014 and 2016, the majority of which were performed for aneuploidy. The objective of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy is to select for transfer a euploid embryo, after embryo biopsy and cytogenetic analysis. The current technique consists of applying comprehensive chromosome screening on trophectoderm cells after blastocyst-stage embryo biopsy. This article reviews all the published randomized controlled trials on preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy with comprehensive chromosome screening and comments on the subject of embryo mosaicism detected by this technique. Most of these trials have been criticized because they only included good prognosis patients having normal ovarian reserve producing a high number of embryos available for biopsy. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy does not improve ongoing pregnancy rates per cycle started when routinely applied on the general IVF population but seems to be a good tool of embryo selection for a selected category of patients with normal ovarian reserve, yet should be only practiced by experienced IVF clinics. If no euploid embryo is available after preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, a low-level mosaic embryo can be considered and prioritized for transfer after appropriate genetic counseling.
Abstract Embryonic aneuploidy is highly prevalent in IVF cycles and contributes to decreased implantation rates, IVF cycle failure and early pregnancy loss. Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) ...selects the most competent (euploid) embryos for transfer, and has been proposed to improve IVF outcomes. Use of PGS with fluorescence-in-situ hybridization technology after day 3 embryo biopsy (PGS-v1) significantly lowers live birth rates and is not recommended for use. Comprehensive chromosome screening technology, which assesses the whole chromosome complement, can be achieved using different genetic platforms. Whether PGS using comprehensive chromosome screening after blastocyst biopsy (PGS-v2) improves IVF outcomes remains to be determined. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials was conducted on PGS-v2. Three trials met full inclusion criteria, comparing PGS-v2 and routine IVF care. PGS-v2 is associated with higher clinical implantation rates, and higher ongoing pregnancy rates when the same number of embryos is transferred in both PGS and control groups. Additionally, PGS-v2 improves embryo selection in eSET practice, maintaining the same ongoing pregnancy rates between PGS and control groups, while sharply decreasing multiple pregnancy rates. These results stem from good-prognosis patients undergoing IVF. Whether these findings can be extrapolated to poor-prognosis patients with decreased ovarian reserve remains to be determined.
Genetic testing of products of conception (POC) has been proposed as a tool to be used in the evaluation of patients with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). Following a complete RPL evaluation, POC ...results may reveal an aneuploidy and provide an explanation for the miscarriage in more than 55% of cases. When the cytogenetic result of the pregnancy loss reveals a euploid pregnancy, management should be directed towards the identification of treatable abnormalities. Furthermore, the results of POC testing might better define a subgroup of patients with unexplained RPL who may benefit from expectant management versus preimplantation genetics (aneuploid unexplained RPL) or investigational therapy (euploid unexplained RPL).
Assessing dienogest's efficacy in endometriosis patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF).
Systematic search in databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, Google ...Scholar) until 1 October 2022.
Randomized trials and observational studies comparing extended dienogest pre-treatment, no pre-treatment, or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist pre-treatment in endometriosis-linked IVF.
live birth, clinical pregnancy rates, oocytes collected, miscarriage rate, gonadotropin consumption.
Two authors independently assessed eligibility. Dichotomous variables were analyzed via a random-effect model and Mantel-Haenszel method to calculate weighted estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI). I2 statistic gauged study heterogeneity; GRADE criteria evaluated evidence quality.
Out of 191 publications, five studies with 723 participants were included. Uncertainty persists on whether prolonged dienogest affects live birth (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.29 to 6.84; 3 studies, n = 289; I2 86%) and clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.31 to 5.65; 3 studies, n = 289; I2 86%) compared to conventional IVF. Moreover, uncertainty remains regarding intervention impact on live birth (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.63 to 3.37; 1 study, n = 34) and clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.23; 3 studies, n = 288; I2 0%) versus long-term GnRH agonist therapy before IVF. Given limited data and very low evidence quality, doubts arise about the benefits of long-term dienogest pre-treatment before conventional IVF in endometriosis patients.
To update and review the techniques and indications of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and preimplantation genetic screening (PGS).
Discussion about the genetic and technical aspects of ...preimplantation reproductive techniques, particularly those using new cytogenetic technologies and embryo-stage biopsy.
Clinical outcomes of reproductive techniques following the use of PGD and PGS are included. This update does not discuss in detail the adverse outcomes that have been recorded in association with assisted reproductive technologies.
Published literature was retrieved through searches of The Cochrane Library and Medline in April 2014 using appropriate controlled vocabulary (aneuploidy, blastocyst/physiology, genetic diseases, preimplantation diagnosis/methods, fertilization in vitro) and key words (e.g., preimplantation genetic diagnosis, preimplantation genetic screening, comprehensive chromosome screening, aCGH, SNP microarray, qPCR, and embryo selection). Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies published from 1990 to April 2014. There were no language restrictions. Searches were updated on a regular basis and incorporated in the update to January 2015. Additional publications were identified from the bibliographies of retrieved articles. Grey (unpublished) literature was identified through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology-related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies.
The quality of evidence in this document was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. (Table 1) BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: This update will educate readers about new preimplantation genetic concepts, directions, and technologies. The major harms and costs identified are those of assisted reproductive technologies.
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis is an alternative to prenatal diagnosis for the detection of genetic disorders in couples at risk of transmitting a genetic condition to their offspring. Preimplantation genetic screening is being proposed to improve the effectiveness of in vitro fertilization by screening for embryonic aneuploidy. Though FISH-based PGS showed adverse effects on IVF success, emerging evidence from new studies using comprehensive chromosome screening technology appears promising. Recommendations 1. Before preimplantation genetic diagnosis is performed, genetic counselling must be provided by a certified genetic counsellor to ensure that patients fully understand the risk of having an affected child, the impact of the disease on an affected child, and the benefits and limitations of all available options for preimplantation and prenatal diagnosis. (III-A) 2. Couples should be informed that preimplantation genetic diagnosis can reduce the risk of conceiving a child with a genetic abnormality carried by one or both parents if that abnormality can be identified with tests performed on a single cell or on multiple trophectoderm cells. (II-2B) 3. Invasive prenatal or postnatal testing to confirm the results of preimplantation genetic diagnosis is encouraged because the methods used for preimplantation genetic diagnosis have technical limitations that include the possibility of a false result. (II-2B) 4. Trophectoderm biopsy has no measurable impact on embryo development, as opposed to blastomere biopsy. Therefore, whenever possible, trophectoderm biopsy should be the method of choice in embryo biopsy and should be performed by experienced hands. (I-B) 5. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis of single-gene disorders should ideally be performed with multiplex polymerase chain reaction coupled with trophectoderm biopsy whenever available. (II-2B) 6. The use of comprehensive chromosome screening technology coupled with trophectoderm biopsy in preimplantation genetic diagnosis in couples carrying chromosomal translocations is recommended because it is associated with favourable clinical outcomes. (II-2B) 7. Before preimplantation genetic screening is performed, thorough education and counselling must be provided by a certified genetic counsellor to ensure that patients fully understand the limitations of the technique, the risk of error, and the ongoing debate on whether preimplantation genetic screening is necessary to improve live birth rates with in vitro fertilization. (III-A) 8. Preimplantation genetic screening using fluorescence in situ hybridization technology on day-3 embryo biopsy is associated with decreased live birth rates and therefore should not be performed with in vitro fertilization. (I-E) 9. Preimplantation genetic screening using comprehensive chromosome screening technology on blastocyst biopsy, increases implantation rates and improves embryo selection in IVF cycles in patients with a good prognosis. (I-B).
Embryos with mosaic results: busting the myth Dahdouh, Elias M.; Garcia-Velasco, Juan A.
Reproductive biomedicine online,
July 2021, 2021-07-00, 20210701, Volume:
43, Issue:
1
Journal Article
•Chromosomal aneuploidy in the conceptus is the cause of 58% of all miscarriages.•Standard evaluation for recurrent pregnancy loss explains less than 45% of losses.•Comprehensive evaluation of ...recurrent pregnancy loss explains over 90% of recurrent losses.•PGT may have a role in the treatment of some, but not all, patients with recurrent pregnancy loss.
This article considers the addition of comprehensive 24-chromosomal microarray (CMA) analysis of products of conception (POC) to a standard evaluation for recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) to help direct treatment towards expectant management versus IVF with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A). The review included retrospective data from 65,333 miscarriages, a prospective evaluation of 378 couples with RPL who had CMA testing of POC and the standard workup, and data from an additional 1020 couples who were evaluated for RPL but did not undergo CMA testing of POC. Aneuploidy in POC explained the pregnancy loss in 57.7% (218/378) of cases. In contrast, the full RPL evaluation recommended by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine identified a potential cause in only 42.9% (600/1398). Combining the data from the RPL evaluation and the results of genetic testing of POC provides a probable explanation for the loss in over 90% (347/378) of women. Couples with an unexplained loss after the standard evaluation with POC aneuploidy accounted for 41% of cases; PGT-A may be considered after expectant management. Conversely, PGT-A would have a limited role in those with a euploid loss and a possible explanation after the standard workup. Categorizing a pregnancy loss as an explained versus unexplained loss after the standard evaluation combined with the results of CMA testing of POC may help identify patients who would benefit from expectant management versus PGT-A.
PDF
