Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address: asrm@asrm.org. Use of reproductive technology for sex selection for nonmedical reasons: an Ethics Committee opinion

Best quality vs. sex selection - an analysis of embryo selection preferences for patients undergoing preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy over a 10-year period

PURPOSE

Investigate patient preferences in embryo selection for transfer regarding quality versus sex in IVF/ICSI cycles with PGT-A and assess associated clinical implications.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study at a university fertility practice from January 2012 to December 2021. Included were patients undergoing single frozen euploid transfers with at least one embryo of each sex available. Primary outcomes were preference for embryo selection (quality vs. sex) and sex preference (male vs. female). Trends over 10 years were evaluated and clinical outcomes, including clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), sustained implantation rate (SIR), and live birth rate (LBR), were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 5,145 embryo transfer cycles were included; 54.5% chose the best-quality embryo, while 45.5% selected based on sex. Among those choosing based on sex, 56.5% chose male embryos and 43.5% chose female. Preference for quality remained consistent over the decade (p = 0.30), while male embryos were consistently favored (p = 0.64). Best-quality embryos had higher grades (p < 0.001). Clinical outcomes were similar between groups (CPR: 74.4% vs. 71.9%, p = 0.05; SIR: 64.9% vs. 63.4%, p = 0.26; LBR: 58.8% vs. 56.7%, p = 0.13), and between male and female embryo selections.

CONCLUSIONS

Sex selection remains common, with 45.5% selecting embryos based on sex, predominantly favoring males. This trend persisted over 10 years, with comparable clinical outcomes regardless of selection criteria.

Gendering the beginning of life: Taiwanese gay fathers' navigation of preimplantation genetic diagnosis-assisted sex selection in transnational third-party reproduction

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) has been used not only to avoid genetic diseases and increase conception success rates but also to perform non-medical sex selection, particularly in the surging cross-border reproductive care (CBRC). In the context of commercialised biomedicine, assisted reproductive technologies, such as lifestyle sex selection, have been tailored to meet intended parents' preferences. However, there is a lack of analysis on how individuals' reproductive decisions on PGD-assisted sex selection were shaped within the sociocultural norms and CBRC. This article explores Taiwanese gay fathers' navigations on sex selection while seeking third-party reproduction overseas because of local legal constraints. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 53 gay fathers (to-be), I analysed how 'individual preferences' were dynamically shaped by local sociocultural norms and embedded within transnational settings of routinising PGD in chosen repro-destinations. The findings showed that gay fathers mobilised strategic discourses on non-medical sex selection from both the local and the global to negotiate their decisions in coherence with their LGBTQ+ identity and their role as sons carrying familial responsibility to procreate male heirs. This article proposed a nuanced understanding of gay fathers' reproductive practices of 'gendering the beginning of life' through PGD-assisted sex selection.

Ready for polygenic risk scores? An analysis of regulation of preimplantation genetic testing in European countries

STUDY QUESTION

Would the different regulatory approaches for preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) in Europe permit the implementation of preimplantation genetic testing using polygenic risk scores (PGT-P)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

While the regulatory approaches for PGT differ between countries, the space provided for potential implementation of PGT-P seems limited in all three regulatory models.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

PGT is a reproductive genetic technology that allows the testing for hereditary genetic disorders and chromosome abnormalities in embryos before implantation. Throughout its history, PGT has largely been regarded as an ethically sensitive technology. For example, ethical questions have been raised regarding the use of PGT for adult-onset conditions, non-medical sex selection, and human leukocyte antigen typing for the benefit of existing siblings. Countries in which PGT is offered each have their own approach of regulating the clinical application of PGT, and a clear overview of legal and practical regulation of PGT in Europe is lacking. An emerging development within the field of PGT, namely PGT-P, is currently bringing new ethical tensions to the forefront. It is unclear whether PGT-P may be applied within the current regulatory frameworks in Europe. Therefore, it is important to investigate current regulatory frameworks in Europe and determine whether PGT-P fits within these frameworks.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the legal and practical regulation of the use of PGT in seven selected European countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the UK) and critically analyse the different approaches with regards to regulatory possibilities for PGT-P. Between July and September 2023, we performed a thorough and extensive search of websites of governments and governmental agencies, websites of scientific and professional organizations, and academic articles in which laws and regulations are described.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

We investigated the legal and regulatory aspects of PGT by analysing legal documents, regulatory frameworks, scientific articles, and guidelines from scientific organizations and regulatory bodies to gather relevant information about each included country. The main sources of information were national laws relating to PGT.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

We divided the PGT regulation approaches into three models. The regulation of PGT differs per country, with some countries requiring central approval of PGT for each new indication (the medical indication model: the UK, the Netherlands), other countries evaluating each individual PGT request at the local level (the individual requests model: France, Germany), and countries largely leaving decision-making about clinical application of PGT to healthcare professionals (the clinical assessment model: Belgium, Italy, Spain). In the countries surveyed that use the medical indication model and the individual requests model, current legal frameworks and PGT criteria seem to exclude PGT-P. In countries using the clinical assessment model, the fact that healthcare professionals and scientific organizations in Europe are generally negative about implementation of PGT-P due to scientific and socio-ethical concerns, implies that, even if it were legally possible, the chance that PGT-P would be offered in the near future might be low.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The results are based on our interpretation of publicly available written information and documents, therefore not all potential discrepancies between law and practice might have been identified. In addition, our analysis focuses on seven-and not all-European countries. However, since these countries are relevant players within PGT in Europe and since they have distinct PGT regulations, the insights gathered give relevant insights into diverse ways of PGT regulation.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that provides a thorough overview of the legal and practical regulation of PGT in Europe. Our analysis of how PGT-P fits within current regulation models provides guidance for healthcare professionals and policymakers in navigating the possible future implementation of PGT-P within Europe.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 813707. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Patient interest in and clinician reservations on polygenic embryo screening: a qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives

PURPOSE

We explored and compared perspectives of reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialists (REIs) and in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients regarding polygenic embryo screening (PES), a new type of preimplantation screening that estimates the genetic chances of developing polygenic conditions and traits in the future.

METHODS

Qualitative thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with US-based REIs and IVF patients.

RESULTS

Clinicians and patients often held favorable views of screening embryos for physical or psychiatric conditions, though clinicians tended to temper their positive attitudes with specific caveats. Clinicians also expressed negative views about screening embryos for traits more frequently than patients, who generally held more positive views. Most clinicians were either unwilling to discuss or offer PES to patients or were willing to do so only under certain circumstances, while many patients expressed interest in PES. Both stakeholder groups envisioned multiple potential benefits or uses of PES and raised multiple potential, interrelated concerns about PES.

CONCLUSION

A gap exists between clinician and patient attitudes toward PES; clinicians generally maintained reservations about such screening and patients indicated interest in it. Clinicians and patients sometimes imagined using PES to prepare for the birth of a predisposed or "affected" individual-a rationale that is often associated with prenatal testing. Many clinicians and patients held different attitudes depending on what is specifically screened, despite the sometimes blurry distinction between conditions and traits. Considerations raised by clinicians and patients may help guide professional societies in developing guidelines to navigate the uncertain terrain of PES.

Islamic Viewpoints on Opportunistic Sex Selection of IVF Embryos upon doing Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Preventing Genetic Diseases

In recent years, preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) of IVF embryos have gained much traction in clinical assisted reproduction for preventing various genetic defects, including Down syndrome. However, such genetic tests inevitably reveal the sex of IVF embryos by identifying the sex (X and Y) chromosomes. In many countries with less stringent IVF regulations, information on the sex of embryos that are tested to be genetically normal is readily shared with patients. This would thus present Muslim patients with unintended opportunities for sex selection based on personal or social biases without any pressing need or valid medical reason. Additionally, there are other patients who claim using PGT for preventing genetic defects as a pretext or "convenient excuse," with a secret intention to do sex selection when it is banned in their home country. Currently, non-medical sex selection is a highly-controversial and hotly debated issue in Islam, because there is generally a strong preference for having sons over daughters due to widespread cultural norms of elderly parents depending on their sons for financial support, as well as the need for male heirs to continue the family lineage within the backdrop of local patriarchal cultures. There is a risk of gender imbalance and social disequilibrium occurring in Islamic societies due to prevalent sex selection. Hence, the question is whether opportunistic sex selection with PGT would contravene Islamic ethics and principles, which will thus be discussed here.

Divergence Between Clinician and Patient Perspectives on Polygenic Embryo Screening: A Qualitative Study

Objective

To explore and compare the perspectives of clinicians and patients on polygenic embryo screening.

Design

Qualitative.

Subjects

Fifty-three participants: 27 reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialists and 26 patients currently undergoing in vitro fertilization or had done so within the last five years.

Main Outcome Measures

Qualitative thematic analysis of interview transcripts.

Results

Both clinicians and patients often held favorable views of screening embryos for physical or psychiatric conditions, though clinicians tended to temper their positive attitudes with specific caveats. Clinicians also expressed negative views about screening embryos for traits more often than patients, who generally held more positive views. Most clinicians were either unwilling to discuss or offer polygenic embryo screening to patients or were willing to do so only under certain circumstances, while many patients expressed interest in polygenic embryo screening. Both sets of stakeholders envisioned multiple potential benefits or uses of polygenic embryo screening; the most common included selection and/or prioritization of embryos, receipt of more information about embryos, and preparation for the birth of a predisposed or "affected" child. Both sets of stakeholders also raised multiple potential, interrelated concerns about polygenic embryo screening. The most common concerns among both sets of stakeholders included the potential for different types of "biases" - most often in relation to selection of embryos with preferred genetic chances of traits -, the probabilistic nature of polygenic embryo screening that can complicate patient counseling and/or lead to excessive cycles of in vitro fertilization, and a lack of data from long-term prospective studies supporting the clinical use of polygenic embryo screening.

Conclusion

Despite patients' interest in polygenic embryo screening, clinicians feel such screening is premature for clinical application. Though now embryos can be screened for their genetic chances of developing polygenic conditions and traits, many clinicians and patients maintain different attitudes depending on what is specifically screened, despite the blurry distinction between conditions and traits. Considerations raised by these stakeholders may help guide professional societies as they consider developing guidelines to navigate the uncertain terrain of polygenic embryo screening, which is already commercially available.

Preimplantation sex selection via in vitro fertilization: time for a reappraisal

In recent years, there has been rapid increase in the availability of elective sex selection via genetic testing of preimplantation embryos created through in vitro fertilization. We explore the standing of this ethically controversial practice in the context of a changing legal landscape after the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health decision by the US Supreme Court.

Informed consent in assisted reproduction: an Ethics Committee opinion

Informed consent is a process in which the patient is supported in developing an understanding of medical options (including risks, benefits, and alternatives) and coming to a voluntary and autonomous decision.

A non-randomized clinical trial to determine the safety and efficacy of a novel sperm sex selection technique

The desire to have offspring of a specific sex has a long history but has been particularly present with the appearance of assisted reproduction. However, embryo selection raises ethical concerns. Thus, several techniques to select sex-specific spermatozoa have been proposed but carry limitations. There are many variations of each technique, and some are time consuming and costly. Concerns about effectiveness and safety have also rendered many of them unappealing. Therefore, we propose a novel sperm sex selection technique (SST) that appears to be consistently safe and effective. A single-center, non-randomized clinical trial was designed. We included 1,317 couples, who were assigned to one of two groups: ICSI/PGTA or ICSI/PGTA+GS. Ejaculates from male partners of couples in the ICSI/PGTA+GS group (n = 105) were processed using SST to enrich spermatozoa for their desired sex. Standard sperm processing was carried out for couples undergoing PGT-A solely for aneuploidy (n = 1,212), comprising the ICSI/PGTA control group. To validate the efficacy of our technique, we performed an analysis on spermatozoa pre- and post-selection, followed by an assessment of the proportion of the conceptuses' sex to confirm clinical reliability. We also followed up on ICSI clinical outcomes and child/newborn health to establish the safety of our method. Our main outcome measures included the proportion of spermatozoa and embryos enriched for female and male sex, as well as embryo euploidy rates and ICSI clinical outcomes. These outcomes were compared between the two groups. For the ICSI/PGTA group (n = 1,212) (maternal age, 37.0±4yrs; paternal age, 39.1±6yrs), with ejaculated spermatozoa processed in the standard fashion, 2,303 ICSI cycles (1.2±1) yielded an 81.0% (14,375/17,737) fertilization. PGT-A results indicated a euploidy rate of 73.1% (n = 3,718) for female and 72.4% (n = 3,054) for male embryos. These couples achieved a 76.4% (699/915) implantation and 65.2% (597/915) clinical pregnancy rate, with 551 deliveries (48.5% female, 51.5% male). All 105 men in the ICSI/PGTA+GS group had sperm specimens with an equal sex distribution at baseline. Of them, 59 (paternal age, 40.9±6yrs) who desired female offspring obtained an 81.6% enrichment after SST. They underwent 73 ICSI cycles with their partners (maternal age, 37.9±4yrs), achieving a 77.3% (583/754) fertilization. This resulted in 79.1% (231/292) female embryos that generated a 79.3% (23/29) implantation rate, with 16 singleton deliveries of the desired female sex without major or minor congenital malformations. Forty-six couples (maternal age, 37.3±4yrs; paternal age, 40.7±6yrs) desiring male offspring obtained an 80.8% sperm sex enrichment. They underwent 50 ICSI cycles, achieving a 75.4% (462/613) fertilization and equivalent proportion of male embryos (223/280, 79.6%). Their implantation was 90.5% (19/21), with 13 singleton deliveries of healthy male offspring. Furthermore, 78.8% (182/231) of female and 66.4% (148/223) of male embryos from the ICSI/PGTA+GS cohort were euploid. These euploid rates were comparable to those from the ICSI/PGTA group. In couples undergoing ICSI with PGT-A, SST consistently enriched spermatozoa, resulting in a higher proportion of embryos and thus offspring of the desired sex. Moreover, SST did not impair the fertilization or embryo developmental competence of spermatozoa, nor did it affect offspring health. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05500573.