Website advertising of IVF add-ons: Does PGT-A live up to its billing?

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: helpful but not a first choice

PURPOSE

This retrospective cohort study aimed to assess and compare the outcomes between cumulative live birth of patients with and without PGT-A and also between prior unsuccessful IVF cycles and PGT-A cycles among patients who experienced IVF but without live birth delivery, and to clarify the effective usage of PGT-A as an in vitro fertilization (IVF) add-on.

METHODS

A total of 2113 females undergoing IVF with at least one blastocyst were reviewed. Patients in the PGT-A and non-PGT-A groups were further categorized into first-time IVF and prior unsuccessful IVF groups (previous IVF experience but without live birth delivery).

RESULTS

In the PGT-A group, there were additional oocyte retrieval cycles, fewer transfer cycles per patient, higher clinical pregnancy rates per embryo transfer, and lower miscarriage rates per clinical pregnancy as compared to the non-PGT-A group, all showing significant differences. However, the first-time IVF group with PGT-A had a significantly longer duration from the first oocyte retrieval to the first live birth delivery (LBD) and a significantly lower LBD rate per patient than the non-PGT-A group. The cumulative probability for a first LBD with PGT-A was inferior in the first-time IVF group for women < 35 years, marginally superior in the prior unsuccessful IVF group of women aged 38-40 years, and similar for other groups.

CONCLUSION

PGT-A should not be recommended to all patients; however, if the first IVF treatment failed, PGT-A may reduce the patient's burden regardless of age.

PGT-A: The biology and hidden failures of randomized control trials

OBJECTIVE

PGT-A for embryo selection has undergone significant advancements in the last two decades and yet many studies still fail to demonstrate any clinical benefits over traditional embryo morphology selection. To understand this conundrum, we performed a multi-center clinical study of PGT-A patients, where morphology selection (Mo-S) and euploid selection (Eu-S) outcomes were directly compared.

METHOD

All suitable blastocysts were biopsied and analysed for chromosome copy number. Outcomes (positive beta hCG, implantation, ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates) for euploid selection were compared to morphology selection using single embryo transfers RESULTS: Compared to Eu-S embryos, Mo-S embryos resulted in significant reduction of outcomes for positive beta hCG (P=0.0005), implantation (P=0.0008), ongoing pregnancy (P=0.0046), livebirth (P=0.0112), babies per transfer (P=0.0112) and babies per embryo transferred (P=0.0112). Morphology selection resulted in patients of all age groups having non-euploid embryos chosen for transfer. Post-hoc evaluation of individual clinic performances showed variable transfer outcomes that could potentially confound the true benefits of PGT-A.

CONCLUSION

Embryo chromosome status is central to improved embryo transfer outcomes and sole reliance on current morphology-based selection practices, without euploid selection, will always compromise outcomes. Often overlooked but a major effector of successful PGT-A outcomes are individual clinic performances. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.