Dataset Information

Combined Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Genetic Kidney Disease: Genetic Risk Identification, Assisted Reproductive Cycle, and Pregnancy Outcome Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Genetic kidney disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in neonates and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in children and adolescents. Genetic diagnosis provides key information for early identification of congenital kidney disease and reproductive risk counseling. Preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disease (PGT-M) as a reproductive technology helps prospective parents to prevent passing on disease-causing mutations to their offspring.

Materials and methods

A retrospective cohort of couples counseled on PGT who had a risk to given birth to a child with genetic kidney disease or had a history of prenatal fetal kidney and urinary system development abnormalities from 2011 to 2021. Through a combination of simultaneously screening for aneuploidy and monogenic kidney disease, we achieved reproductive genetic intervention.

Results

A total of 64 couples counseled on PGT for monogenic kidney disease in a single reproductive center during the past 10 years, of whom 38 different genetic kidney diseases were identified. The most frequent indications for referral were autosomal recessive disease (54.7%), then autosomal dominant disease (29.7%), and X-linked disease (15.6%). Polycystic kidney disease was the most common diseases counted for 34.4%. After oocyte-retrieval in all of 64 females, a total of 339 embryos were diagnosed and 63 embryos were transferred in succession. Among 61 cycles of frozen-embryo transfer (FET), ongoing pregnancy/live birth rate (OP/LBR) reached 57.38%. The cumulative OP/LBR in our cohort for the 64 couples was 54.69%. In addition, we have carried out expanded carrier screening (ECS) in all the in vitro fertilization (IVF) couples performed PGT covering 7,311 individuals. The carrier frequency of the candidate genes for monogenic kidney diseases accounted for 12.19%.

Conclusion

Overall, the customization PGT-M plan in our IVF center is pivotal to decreasing the morbidity and implementing reproductive genetic intervention of genetic kidney disease.

SUBMITTER: Xiao M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9247246 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study questionDo donor oocyte recipients benefit from preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A)?Summary answerPGT-A did not improve the likelihood of live birth for recipients of vitrified donor oocytes, but it did avoid embryo transfer in cycles with no euploid embryos.What is known alreadyRelative to slow freeze, oocyte vitrification has led to increased live birth from cryopreserved oocytes and has led to widespread use of this technology in donor egg IVF programs. However, oocyte cryopreservation has the potential to disrupt the meiotic spindle leading to abnormal segregation of chromosome during meiosis II and ultimately increased aneuploidy in resultant embryos. Therefore, PGT-A might have benefits in vitrified donor egg cycles. In contrast, embryos derived from young donor oocytes are expected to be predominantly euploid, and trophectoderm biopsy may have a negative effect relative to transfer without biopsy.Study design, size, durationThis is a paired cohort study analyzing donor oocyte-recipient cycles with or without PGT-A performed from 2012 to 2018 at 47 US IVF centers.Participants/materials, setting, methodsVitrified donor oocyte cycles were analyzed for live birth as the main outcome measure. Outcomes from donors whose oocytes were used by at least two separate recipient couples, one couple using PGT-A (study group) and one using embryos without PGT-A (control group), were compared. Generalized estimating equation models controlled for confounders and nested for individual donors contributing to both PGT-A and non-PGT-A cohorts, enabling a single donor to serve as her own control.Main results and the role of chanceIn total, 1291 initiated recipient cycles from 223 donors were analyzed, including 262 cycles with and 1029 without PGT-A. The median aneuploidy rate per recipient was 25%. Forty-three percent of PGT-A cycles had only euploid embryos, whereas only 12.7% of cycles had no euploid embryos. On average 1.09 embryos were transferred in the PGT-A group compared to 1.38 in the group without PGT-A (P < 0.01). Live birth occurred in 53.8% of cycles with PGT-A versus 55.8% without PGT-A (P = 0.44). Similar findings persisted in cumulative live birth from per recipient cycle.Limitations, reasons for cautionPooled clinical data from 47 IVF clinics introduced PGT-A heterogeneity as genetic testing were performed using different embryology laboratories, PGT-A companies and testing platforms.Wider implications of the findingsPGT-A testing in donor oocyte-recipient cycles does not improve the chance for live birth nor decrease the risk for miscarriage in the first transfer cycle but does increase cost and time for the patient. Further studies are required to test if our findings can be applied to the young infertility patient population using autologous oocytes.Study funding/competing interest(s)No external funding was used for this study. There are no conflicts of interest to declare.Trial registration numberN/A.

Project description:Study questionDoes the interval from delivery to initiation of a subsequent ART treatment cycle impact clinical pregnancy or live birth rates?Summary answerAn interval from delivery to treatment start of <6 months or ?24 months is associated with decreased likelihood of clinical pregnancy and live birth.What is known alreadyShort interpregnancy intervals are associated with poor obstetric outcomes in the naturally conceiving population prompting birth spacing recommendations of 18-24 months from international organizations. Deferring a subsequent pregnancy attempt means a woman will age in the interval with an attendant decline in her fertility.Study design, size, durationRetrospective analysis of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinical Outcome Reporting System (SARTCORS) cohort containing 61 686 ART cycles from 2004 to 2013.Participants/materials, setting, methodsThe delivery-to-cycle interval (DCI) was calculated for patients from SARTCORS with a history of live birth from ART who returned to the same clinic for a first subsequent treatment cycle. Generalized linear models were fit to determine the risk of clinical pregnancy and live birth by DCI with subsequent adjustment for factors associated with outcomes of interest. Predicted probabilities of clinical pregnancy and live birth were generated from each model.Main results and the role of chanceA DCI of <6 months was associated with a 5.6% reduction in probability of clinical pregnancy (40.1 ± 1.9 versus 45.7 ± 0.6%, P = 0.009) and 6.8% reduction in live birth (31.6 ± 1.7 versus 38.4 ± 0.6%, P = 0.001) per cycle start compared to a DCI of 12 to <18 months. A DCI of ?24 months was associated with a 5.1% reduction in probability of clinical pregnancy (40.6 ± 0.5 versus 45.7 ± 0.6%, P < 0.001) and 5.7% reduction in live birth (32.7 ± 0.5 versus 38.4 ± 0.6%, P < 0.001) compared to 12 to <18 months.Limitations, reasons for cautionThe SART database is reliant upon self-report of many variables of interest including live birth. It remains unclear whether poorer outcomes are a result of residual confounding from factors inherent to the population with a very short or long DCI or the interval itself.Wider implications of the findingsBirth spacing recommendations for naturally conceiving populations may not be generally applicable to patients with a history of infertility. Patients planning ART treatment should wait a minimum of 6 months, but not more than 24 months, from a live birth for optimization of clinical pregnancy and live birth rates.Study funding/competing interest(s)National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, UCSF-CTSI Grant number UL1TR001872. The authors have no competing interests.