Proportion of aneuploidy does not impact live birth rate or pregnancy loss rate in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) undergoing comprehensive chromosome screening

2014 ◽  
Vol 102 (3) ◽  
pp. e171-e172 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.M. Franasiak ◽  
R. Barnett ◽  
K.H. Hong ◽  
M.D. Werner ◽  
R.T. Scott
2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
H Yoshihara ◽  
M Sugiura-Ogasawara ◽  
T Kitaori ◽  
S Goto

Abstract Study question Can antinuclear antibody (ANA) affect the subsequent live birth rate in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) who have no antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs)? Summary answer ANA did not affect the pregnancy prognosis of RPL women. What is known already The prevalence of ANA is well-known to be higher in RPL patients. Our previous study found no difference in the live birth rates of ANA-positive and -negative patients who had no aPLs. Higher miscarriage rates were also reported in ANA-positive patients compared to ANA-negative patients with RPL. The RPL guidelines of the ESHRE state that “ANA testing can be considered for explanatory purposes.” However, there have been a limited number of studies on this issue and sample sizes have been small, and the impact of ANA on the pregnancy prognosis is unclear. Study design, size, duration An observational cohort study was conducted at Nagoya City University Hospital between 2006 and 2019. The study included 1,108 patients with a history of 2 or more pregnancy losses. Participants/materials, setting, methods 4D-Ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, chromosome analysis for both partners, aPLs and blood tests for ANA and diabetes mellitus were performed before a subsequent pregnancy. ANAs were measured by indirect immunofluorescence. The cutoff dilution used was 1:40. In addition, patients were classified according to the ANA pattern on immunofluorescence staining. Live birth rates were compared between ANA-positive and ANA-negative patients after excluding patients with antiphospholipid syndrome, an abnormal chromosome in either partner and a uterine anomaly. Main results and the role of chance The 994 patients were analyzed after excluding 40 with a uterine anomaly, 43 with a chromosome abnormality in either partner and 32 with APS. The rate of ANA-positive patients was 39.2 % (390/994) when the 1: 40 dilution result was positive. With a 1:160 dilution, the rate of ANA-positive patients was 3.62 % (36/994). The live birth rate was calculated for 798 patients, excluding 196 patients with unexplained RPL who had been treated with any medication. With the use of the 1 40 dilution, the subsequent live birth rates were 71.34 % (219/307) for the ANA-positive group and 70.67 % (347/491) for the ANA-negative group (OR, 95%CI; 0.968, 0.707-1.326). After excluding miscarriages with embryonic aneuploidy, chemical pregnancies and ectopic pregnancies, live birth rates were 92.41 % (219/237) for the ANA-positive group and 92.04 % (347/377) for the ANA-negative group (0.951, 0.517-1.747). Using the 1:160 dilution, the subsequent live birth rates were 84.62 % (22/26) for the ANA-positive group, and 70.47 % (544/772) for the ANA-negative group (0.434, 0.148-1.273). Subgroup analyses were performed for each pattern on immunofluorescence staining, but there was no significant difference in the live birth rate between the two groups. Limitations, reasons for caution The effectiveness of immunotherapies could not be evaluated. However, the results of this study suggest that it is not necessary. Wider implications of the findings The measurement of ANA might not be necessary for the screening of patients with RPL who have no features of collagen disease. Trial registration number not applicable


2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (12) ◽  
pp. 2340-2348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takeshi Sato ◽  
Mayumi Sugiura-Ogasawara ◽  
Fumiko Ozawa ◽  
Toshiyuki Yamamoto ◽  
Takema Kato ◽  
...  

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Can preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) improve the live birth rate and reduce the miscarriage rate in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) caused by an abnormal embryonic karyotype and recurrent implantation failure (RIF)? SUMMARY ANSWER PGT-A could not improve the live births per patient nor reduce the rate of miscarriage, in both groups. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY PGT-A use has steadily increased worldwide. However, only a few limited studies have shown that it improves the live birth rate in selected populations in that the prognosis has been good. Such studies have excluded patients with RPL and RIF. In addition, several studies have failed to demonstrate any benefit at all. PGT-A was reported to be without advantage in patients with unexplained RPL whose embryonic karyotype had not been analysed. The efficacy of PGT-A should be examined by focusing on patients whose previous products of conception (POC) have been aneuploid, because the frequencies of abnormal and normal embryonic karyotypes have been reported as 40–50% and 5–25% in patients with RPL, respectively. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A multi-centre, prospective pilot study was conducted from January 2017 to June 2018. A total of 171 patients were recruited for the study: an RPL group, including 41 and 38 patients treated respectively with and without PGT-A, and an RIF group, including 42 and 50 patients treated respectively with and without PGT-A. At least 10 women in each age group (35–36, 37–38, 39–40 or 41–42 years) were selected for PGT-A groups. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS All patients and controls had received IVF-ET for infertility. Patients in the RPL group had had two or more miscarriages, and at least one case of aneuploidy had been ascertained through prior POC testing. No pregnancies had occurred in the RIF group, even after at least three embryo transfers. Trophectoderm biopsy and array comparative genomic hybridisation (aCGH) were used for PGT-A. The live birth rate of PGT-A and non-PGT-A patients was compared after the development of blastocysts from up to two oocyte retrievals and a single blastocyst transfer. The miscarriage rate and the frequency of euploidy, trisomy and monosomy in the blastocysts were noted. MAIN RESULT AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE There were no significant differences in the live birth rates per patient given or not given PGT-A: 26.8 versus 21.1% in the RPL group and 35.7 versus 26.0% in the RIF group, respectively. There were also no differences in the miscarriage rates per clinical pregnancies given or not given PGT-A: 14.3 versus 20.0% in the RPL group and 11.8 versus 0% in the RIF group, respectively. However, PGT-A improved the live birth rate per embryo transfer procedure in both the RPL (52.4 vs 21.6%, adjusted OR 3.89; 95% CI 1.16–13.1) and RIF groups (62.5 vs 31.7%, adjusted OR 3.75; 95% CI 1.28–10.95). Additionally, PGT-A was shown to reduce biochemical pregnancy loss per biochemical pregnancy: 12.5 and 45.0%, adjusted OR 0.14; 95% CI 0.02–0.85 in the RPL group and 10.5 and 40.9%, adjusted OR 0.17; 95% CI 0.03–0.92 in the RIF group. There was no difference in the distribution of genetic abnormalities between RPL and RIF patients, although double trisomy tended to be more frequent in RPL patients. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The sample size was too small to find any significant advantage for improving the live birth rate and reducing the clinical miscarriage rate per patient. Further study is necessary. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS A large portion of pregnancy losses in the RPL group might be due to aneuploidy, since PGT-A reduced the overall incidence of pregnancy loss in these patients. Although PGT-A did not improve the live birth rate per patient, it did have the advantage of reducing the number of embryo transfers required to achieve a similar number live births compared with those not undergoing PGT-A. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study was supported by the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology and grants from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology. There are no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A


Author(s):  
Peng-Sheng Zheng ◽  
Shan Li ◽  
Jing Jing He

Background Parental abnormal chromosomal karyotypes are considered as reasons for recurrent pregnancy loss. Objective This systematic meta-analysis evaluated the current evidence on pregnancy outcomes amongst couples with abnormal versus normal chromosomal karyotypes. Search strategy Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts identified in EMBASE and PubMed from inception to January 2021. Selection criteria Studies were included if they provided a description of pregnancy outcomes of parental chromosomal abnormality. Data collection and analysis Random effects meta-analysis was used to compare odds of pregnancy outcomes associated with noncarriers and carriers. Main results A significantly lower first pregnancy live birth rate (FPLBR) was found in carriers than in noncarriers with RPL (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.46-0.65; p<0.00001). Regarding FPLBR between translocation or inversion carriers and noncarriers, a markedly decreased FPLBR was found in translocation (OR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.31–0.61; p<0.00001) but not inversion carriers. The accumulated live birth rate (ALBR) (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.90–1.03; p=0.26) was similar, while the miscarriage rate (MR) of accumulated pregnancies (OR: 2.21; 95% CI: 1.69–2.89; p<0.00001) was significantly higher in the carriers than in noncarriers with RPL. The ALBR was not significant (OR: 1.82; 95% CI: 0.38–8.71; p=0.45) but the MR (OR: 5.75; 95% CI: 2.57–12.86; p<0.0001) was markedly lower for carriers who choose PGD than natural conception. Conclusions Carriers with RPL had higher risk of miscarriage but obtained a satisfying pregnancy outcome through multiple attempts. No sufficient evidence was found PGD could enhance the ALBR but it was an alternative to decrease the MR.


2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
H Yoshihara ◽  
M Sugiura-Ogasawara ◽  
T Kitaori ◽  
S Goto

Abstract Study question Can antinuclear antibody (ANA) affect the subsequent live birth rate in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) who have no antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs)? Summary answer ANA did not affect the pregnancy prognosis of RPL women. What is known already The prevalence of ANA is well-known to be higher in RPL patients. Our previous study found no difference in the live birth rates of ANA-positive and -negative patients who had no aPLs. Higher miscarriage rates were also reported in ANA-positive patients compared to ANA-negative patients with RPL. The RPL guidelines of the ESHRE state that “ANA testing can be considered for explanatory purposes.” However, there have been a limited number of studies on this issue and sample sizes have been small, and the impact of ANA on the pregnancy prognosis is unclear. Study design, size, duration An observational cohort study was conducted at Nagoya City University Hospital between 2006 and 2019. The study included 1,108 patients with a history of 2 or more pregnancy losses. Participants/materials, setting, methods 4D-Ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, chromosome analysis for both partners, aPLs and blood tests for ANA and diabetes mellitus were performed before a subsequent pregnancy. ANAs were measured by indirect immunofluorescence. The cutoff dilution used was 1:40. In addition, patients were classified according to the ANA pattern on immunofluorescence staining. Live birth rates were compared between ANA-positive and ANA-negative patients after excluding patients with antiphospholipid syndrome, an abnormal chromosome in either partner and a uterine anomaly. Main results and the role of chance The 994 patients were analyzed after excluding 40 with a uterine anomaly, 43 with a chromosome abnormality in either partner and 32 with APS. The rate of ANA-positive patients was 39.2% (390/994) when the 1: 40 dilution result was positive. With a 1:160 dilution, the rate of ANA-positive patients was 3.62% (36/994). The live birth rate was calculated for 798 patients, excluding 196 patients with unexplained RPL who had been treated with any medication. With the use of the 1: 40 dilution, the subsequent live birth rates were 71.34% (219/307) for the ANA-positive group and 70.67% (347/491) for the ANA-negative group (OR, 95%CI; 0.968, 0.707–1.326). After excluding miscarriages with embryonic aneuploidy, chemical pregnancies and ectopic pregnancies, live birth rates were 92.41% (219/237) for the ANA-positive group and 92.04% (347/377) for the ANA-negative group (0.951, 0.517–1.747). Using the 1:160 dilution, the subsequent live birth rates were 84.62% (22/26) for the ANA-positive group, and 70.47% (544/772) for the ANA-negative group (0.434, 0.148–1.273). Subgroup analyses were performed for each pattern on immunofluorescence staining, but there was no significant difference in the live birth rate between the two groups. Limitations, reasons for caution The effectiveness of immunotherapies could not be evaluated. However, the results of this study suggest that it is not necessary. Wider implications of the findings: The measurement of ANA might not be necessary for the screening of patients with RPL who have no features of collagen disease. Trial registration number Not applicable


Thyroid ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (10) ◽  
pp. 1465-1474 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sofie Bliddal ◽  
Ulla Feldt-Rasmussen ◽  
Åse Krogh Rasmussen ◽  
Astrid Marie Kolte ◽  
Linda Marie Hilsted ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 504-515 ◽  
Author(s):  
P Peuranpää ◽  
H Hautamäki ◽  
M Halttunen-Nieminen ◽  
C Hydén-Granskog ◽  
A Tiitinen

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Is a low (&lt;1.0 μg/L) or moderately low (1.0–1.9 μg/L) serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level a risk factor for early pregnancy loss in IVF/ICSI with a fresh or frozen-thawed embryo transfer (ET)? SUMMARY ANSWER A low or moderately low serum AMH level does not associate with miscarriage, non-visualized pregnancy loss or overall early pregnancy loss rate in the IVF/ICSI treatment. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Low AMH predicts poor ovarian response and small oocyte yield in IVF/ICSI treatment, but its value in the evaluation of live birth rate (LBR) is modest. Little is known about the risk of early pregnancy loss in ART among women with low AMH. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A retrospective cohort study on 1383 women undergoing their first oocyte retrieval for IVF/ICSI in Helsinki University Hospital in Helsinki, Finland, between 2012 and 2016, with all associated fresh (n = 1315) and frozen-thawed (n = 1418) ET cycles finished by August 2018. AMH was measured within 12 months before the IVF/ICSI stimulation. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Of all the women, 235 (17.0%) had low (&lt;1.0 μg/L), 278 (20.1%) had moderately low (1.0–1.9 μg/L) and 870 (62.9%) had normal (≥2.0 μg/L) AMH. The primary outcomes were miscarriage, non-visualized pregnancy loss and early pregnancy loss (miscarriage and non-visualized pregnancy loss combined) after fresh or frozen-thawed ET. The impact of AMH on these outcomes was calculated in three populations: among all women who became pregnant, among women with AMH ≤6.0 μg/L and in a population weighted by the inverse probability of becoming pregnant (inverse probability weighting, IPW). The impact of AMH was also assessed on the secondary outcomes, cumulative pregnancy rate (cPR) and cumulative live birth rate (cLBR) across all ET cycles in the woman’s first IVF/ICSI. Potential confounders (the woman’s age, overweight, smoking, history of endometriosis and underlying medical conditions) adjusted the final results. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Of 1123 pregnancies, 285 (25.4%) ended in non-visualized pregnancy loss and 143 (12.7%) in miscarriage. The LBR was 24.6% per ET (673/2733). Low or moderately low AMH, compared with normal AMH, did not associate with miscarriage or non-visualized pregnancy loss in analyses among all women who became pregnant (adjusted relative risk (RR) for miscarriage vs live birth, 0.70 and 95% CI 0.42–1.17 in low AMH and adjusted RR, 1.00 and 95% CI, 0.68–1.49 in moderately low AMH; adjusted RR for non-visualized pregnancy loss vs live birth, 0.90 and 95% CI, 0.65–1.23 in low AMH and adjusted RR, 1.09 and 95% CI 0.85–1.41 in moderately low AMH), nor did low or moderately low AMH associate with the overall early pregnancy loss rate (adjusted RR for early pregnancy loss vs live birth, 0.86 and 95% CI, 0.68–1.10 in low AMH and adjusted RR, 1.01 and 95% CI, 0.86–1.27 in moderately low AMH). Results remained similar after restricting the analysis to women with AMH ≤6.0 μg/L. Women with low or moderately low AMH had fewer pregnancies and live births than women with normal AMH in their first IVF/ICSI (cPR/cLBR in women with low AMH 50.6/34.0%, moderately low AMH 59.0/36.3% and normal AMH 68.3/49.2%). When the lower probability for pregnancy was considered by using IPW, women with low or moderately low AMH did not have a higher risk for miscarriage, non-visualized pregnancy loss or overall early pregnancy loss compared with women with normal AMH. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The number of miscarriages in women with low AMH was moderately small, limiting the power of the study. The real-world clinical setting of the study restricted the ability to control for all factors causing selection bias. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The cLBR was higher among women with normal AMH than among women with low or moderately low AMH in their first IVF/ICSI treatment because these women had more oocytes and embryos. Women with low or moderately low AMH did not have an increased risk for early pregnancy loss. This information is reassuring for couples and useful in counseling. These results are also valuable when assessing the overall effectiveness of IVF/ICSI treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) Research funds from Helsinki University Hospital (no. TYH2018232), Hyvinkää Hospital (no. M3080TUT18) and the Emil Aaltonen Foundation for P.P. Grants from the Paulo Foundation and the Finnish Medical Foundation for H.H. The authors report no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER HUS/138/2017.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 2857
Author(s):  
Mónica Sánchez-Santiuste ◽  
Mar Ríos ◽  
Laura Calles ◽  
Reyes de la Cuesta ◽  
Virginia Engels ◽  
...  

To compare the obstetric results achieved after hysteroscopic office metroplasty (HOME-DU) in infertile and recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) patients diagnosed with dysmorphic uterus, women hysteroscopically diagnosed with dysmorphic uterus who underwent uterine-enlargement metroplasty were prospectively enrolled from June 2016 until April 2020. Patients were followed up and obstetric outcomes were recorded (pregnancy and live birth rate). Sixty-three women (30 infertile; 33 RPL) were enrolled, of which 48 became pregnant post-HOME-DU, with an overall pregnancy rate of 76.2% (66.7% among infertile participants; 84.9% among those with RPL). Overall, 64.3% (n = 36/63) achieved live birth. Among infertile women, 62.07% (n = 18/29) achieved live birth, as well as 66.7% of women with RPL (n = 18/27). The difference in live birth rates between both cohorts was 4.6% (p > 0.05). The rate of miscarriage amongst infertile patients was 3.3% (n = 1/30) and 12.1% amongst women with RPL (n = 4/33). Office metroplasty via the HOME-DU technique improves obstetric results (namely increasing live birth rate) in patients with dysmorphic uterus and a history of reproductive failure. No significant difference was found in the clinical efficacy of HOME-DU in infertile and RPL patients.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoyan Ding ◽  
Jingwei Yang ◽  
Lan Li ◽  
Na Yang ◽  
Ling Lan ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Along with progress in embryo cryopreservation, especially in vitrification has made freeze all strategy more acceptable. Some studies found comparable or higher live birth rate with frozen embryo transfer (FET) than with fresh embryo transfer(ET)in gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol. But there were no reports about live birth rate differences between fresh ET and FET with gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) long protocol. The aim of this study is to analyze whether patients benefit from freeze all strategy in GnRH-a protocol from real-world data.Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study, in which women undergoing fresh ET or FET with GnRH-a long protocol at Chongqing Reproductive and Genetics Institute from January 2016 to December 2018 were evaluated. The primary outcome was live birth rate. The secondary outcomes were implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, pregnancy loss and ectopic pregnancy rate.Results: A total of 7,814 patients met inclusion criteria, implementing 5,216 fresh ET cycles and 2,598 FET cycles, respectively. The demographic characteristics of the patients were significantly different between two groups, except BMI. After controlling for a broad range of potential confounders (including age, infertility duration, BMI, AMH, no. of oocytes retrieved and no. of available embryos), multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that there was no significant difference in terms of clinical pregnancy rate, ectopic pregnancy rate and pregnancy loss rate between two groups (all P>0.05). However, the implantation rate and live birth rate of fresh ET group were significantly higher than FET group (P<0.001 and P=0.012, respectively).Conclusion: Compared to FET, fresh ET following GnRH-a long protocol could lead to higher implantation rate and live birth rate in infertile patients underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF). The freeze all strategy should be individualized and made with caution especially with GnRH-a long protocol.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document