Clinical outcomes following preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic conditions: a systematic review of observational studies

IF 8.7 1区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY American journal of obstetrics and gynecology Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2024.09.114
Alice Poulton MGenCouns , Melody Menezes PhD , Tristan Hardy PhD , Sharon Lewis PhD , Lisa Hui PhD
{"title":"Clinical outcomes following preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic conditions: a systematic review of observational studies","authors":"Alice Poulton MGenCouns ,&nbsp;Melody Menezes PhD ,&nbsp;Tristan Hardy PhD ,&nbsp;Sharon Lewis PhD ,&nbsp;Lisa Hui PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.ajog.2024.09.114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>We aimed to report a summary of clinical outcomes following preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic conditions, by performing a systematic review of published literature on clinical pregnancy and live birth rates following preimplantation genetic testing due to a monogenic indication. Additionally, we aimed to undertake a subgroup analysis of clinical outcomes of concurrent monogenic and aneuploidy screening.</div></div><div><h3>Data sources</h3><div>Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed) were searched from inception to May 2024.</div></div><div><h3>Study eligibility criteria</h3><div>Quantitative data audits, observational studies, and case series reporting clinical outcomes for individuals undergoing preimplantation genetic testing for a monogenic indication were included. Only studies using blastocyst biopsies with polymerase chain reaction-based or genome-wide haplotyping methods for molecular analysis were eligible to reflect current laboratory practice.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Quality assessment was performed following data extraction using an adaptation of the Joanna Briggs critical appraisal tool for case series. Results were extracted, and pooled mean clinical pregnancy rates and birth rates were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We compared outcomes between those with and without concurrent preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Our search identified 1372 publications; 51 were eligible for inclusion. Pooled data on 5305 cycles and 5229 embryo transfers yielded 1806 clinical pregnancies and 1577 births. This translated to clinical pregnancy and birth rates of 34.0% [95% CI: 32.8%–35.3%] and 29.7% [95% CI: 28.5%–31.0%] per cycle and 24.8% [95% CI: 23.6%–26.0%] and 21.7% [95% CI: 20.8%–23.1%] per embryo transfer. In studies with concurrent aneuploidy screening, clinical pregnancy and birth rates were 43.3% [95% CI: 40.2%–46.5%] and 37.6% [95% CI: 34.6%–40.8%] per cycle and 37.0% [95% CI: 33.9%–40.3%] and 31.8% [95% CI: 28.8%–35.0%] per embryo transfer. Studies without aneuploidy screening reported clinical pregnancy and birth rates of 32.5% [95% CI: 31.0%–34.1%] and 28.1% [95% CI: 26.6%–29.7%] per cycle and 21.2% [95% CI: 19.8%–22.6%] and 18.6% [95% CI: 17.3%–20.0%] per embryo transfer.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This systematic review reveals promising clinical outcome figures for this indication group. Additionally, synthesizing the published scientific literature on clinical outcomes from preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic conditions provides a rigorous, noncommercial evidence base for counseling.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7574,"journal":{"name":"American journal of obstetrics and gynecology","volume":"232 2","pages":"Pages 150-163"},"PeriodicalIF":8.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of obstetrics and gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002937824010457","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

We aimed to report a summary of clinical outcomes following preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic conditions, by performing a systematic review of published literature on clinical pregnancy and live birth rates following preimplantation genetic testing due to a monogenic indication. Additionally, we aimed to undertake a subgroup analysis of clinical outcomes of concurrent monogenic and aneuploidy screening.

Data sources

Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed) were searched from inception to May 2024.

Study eligibility criteria

Quantitative data audits, observational studies, and case series reporting clinical outcomes for individuals undergoing preimplantation genetic testing for a monogenic indication were included. Only studies using blastocyst biopsies with polymerase chain reaction-based or genome-wide haplotyping methods for molecular analysis were eligible to reflect current laboratory practice.

Methods

Quality assessment was performed following data extraction using an adaptation of the Joanna Briggs critical appraisal tool for case series. Results were extracted, and pooled mean clinical pregnancy rates and birth rates were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We compared outcomes between those with and without concurrent preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy.

Results

Our search identified 1372 publications; 51 were eligible for inclusion. Pooled data on 5305 cycles and 5229 embryo transfers yielded 1806 clinical pregnancies and 1577 births. This translated to clinical pregnancy and birth rates of 34.0% [95% CI: 32.8%–35.3%] and 29.7% [95% CI: 28.5%–31.0%] per cycle and 24.8% [95% CI: 23.6%–26.0%] and 21.7% [95% CI: 20.8%–23.1%] per embryo transfer. In studies with concurrent aneuploidy screening, clinical pregnancy and birth rates were 43.3% [95% CI: 40.2%–46.5%] and 37.6% [95% CI: 34.6%–40.8%] per cycle and 37.0% [95% CI: 33.9%–40.3%] and 31.8% [95% CI: 28.8%–35.0%] per embryo transfer. Studies without aneuploidy screening reported clinical pregnancy and birth rates of 32.5% [95% CI: 31.0%–34.1%] and 28.1% [95% CI: 26.6%–29.7%] per cycle and 21.2% [95% CI: 19.8%–22.6%] and 18.6% [95% CI: 17.3%–20.0%] per embryo transfer.

Conclusion

This systematic review reveals promising clinical outcome figures for this indication group. Additionally, synthesizing the published scientific literature on clinical outcomes from preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic conditions provides a rigorous, noncommercial evidence base for counseling.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
单基因遗传病植入前基因检测的临床结果,观察性研究的系统回顾。
目的:我们旨在通过对已发表的有关因单基因适应症而进行植入前基因检测后临床妊娠率和活产率的文献进行系统性回顾,报告单基因疾病植入前基因检测的临床结果摘要。此外,我们还旨在对同时进行单基因和非整倍体筛查的临床结果进行亚组分析:数据来源(包括检索年份):检索了三个电子数据库(MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 PubMed),检索时间从开始到 2024 年 5 月。研究资格标准(研究设计、人群和干预措施[如适用]):包括定量数据审计、观察性研究和报告因单基因适应症而接受植入前基因检测的临床结果的系列病例。只有使用囊胚活检和基于聚合酶链反应或全基因组单倍型方法进行分子分析的研究才符合条件,以反映当前的实验室实践:采用乔安娜-布里格斯(Joanna Briggs)病例系列批判性评估工具进行数据提取,然后进行质量评估。我们提取了研究结果,并计算了汇总的平均临床妊娠率和出生率以及 95% 的置信区间。我们比较了同时进行和未同时进行PGT-A的结果:我们的搜索发现了 1372 篇出版物,其中 51 篇符合纳入条件。汇总了 5305 个周期和 5229 次胚胎移植的数据,得出了 1806 例临床妊娠和 1577 例新生儿。这意味着每个周期的临床妊娠率和出生率分别为 34.0% [95%CI:32.8-35.3%] 和 29.7% [95%CI:28.5-31.0%],每次胚胎移植的临床妊娠率和出生率分别为 24.8% [95%CI:23.6-26.0%] 和 21.7% [95%CI:20.8-23.1%]。在同时进行非整倍体筛查的研究中,每个周期的临床妊娠率和出生率分别为 43.3% [95%CI:40.2-46.5%] 和 37.6% [95%CI:34.6-40.8%],每次胚胎移植的临床妊娠率和出生率分别为 37.0% [95%CI:33.9-40.3%] 和 31.8% [95%CI:28.8-35.0%]。未进行非整倍体筛查的研究报告显示,每个周期的临床妊娠率和出生率分别为 32.5% [95%CI:31.0-34.1%] 和 28.1% [95%CI:26.6-29.7%],每次胚胎移植的临床妊娠率和出生率分别为 21.2% [95%CI:19.8-22.6%] 和 18.6% [95%CI:17.3-20.0%]:本系统综述揭示了该适应症组的临床结果数据。此外,综合已发表的有关单基因植入前基因检测临床结果的科学文献,可为咨询提供严谨、非商业性的证据基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
2237
审稿时长
47 days
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, known as "The Gray Journal," covers the entire spectrum of Obstetrics and Gynecology. It aims to publish original research (clinical and translational), reviews, opinions, video clips, podcasts, and interviews that contribute to understanding health and disease and have the potential to impact the practice of women's healthcare. Focus Areas: Diagnosis, Treatment, Prediction, and Prevention: The journal focuses on research related to the diagnosis, treatment, prediction, and prevention of obstetrical and gynecological disorders. Biology of Reproduction: AJOG publishes work on the biology of reproduction, including studies on reproductive physiology and mechanisms of obstetrical and gynecological diseases. Content Types: Original Research: Clinical and translational research articles. Reviews: Comprehensive reviews providing insights into various aspects of obstetrics and gynecology. Opinions: Perspectives and opinions on important topics in the field. Multimedia Content: Video clips, podcasts, and interviews. Peer Review Process: All submissions undergo a rigorous peer review process to ensure quality and relevance to the field of obstetrics and gynecology.
期刊最新文献
Commentary on distinct obstetrical characteristics and maternal mortality in patients with HELLP syndrome vs severe preeclampsia. Key actions to improve linkage to care for pregnant and postpartum women with hepatitis C. Should we focus on endometrial-free closure technique? Optimizing patient selection and technique for occiput posterior vacuum extraction - Reply. Optimizing patient selection and technique for occiput posterior vacuum extraction.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1