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 , Melody Menezes PhD , Tristan Hardy PhD , Sharon Lewis PhD , 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.
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.