Comparison of PGS2.0 versus conventional embryo morphology evaluation for patients with recurrent pregnancy loss: a study protocol for a multicentre randomised trial

Caixia Lei, Yilun Sui, Jiangfeng Ye, Yao Lu, Ji Xi, Yun Sun, Li Jin, Xiaoxi Sun, Caixia Lei, Yilun Sui, Jiangfeng Ye, Yao Lu, Ji Xi, Yun Sun, Li Jin, Xiaoxi Sun

Abstract

Introduction: Pregnancy loss (PL) is an adverse life event, and there is no proven effective treatment for recurrent PL (RPL). Preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) can be performed to reduce the risks of PL; however, there is still no solid scientific evidence that PGS improves outcomes for couples experiencing RPL. Comprehensive chromosome screening (PGS2.0) has become a routine practice in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) clinics. Previous studies based on PGS1.0 with a focus on RPL couples where the female is of advanced maternal age have reported contradictory results. Hence, a multicentre randomised trial is needed to provide evidence for the clinical benefits of PGS2.0 treatment for RPL couples.

Methods and analysis: Overall, 268 RPL couples undergoing IVF cycles will be enrolled. Couples will be randomised according to a unique grouping number generated by a random digital software into (1) PGS2.0 group and (2) non-PGS (conventional embryo morphology evaluation) group. This study aims to investigate whether the live birth rate (LBR) per initiated cycle after PGS2.0 is superior to the LBR per initiated cycle after conventional embryo evaluation (non-PGS group). Live birth will be defined as a live baby born after a gestation period of >28 weeks, with a birth weight of more than 1000 g. A multivariate logistic regression model will be used to adjust for confounding factors.

Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval has been granted by the Ethics Committee of Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital, Fudan University and the participating hospitals. Written informed consent will be obtained from each couple before any study procedure is performed. Data from this study will be stored in the Research Electronic Data Capture. The results of this trial will be presented and published via peer-reviewed publications and presentations at international conferences.

Trial registration number: NCT03214185; Pre-results.

Keywords: antenatal; prenatal diagnosis; reproductive medicine.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

References

    1. Shi Y, Wei D, Liang X, et al. . Live birth after fresh embryo transfer vs elective embryo cryopreservation/frozen embryo transfer in women with polycystic ovary syndrome undergoing IVF (FreFro-PCOS): study protocol for a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial. Trials 2014;15:154. 10.1186/1745-6215-15-154
    1. Shi Y, Sun Y, Hao C, et al. . Transfer of fresh versus frozen embryos in ovulatory women. N Engl J Med 2018;378:126–36. 10.1056/NEJMoa1705334
    1. Group EEPGD Recurrent pregnancy loss guideline of the European Society of human reproduction and embryology. Available: [Accessed Nov 2017].
    1. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Dyer S, et al. . The International glossary on infertility and fertility care, 2017. Hum Reprod 2017;32:1786–801. 10.1093/humrep/dex234
    1. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Definitions of infertility and recurrent pregnancy loss: a Committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2013;99:63. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.09.023
    1. El Hachem H, Crepaux V, May-Panloup P, et al. . Recurrent pregnancy loss: current perspectives. Int J Womens Health 2017;9:331–45. 10.2147/IJWH.S100817
    1. Wang Y, Cheng Q, Meng L, et al. . Clinical application of SNP array analysis in first-trimester pregnancy loss: a prospective study. Clin Genet 2017;91:849–58. 10.1111/cge.12926
    1. Robinson WP, McFadden DE, Stephenson MD. The origin of abnormalities in recurrent aneuploidy/polyploidy. Am J Hum Genet 2001;69:1245–54. 10.1086/324468
    1. Babariya D, Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, et al. . The incidence and origin of segmental aneuploidy in human oocytes and preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod 2017;32:2549–60. 10.1093/humrep/dex324
    1. McCoy RC, Demko ZP, Ryan A, et al. . Evidence of selection against complex Mitotic-Origin aneuploidy during preimplantation development. PLoS Genet 2015;11:e1005601. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005601
    1. Hassold T, Hunt P. To ERR (meiotically) is human: the genesis of human aneuploidy. Nat Rev Genet 2001;2:280–91. 10.1038/35066065
    1. Nagaoka SI, Hassold TJ, Hunt PA. Human aneuploidy: mechanisms and new insights into an age-old problem. Nat Rev Genet 2012;13:493–504. 10.1038/nrg3245
    1. Staessen C, Platteau P, Van Assche E, et al. . Comparison of blastocyst transfer with or without preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in couples with advanced maternal age: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2004;19:2849–58. 10.1093/humrep/deh536
    1. Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J, et al. . In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med 2007;357:9–17. 10.1056/NEJMoa067744
    1. Scott RT, Upham KM, Forman EJ, et al. . Cleavage-Stage biopsy significantly impairs human embryonic implantation potential while blastocyst biopsy does not: a randomized and paired clinical trial. Fertil Steril 2013;100:624–30. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.039
    1. Geraedts J, Sermon K. Preimplantation genetic screening 2.0: the theory. Mol Hum Reprod 2016;22:839–44. 10.1093/molehr/gaw033
    1. Meldrum DR, Su HI, Katz-Jaffe MG, et al. . Preimplantation genetic screening 2.0: an evolving and promising technique. Fertil Steril 2016;106:64–5. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.05.002
    1. Keltz MD, Vega M, Sirota I, et al. . Preimplantation genetic screening (PGs) with comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) following day 3 single cell blastomere biopsy markedly improves IVF outcomes while lowering multiple pregnancies and miscarriages. J Assist Reprod Genet 2013;30:1333–9. 10.1007/s10815-013-0070-6
    1. Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, García-Velasco JA. Comprehensive chromosome screening improves embryo selection: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2015;104:1503–12. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.08.038
    1. Kushnir VA, Darmon SK, Albertini DF, et al. . Effectiveness of in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening: a reanalysis of United States assisted reproductive technology data 2011-2012. Fertil Steril 2016;106:75–9. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.02.026
    1. Orvieto R. Preimplantation genetic screening- the required RCT that has not yet been carried out. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2016;14:35. 10.1186/s12958-016-0171-z
    1. Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Cimadomo D, et al. . Correlation between standard blastocyst morphology, euploidy and implantation: an observational study in two centers involving 956 screened blastocysts. Hum Reprod 2014;29:1173–81. 10.1093/humrep/deu033
    1. Kim MK, Park JK, Jeon Y, et al. . Correlation between morphologic grading and Euploidy rates of blastocysts, and clinical outcomes in in vitro fertilization preimplantation genetic screening. J Korean Med Sci 2019;34:e27 10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e27
    1. Alfarawati S, Fragouli E, Colls P, et al. . The relationship between blastocyst morphology, chromosomal abnormality, and embryo gender. Fertil Steril 2011;95:520–4. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.003
    1. Viñals Gonzalez X, Odia R, Naja R, et al. . Euploid blastocysts implant irrespective of their morphology after NGS-(PGT-A) testing in advanced maternal age patients. J Assist Reprod Genet 2019;36:1623–9. 10.1007/s10815-019-01496-9
    1. , Calhaz-Jorge C, de Geyter C, et al. , European IVF-Monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) . Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2012: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2016;31:1638–52. 10.1093/humrep/dew151
    1. , Calhaz-Jorge C, et al. , European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM), European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) . Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2013: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2017;32:1957–73. 10.1093/humrep/dex264
    1. De Rycke M, Goossens V, Kokkali G, et al. . ESHRE Pgd Consortium data collection XIV-XV: cycles from January 2011 to December 2012 with pregnancy follow-up to October 2013. Hum Reprod 2017;32:1974–94. 10.1093/humrep/dex265
    1. Simon AL, Kiehl M, Fischer E, et al. . Pregnancy outcomes from more than 1,800 in vitro fertilization cycles with the use of 24-chromosome single-nucleotide polymorphism-based preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. Fertil Steril 2018;110:113–21. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.03.026
    1. Lee C-I, Wu C-H, Pai Y-P, et al. . Performance of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in IVF cycles for patients with advanced maternal age, repeat implantation failure, and idiopathic recurrent miscarriage. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2019;58:239–43. 10.1016/j.tjog.2019.01.013
    1. Lei C-X, J-F Y, Sui Y-L, et al. . Retrospective cohort study of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy with comprehensive chromosome screening versus nonpreimplantation genetic testing in normal karyotype, secondary infertility patients with recurrent pregnancy loss. Reproductive and Developmental Medicine 2019;3:205–12.
    1. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. . Consort 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c869 10.1136/bmj.c869
    1. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. . Consort 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg 2012;10:28–55. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.10.001
    1. Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Mature oocyte cryopreservation: a guideline. Fertil Steril 2013;99:37–43. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.09.028
    1. Li X, Xu Y, Fu J, et al. . Non-Invasive metabolomic profiling of embryo culture media and morphology grading to predict implantation outcome in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet 2015;32:1597–605. 10.1007/s10815-015-0578-z
    1. Gu R, Feng Y, Guo S, et al. . Improved cryotolerance and developmental competence of human oocytes matured in vitro by transient hydrostatic pressure treatment prior to vitrification. Cryobiology 2017;75:144–50. 10.1016/j.cryobiol.2016.12.009
    1. Bar Hava I, Blueshtein M, Ganer Herman H, et al. . Gonadotropin-Releasing hormone analogue as sole luteal support in antagonist-based assisted reproductive technology cycles. Fertil Steril 2017;107:130–5. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.10.011
    1. Wu Q, Li H, Zhu Y, et al. . Dosage of exogenous gonadotropins is not associated with blastocyst aneuploidy or live-birth rates in PGs cycles in Chinese women. Hum Reprod 2018;33:1875–82. 10.1093/humrep/dey270
    1. Fu J, Shao J, Li X, et al. . Non-Invasive metabolomic profiling of day 3 embryo culture media using near-infrared spectroscopy to assess the development potential of embryos. Acta Biochim Biophys Sin 2013;45:1074–8. 10.1093/abbs/gmt115
    1. Rottenstreich A, Amsalem H, Kleinstern G, et al. . Outcomes of threatened abortions after anticoagulation treatment to prevent recurrent pregnancy loss. Reprod Biomed Online 2017;35:461–7. 10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.06.018
    1. Laskin CA, Bombardier C, Hannah ME, et al. . Prednisone and aspirin in women with autoantibodies and unexplained recurrent fetal loss. N Engl J Med 1997;337:148–53. 10.1056/NEJM199707173370302
    1. McCulloh DH, Alikani M, Norian J, et al. . Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (Coh) parameters associated with euploidy rates in donor oocytes. Eur J Med Genet 2019;62:103707. 10.1016/j.ejmg.2019.103707

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera