BACKGROUND: Non-invasive chromosome screening (NICS) and trophectoderm biopsy preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (TE-PGT) were both applied for embryo ploidy detection, However, the cumulative live birth rates (CLBR) of NICS and TE-PGT in older age groups have yet to be reported. This study aimed to ascertain whether NICS and TE-PGT could enhance the cumulative live birth rates among patients of advanced maternal age.
METHODS: A total of 384 couples aged 35-40 years were recruited. The patients were assigned to three groups: NICS, TE-PGT, and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). All patients received frozen single blastocyst transfer. Patients in the NICS and TE-PGT groups underwent aneuploidy screening.
RESULTS: When compared to the ICSI group, the CLBR was significantly higher in the NICS and TE-PGT groups (27.9% vs. 44.9% vs. 51.0%, p = 0.003 for NICS vs. ICSI, p < 0.001 for TE-PGT vs. ICSI). There were no significant differences in the clinical outcomes between the NICS and TE-PGT groups. Adjusting for confounding factors, the NICS and TE-PGT groups still showed a higher CLBR than the ICSI group (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 3.847, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.939 to 7.634; adjusted OR 3.795, 95% CI 1.981 to 7.270). Additionally, the cumulative pregnancy loss rates of the NICS and TE-PGT groups were significantly lower than that of the ICSI group (adjusted OR 0.277, 95% CI 0.087 to 0.885; adjusted OR 0.182, 95% CI 0.048 to 0.693). There was no significant difference in the birth weights of the three groups (p = 0.108).
CONCLUSIONS: In women 35-40 years old, the CLBR can be increased by selecting euploid embryos using NICS and TE-PGT. For elderly women at high risk of embryonic aneuploidy, NICS, characterized by its safety and non-invasive nature, may emerge as an alternative option for preimplantation genetic testing.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) on clinical outcomes among high-risk patients.
METHODS: This retrospective study involved 1,368 patients and the same number of cycles, including 520 cycles with PGT-A and 848 cycles without PGT-A. The study participants comprised women of advanced maternal age (AMA) and those affected by recurrent implantation failure (RIF), recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), or severe male factor infertility (SMF).
RESULTS: PGT-A was associated with significant improvements in the implantation rate (IR) and the ongoing pregnancy rate/live birth rate (OPR/LBR) per embryo transfer cycle in the AMA (39.3% vs. 16.2% [p<0.001] and 42.0% vs. 21.8% [p<0.001], respectively), RIF (41.7% vs. 22.0% [p<0.001] and 47.0% vs. 28.6% [p<0.001], respectively), and RPL (45.6% vs. 19.5% [p<0.001] and 49.1% vs. 24.2% [p<0.001], respectively) groups, as well as the IR in the SMF group (43.3% vs. 26.5%, p=0.011). Additionally, PGT-A was associated with lower overall incidence rates of pregnancy loss in the AMA (16.7% vs. 34.3%, p=0.001) and RPL (16.7% vs. 50.0%, p<0.001) groups. However, the OPR/LBR per total cycle across all PGT-A groups did not significantly exceed that for the control groups.
CONCLUSIONS: PGT-A demonstrated beneficial effects in high-risk patients. However, our findings indicate that these benefits are more pronounced in carefully selected candidates than in the entire high-risk patient population.

OBJECTIVE: Is there any difference in ovarian response and embryo ploidy following progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) using micronized progesterone or GnRH antagonist protocol?
CONCLUSIONS: Pituitary downregulation with micronized progesterone as PPOS results in higher number of oocytes retrieved and a comparable number of euploid blastocysts to a GnRH antagonist protocol.
BACKGROUND: Although the GnRH antagonist is considered by most the gold standard protocol for controlling the LH surge during ovarian stimulation (OS) for IVF/ICSI, PPOS protocols are being increasingly used in freeze-all protocols. Still, despite the promising results of PPOS protocols, an early randomized trial reported potentially lower live births in recipients of oocytes resulting following downregulation with medroxyprogesterone acetate as compared with a GnRH antagonist protocol. The scope of the current prospective study was to investigate whether PPOS with micronized progesterone results in an equivalent yield of euploid blastocysts to a GnRH antagonist protocol.
METHODS: In this prospective study, performed between September 2019 to January 2022, 44 women underwent two consecutive OS protocols within a period of 6 months in a GnRH antagonist protocol or in a PPOS protocol with oral micronized progesterone.
METHODS: Overall, 44 women underwent two OS cycles with an identical fixed dose of rFSH (225 or 300 IU) in both cycles. Downregulation in the first cycles was performed with the use of a flexible GnRH antagonist protocol (0.25 mg per day as soon as one follicle of 14 mm) and consecutively, after a washout period of 1 month, control of LH surge was performed with 200 mg of oral micronized progesterone from stimulation Day 1. After the completion of both cycles, all generated blastocysts underwent genetic analysis for aneuploidy screening (preimplantation genetic testing for aneuplody, PGT-A).
RESULTS: Comparisons between protocols did not reveal differences between the duration of OS. The hormonal profile on the day of trigger revealed statistically significant differences between protocols in all the tested hormones except for FSH: with significantly higher serum E2 levels, more elevated LH levels and higher progesterone levels in PPOS cycles as compared with antagonist cycles, respectively. Compared with the GnRH antagonist protocol, the PPOS protocol resulted in a significantly higher number of oocytes (12.7 ± 8.09 versus 10.3 ± 5.84; difference between means [DBM] -2.4 [95% CI -4.1 to -0.73]), metaphase II (9.1 ± 6.12 versus 7.3 ± 4.15; DBM -1.8 [95% CI -3.1 to -0.43]), and 2 pronuclei (7.1 ± 4.99 versus 5.7 ± 3.35; DBM -1.5 [95% CI -2.6.1 to -0.32]), respectively. Nevertheless, no differences were observed regarding the mean number of blastocysts between the PPOS and GnRH antagonist protocols (2.9 ± 2.11 versus 2.8 ± 2.12; DBM -0.07 [95% CI -0.67 to 0.53]) and the mean number of biopsied blastocysts (2.9 ± 2.16 versus 2.9 ± 2.15; DBM -0.07 [95% CI -0.70 to 0.56]), respectively. Concerning the euploidy rates per biopsied embryo, a 29% [95% CI 21.8-38.1%] and a 35% [95% CI 26.6-43.9%] were noticed in the PPOS and antagonist groups, respectively. Finally, no difference was observed for the primary outcome, with a mean number of euploid embryos of 0.86 ± 0.90 versus 1.00 ± 1.12 for the comparison of PPOS versus GnRh antagonist.
CONCLUSIONS: The study was powered to detect differences in the mean number of euploid embryos and not in terms of pregnancy outcomes. Additionally, per protocol, there was no randomization, the first cycle was always a GnRH antagonist cycle and the second a PPOS with 1 month of washout period in between.
CONCLUSIONS: In case of a freeze-all protocol, clinicians may safely consider oral micronized progesterone to control the LH surge and patients could benefit from the advantages of a medication of oral administration, with a potentially higher number of oocytes retrieved at a lower cost, without any compromise in embryo ploidy rates.
BACKGROUND: This research was supported by an unrestricted grant from Theramex. N.P.P. has received Research grants from Merck Serono, Organon, Ferring Pharmaceutical, Roche, Theramex, IBSA, Gedeon Richter, and Besins Healthcare; honoraria for lectures from: Merck Serono, Organon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Besins International, Roche Diagnostics, IBSA, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter; consulting fees from Merck Serono, Organon, Besins Healthcare, and IBSA. M.d.M.V., F.M., and I.R. declared no conflicts of interest.
BACKGROUND: The study was registered at Clinical Trials Gov. (NCT04108039).

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) on clinical outcomes among high-risk patients.
METHODS: This retrospective study involved 1,368 patients and the same number of cycles, including 520 cycles with PGT-A and 848 cycles without PGT-A. The study participants comprised women of advanced maternal age (AMA) and those affected by recurrent implantation failure (RIF), recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), or severe male factor infertility (SMF).
RESULTS: PGT-A was associated with significant improvements in the implantation rate (IR) and the ongoing pregnancy rate/live birth rate (OPR/LBR) per embryo transfer cycle in the AMA (39.3% vs. 16.2% [p<0.001] and 42.0% vs. 21.8% [p<0.001], respectively), RIF (41.7% vs. 22.0% [p<0.001] and 47.0% vs. 28.6% [p<0.001], respectively), and RPL (45.6% vs. 19.5% [p<0.001] and 49.1% vs. 24.2% [p<0.001], respectively) groups, as well as the IR in the SMF group (43.3% vs. 26.5%, p=0.011). Additionally, PGT-A was associated with lower overall incidence rates of early pregnancy loss in the AMA (16.7% vs. 34.3%, p=0.001) and RPL (16.7% vs. 50.0%, p<0.001) groups. However, the OPR/LBR per total cycle across all PGT-A groups did not significantly exceed that for the non-PGT-A groups.
CONCLUSIONS: PGT-A demonstrated beneficial effects in high-risk patients. However, our findings indicate that these benefits are more pronounced in carefully selected candidates than in the entire high-risk patient population.

Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) is widely used as an embryo selection technique in in vitro fertilization (IVF), but its effectiveness and potential beneficiary populations are unclear.
This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent their first oocyte retrieval cycles at CITIC-Xiangya between January 2016 and November 2019, and the associated fresh and thawed embryo transfer cycles up to November 30, 2020. PGT-A (PGT-A group) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)/IVF (non-PGT-A group) cycles were included. The numbers of oocytes and embryos obtained were unrestricted. In total, 60,580 patients were enrolled, and baseline data were matched between groups using 1:3 propensity score matching. Sensitivity analyses, including propensity score stratification and traditional multivariate logistic regression, were performed on the original unmatched cohort to check the robustness of the overall results. Analyses were stratified by age, body mass index, ovarian reserve/responsiveness, and potential indications to explore benefits in subgroups. The primary outcome was cumulative live birth rate (CLBR). The other outcomes included live birth rate (LBR), pregnancy loss rate, clinical pregnancy rate, pregnancy complications, low birth weight rate, and neonatal malformation rate.
In total, 4195 PGT-A users were matched with 10,140 non-PGT-A users. A significant reduction in CLBR was observed in women using PGT-A (27.5% vs. 31.1%; odds ratio (OR) = 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-0.91; P < 0.001). However, women using PGT-A had higher first-transfer pregnancy (63.9% vs. 46.9%; OR = 2.01, 95% CI 1.81-2.23; P < 0.001) and LBR (52.6% vs. 34.2%, OR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.92-2.36; P < 0.001) rates and lower rates of early miscarriage (12.8% vs. 20.2%; OR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.48-0.70; P < 0.001), preterm birth (8.6% vs 17.3%; P < 0.001), and low birth weight (4.9% vs. 19.3%; P < 0.001). Moreover, subgroup analyses revealed that women aged ≥ 38 years, diagnosed with recurrent pregnancy loss or intrauterine adhesions benefited from PGT-A, with a significant increase in first-transfer LBR without a decrease in CLBR.
PGT-A does not increase and decrease CLBR per oocyte retrieval cycle; nonetheless, it is effective in infertile populations with specific indications. PGT-A reduces complications associated with multiple gestations.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate if next-generation sequencing-based preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies could improve pregnancy outcomes in women of advanced maternal age.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis. The clinical data of 1099 couples treated in the First Medical Center of the Chinese PLA General Hospital from January 2019 to December 2021 were analyzed. They were divided into two groups based on whether they underwent a Next-generation sequencing-based preimplantation genetic test for aneuploidies. We analyzed and compared the biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, abortion rate, and live birth rate between the two groups.
RESULTS: The Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A) group was associated with higher rate of biochemical pregnancy and clinical pregnancy than the non-PGT-A group, which were 63.9% vs. 56.4% (P = 0.009) and 54.4% vs. 45.6% (P < 0.001), respectively. The abortion rate was significantly lower in the PGT-A group compared to the non-PGT-A group (2.3% vs. 14.7%, P < 0.001). In addition, the live birth rate was significantly higher in the PGT-A group compared to the non-PGT-A group (52.1% and 30.9%, respectively, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Next-generation sequencing-based preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies significantly improved the pregnancy outcomes in women of advanced maternal age.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) could increase the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) in patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF) and recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL).
METHODS: The clinical records of 7,668 patients who underwent oocyte retrieval (OR) with or without PGT-A were reviewed for 365 days and retrospectively analyzed. Using propensity score matching, 579 patients in the PGT-A group were matched one-to-one with 7,089 patients in the non-PGT-A (control) group. Their pregnancy and perinatal outcomes and CLBRs were statistically compared.
RESULTS: The live birth rate per single vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfers (SVBTs) significantly improved in the PGT-A group in all age groups (P < 0.0002, all). Obstetric and perinatal outcomes were comparable between both groups regarding both RIF and RPL cases. Cox regression analysis demonstrated that in the RIF cases, the risk ratio per OR was significantly lower in the PGT-A group than in the control group (P = 0.0480), particularly in women aged < 40 years (P = 0.0364). However, the ratio was comparable between the groups in RPL cases. The risk ratio per treatment period was improved in the PGT-A group in both RIF and RPL cases only in women aged 40-42 years (P = 0.0234 and P = 0.0084, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Increased CLBR per treatment period was detected only in women aged 40-42 years in both RIF and RPL cases, suggesting that PGT-A is inappropriate to improve CLBR per treatment period in all RIF and RPL cases.

To clarify the effect of next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) combined with trophectoderm (TE) biopsy on the pregnancy outcomes of idiopathic recurrent pregnancy loss (iRPL) and idiopathic recurrent implantation failure (iRIF), we conducted a retrospective cohort study of 212 iRPL couples and 66 iRIF couples who underwent PGT-A or conventional in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) treatment. The implantation rate (IR) per transfer (64.2%), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) per transfer (57.5%), and live birth rate (LBR) per transfer (45%) of iRPL couples of the PGT-A treatment group were significantly higher (p < 0.05) than those of the conventional IVF/ICSI group (IR per transfer,38.2%; CPR per transfer,33.3%; LBR per transfer, 28.4%), whereas the pregnancy loss rate (PLR) per transfer was similar between the two groups. These effects were also significant (p < 0.05) in iRPL couples with advanced maternal age (AMA, ≥35 years), whereas no significant differences were found in clinical outcomes between the PGT-A and conventional IVF/ICSI groups in younger iRPL couples (<35 years). The cumulative clinical outcomes of iRPL couples were comparable between the PGT-A and conventional IVF/ICSI groups. No significant differences were found in any clinical outcomes between the PGT-A and conventional IVF/ICSI groups for young or AMA couples with iRIF. In conclusion, NGS-based PGT-A involving TE biopsy may be useful for iRPL women to shorten the time to pregnancy and reduce their physical and psychological burden, especially for iRPL women with AMA; however, couples with iRIF may not benefit from PGT-A treatment. Considering the small sample size of the iRIF group, further investigations with a larger sample size are needed to verify our findings.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of insemination methods on clinical outcomes by assessing preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) outcomes in embryos obtained using in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in sibling mature oocytes from high-risk patients.
METHODS: This retrospective study involved 108 couples with nonmale or mild male factor infertility who underwent split insemination cycles from January 2018 to December 2021. PGT-A was performed using trophectoderm biopsy, array comparative genome hybridization, or next-generation sequencing with 24-chromosome screening.
RESULTS: Mature oocytes were divided into IVF (n = 660) and ICSI (n = 1028) groups. The normal fertilization incidence was similar between the groups (81.1% vs. 84.6%). The total number of blastocysts biopsied was significantly higher in the IVF group than in the ICSI group (59.3% vs. 52.6%; p = 0.018). However, euploidy (34.4% vs. 31.9%) and aneuploidy (63.4% vs. 66.2%) rates per biopsy and clinical pregnancy rates (60.0% vs. 58.8%) were similar between the groups. Implantation (45.6% vs. 50.8%) and live birth or ongoing pregnancy (52.0% vs 58.8%) rates were slightly higher in the ICSI group than in the IVF group and miscarriage rate per transfer was slightly higher in the IVF group than in the ICSI group (12.0% vs 5.9%); however no significant difference was observed.
CONCLUSIONS: IVF and ICSI using sibling mature oocytes had similar clinical outcomes, and euploidy and aneuploidy rates in couples with nonmale and mild male factor infertility. These results suggest that IVF is a useful option, along with ICSI, as an insemination method in PGT-A cycles, especially in high-risk patients.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to identify what proportion of mosaic embryo diagnoses should be considered for transfer, and thereby assess the impact on patient cases.
METHODS: We categorised mosaic embryos into 3 groups; high, medium and low priority for transfer based on the percentage of biopsy sample being aneuploid and the chromosomes involved. The categories were applied to those patients that had no euploid embryo diagnoses but 1 or more mosaic embryos identified as mosaic available after PGT-A.
RESULTS: In total, 6614 PGT-A cases from 115 clinics and a single diagnostic laboratory were reviewed. Further, 1384 [20.9%] cases only had aneuploid embryos, 4538 [68.6%] cases had one or more euploid embryos and 692 [10.5%] cases had no euploid and one or more mosaic embryo. The mosaic embryos in the no euploid, one or more mosaic group, when reviewed using priorities, resulted in: 111 [1.7%] of cases having at least one high priority mosaic available. 184 [2.8%] of cases having no high priority but at least one medium priority mosaic available. 397 [6.0%] of cases only having low priority mosaic embryos available.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on this data, embryos identified as mosaic will only be considered for transfer in the first instance for around 4.5% (when taking high and medium priority and excluding low priority cases) of all PGT-A cases.