UNASSIGNED: The primary objective was to investigate whether the utilization of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) could enhance the reproductive outcomes in patients with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss (uRPL) or unexplained repeated implantation failure (uRIF) undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles.
UNASSIGNED: We studied the reproductive outcomes of uRPL or uRIF sufferers in Chengdu women and children\'s central hospital from July 2020 to Jan 2024 retrospectively. These patients were categorized into two groups based on whether they underwent PGT-A or not. As the patients in the PGT-A group all had ICSI and frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET), only patients who underwent ICSI and FET were included in the non-PGT-A group for comparison. Demographic characteristics and reproductive outcomes were compared in uRPL or uRIF sufferers.
UNASSIGNED: For uRPL group, a significant increased ongoing pregnancy rate (63.6 % vs 26.1 %, p = 0.002) and reduced pregnancy loss rate (18.4 % vs 73.3 %, p < 0.001) were found in the PGT-A group in comparison with those in the non-PGT-A group. For uRIF group, no significant difference was noted in the HCG-positive rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, or pregnancy loss rate between the two groups. It is noteworthy that the maternal age in the PGT-A group was significantly higher than that in the non-PGT-A group (p = 0.048).
UNASSIGNED: NGS-based PGT-A effectively optimized the reproductive outcomes in uRPL sufferers. Although its benefits in uRIF appeared to be limited, there is a potential advantage for those with advanced maternal age. Considering the small sample size, further randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate these findings.

OBJECTIVE: To compare differences in euploidy rates for blastocysts in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) cycles after gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) long and short protocols, GnRH-antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol, progestin-primed ovarian stimulation and mild stimulation protocols, and other ovary stimulation protocols.
METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study from the Assisted Reproductive Medicine Department of Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital. A total of 1657 PGT-A cycles with intracytoplasmic sperm injection after different controlled ovary hyperstimulation protocols were analyzed, and a total of 3154 embryos were biopsied. Differences in euploidy rate per embryo biopsied, embryo euploidy rate per oocyte retrieved and cycle cancellation rate were compared.
RESULTS: For the PGT-A cycles, the euploidy rate per embryo biopsied was lower in the GnRH-ant protocol than in the GnRH-a long protocol (53.26 vs. 58.68%, respectively). Multiple linear regression showed that the GnRH-ant protocol was associated with a lower euploidy rate per embryo biopsied (β =  -0.079, p = 0.011). The euploidy rate per embryo biopsied was not affected by total gonadotropin dosage, duration of stimulation and number of oocytes retrieved. The embryo euploidy rate per oocyte retrieved was similar in all protocols and was negatively correlated with the total number of oocytes retrieved (β =  -0.003, p = 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the GnRH-a long protocol, the GnRH-ant protocol was associated with a lower euploidy rate per embryo biopsied. The total gonadotropin dosage, duration of stimulation and number of oocytes retrieved did not appear to significantly influence euploidy rates.

OBJECTIVE: Various screening techniques have been developed for preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) to reduce implantation failure and miscarriages in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment. Among these methods, the Oxford nanopore technology (ONT) has already been tested in several tissues. However, no studies have applied ONT to polar bodies, a cellular material that is less restrictively regulated for PGT-A in some countries.
METHODS: We performed rapid short nanopore sequencing on pooled first and second polar bodies of 102 oocytes from women undergoing IVF treatment to screen for aneuploidy. An automated analysis pipeline was developed with the expectation of three chromatids per chromosome. The results were compared to those obtained by array-based comparative genomic hybridisation (aCGH).
RESULTS: ONT and aCGH were consistent for 96% (98/102) of sample ploidy classification. Of those samples, 36 were classified as euploid, while 62 were classified as aneuploid. The four discordant samples were assessed as euploid using aCGH but classified as aneuploid using ONT. The concordance of the ploidy classification (euploid, gain, or loss) per chromosome was 92.5% (2169 of 2346 of analysed chromosomes) using aCGH and ONT and increased to 97.7% (2113/2162) without the eight samples assessed as highly complex aneuploid using ONT.
CONCLUSIONS: The automated detection of the ploidy classification per chromosome and shorter duplications or deletions depending on the sequencing depth demonstrates an advantage of the ONT method over standard, commercial aCGH methods, which do not consider the presence of three chromatids in pooled polar bodies.

UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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).
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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).

BACKGROUND: Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) represents a vague clinical condition with an unclear diagnostic challenge that lacks solid scientific underpinning. Although euploid embryos have demonstrated consistent implantation capabilities across various age groups, a unanimous agreement regarding the advantages of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) in managing RIF is absent. The ongoing discussion about whether chromosomal aneuploidy in embryos significantly contributes to recurrent implantation failure remains unsettled. Despite active discussions in recent times, a universally accepted characterization of recurrent implantation failure remains elusive. We aimed in this study to measure the reproductive performance of vitrified-warmed euploid embryos transferred to the uterus in successive cycles.
METHODS: This observational cohort study included women (n = 387) with an anatomically normal uterus who underwent oocyte retrieval for PGT-A treatment with at least one biopsied blastocyst, between January 2017 and December 2021 at a university-affiliated public fertility center. The procedures involved in this study included ICSI, blastocyst culture, trophectoderm biopsy and comprehensive 24-chromosome analysis of preimplantation embryos using Next Generation Sequencing (NGS). Women, who failed a vitrified-warmed euploid embryo transfer, had successive blastocyst transfer cycles (FET) for a total of three using remaining cryopreserved euploid blastocysts from the same oocyte retrieval cycle. The primary endpoints were sustained implantation rate (SIR) and live birth rate (LBR) per vitrified-warmed single euploid embryo. The secondary endpoints were mean euploidy rate (m-ER) per cohort of biopsied blastocysts from each patient, as well as pregnancy and miscarriage rates.
RESULTS: The mean age of the patient population was 33.4 years (95% CI 32.8-33.9). A total of 1,641 embryos derived from the first oocyte retrieval cycle were biopsied and screened. We found no associations between the m-ER and the number of previous failed IVF cycles among different ranges of maternal age at oocyte retrieval (P = 0.45). Pairwise comparisons showed a significant decrease in the sustained implantation rate (44.7% vs. 30%; P = 0.01) and the livebirth rate per single euploid blastocyst (37.1% vs. 25%; P = 0.02) between the 1st and 3rd FET. The cumulative SIR and LBR after up to three successive single embryo transfers were 77.1% and 68.8%, respectively. We found that the live birth rate of the first vitrified-warmed euploid blastocyst transferred decreased significantly with the increasing number of previously failed IVF attempts by categories (45.3% vs. 35.8% vs. 27.6%; P = 0.04). A comparable decrease in sustained implantation rate was also observed but did not reach statistical significance (50% vs. 44.2 vs. 37.9%; P = NS). Using a logistic regression model, we confirmed the presence of a negative association between the number of previous IVF failed attempts and the live birth rate per embryo transfer cycle (OR = 0.76; 95% CI 0.62-0.94; P = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: These findings are vital for enhancing patient counseling and refining management strategies for individuals facing recurrent implantation failure. By tailoring interventions based on age and ovarian reserve, healthcare professionals can offer more personalized guidance, potentially improving the overall success rates and patient experiences in fertility treatments.
BACKGROUND: N/A.

UNASSIGNED: We evaluate whether next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) improves the cumulative pregnancy outcomes of patients with unexplained recurrent implantation failure (uRIF) as compared to conventional in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI).
UNASSIGNED: This was a retrospective cohort study (2015-2022). A total of 705 couples diagnosed with uRIF were included in the study. 229 women transferred blastocysts based on morphological grading (IVF/ICSI) and 476 couples opted for PGT-A to screen blastocysts by NGS. Women were further stratified according to age at retrieval (<38 years and ≥38 years). The primary outcome was the cumulative live-birth rate after all the embryos were transferred in a single oocyte retrieval or until achieving a live birth. Confounders were adjusted using binary logistic regression models.
UNASSIGNED: Cumulative live-birth rate was similar between the IVF/ICSI group and the PGT-A group after stratified by age: IVF/ICSI vs PGT-A in the <38 years subgroup (49.7% vs 57.7%, adjusted OR (95% CI) = 1.25 (0.84-1.84), P = 0.270) and in the ≥38 years subgroup (14.0% vs 19.5%, adjusted OR (95% CI) = 1.09 (0.41-2.92), P = 0.866), respectively. Nonetheless, the PGT group had a lower first-time biochemical pregnancy loss rate (17.0% vs 8.7%, P = 0.034) and a higher cumulative good birth outcome rate (35.2% vs 46.4%, P = 0.014) than the IVF/ICSI group in the <38 years subgroup. Other pregnancy outcomes after the initial embryo transfer and multiple transfers following a single oocyte retrieval were all similar between groups.
UNASSIGNED: Our results showed no evidence of favorable effects of PGT-A treatment on improving the cumulative live birth rate in uRIF couples regardless of maternal age. Use of PGT-A in the <38 years uRIF patients would help to decrease the first-time biochemical pregnancy loss and increase the cumulative good birth outcome.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have demonstrated that iDAScore is more accurate in predicting pregnancy outcomes in cycles without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) compared to KIDScore and the Gardner criteria. However, the effectiveness of iDAScore in cycles with PGT-A has not been thoroughly investigated. Therefore, this study aims to assess the association between artificial intelligence (AI)-based iDAScore (version 1.0) and pregnancy outcomes in single-embryo transfer (SET) cycles with PGT-A.
METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Chung Sun Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan. Patients undergoing SET cycles (n = 482) following PGT-A at a single reproductive center between January 2017 and June 2021. The blastocyst morphology and morphokinetics of all embryos were evaluated using a time-lapse system. The blastocysts were ranked based on the scores generated by iDAScore, which were defined as AI scores, or by KIDScore D5 (version 3.2) following the manufacturer\'s protocols. A single blastocyst without aneuploidy was transferred after examining the embryonic ploidy status using a next-generation sequencing-based PGT-A platform. Logistic regression analysis with generalized estimating equations was conducted to assess whether AI scores are associated with the probability of live birth (LB) while considering confounding factors.
RESULTS: Logistic regression analysis revealed that AI score was significantly associated with LB probability (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 2.037, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.632-2.542) when pulsatility index (PI) level and types of chromosomal abnormalities were controlled. Blastocysts were divided into quartiles in accordance with their AI score (group 1: 3.0-7.8; group 2: 7.9-8.6; group 3: 8.7-8.9; and group 4: 9.0-9.5). Group 1 had a lower LB rate (34.6% vs. 59.8-72.3%) and a higher rate of pregnancy loss (26% vs. 4.7-8.9%) compared with the other groups (p < 0.05). The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis verified that the iDAScore had a significant but limited ability to predict LB (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.64); this ability was significantly weaker than that of the combination of iDAScore, type of chromosomal abnormalities, and PI level (AUC = 0.67). In the comparison of the LB groups with the non-LB groups, the AI scores were significantly lower in the non-LB groups, both for euploid (median: 8.6 vs. 8.8) and mosaic (median: 8.0 vs. 8.6) SETs.
CONCLUSIONS: Although its predictive ability can be further enhanced, the AI score was significantly associated with LB probability in SET cycles. Euploid or mosaic blastocysts with low AI scores (≤ 7.8) were associated with a lower LB rate, indicating the potential of this annotation-free AI system as a decision-support tool for deselecting embryos with poor pregnancy outcomes following PGT-A.