Search

STUDY QUESTION To what extent can genotype analysis aid in the classification of (mosaic) aneuploid embryos diagnosed through copy number analysis of a trophectoderm (TE) biopsy? SUMMARY ANSWER In a small portion of embryos, genotype analysis revealed signatures of meiotic or uniform aneuploidy in those diagnosed with intermediate copy number changes, and signatures of presumed mitotic or putative mosaic aneuploidy in those diagnosed with full copy number changes. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Comprehensive chromosome screening (CCS) for preimplantation genetic testing has provided valuable insights into the prevalence of (mosaic) chromosomal aneuploidy at the blastocyst stage. However, diagnosis of (mosaic) aneuploidy often relies solely on (intermediate) copy number analysis of a single TE biopsy. Integrating genotype information allows for independent assessment of the origin and degree of aneuploidy. Yet, studies aligning both datasets to predict (putative mosaic) aneuploidy in embryos remain scarce. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A single TE biopsy was collected from 1560 embryos derived from 221 couples tested for a monogenic disorder (n = 218) or microdeletion-/microduplication syndrome (n = 3). TE samples were subjected to both copy number and genotyping analysis. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Copy number and SNP genotyping analysis were conducted using GENType. Unbalanced chromosomal anomalies ≥10 Mb (or ≥20 Mb for copy number calls <50%) were classified by degree, based on low-range intermediate (LR, 30–50%), high-range intermediate (HR, 50–70%) or full (>70%) copy number changes. These categories were further subjected to genotyping analysis to ascertain the origin (and/or degree) of aneuploidy. For chromosomal gains, the meiotic division of origin (meiotic I/II versus non-meiotic or presumed mitotic) was established by studying the haplotypes. The level of monosomy (uniform versus putative mosaic) in the biopsy could be ascertained from the B-allele frequencies. For segmental aneuploidies, genotyping was restricted to deletions. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Of 1479 analysed embryos, 24% (n = 356) exhibited a whole-chromosome aneuploidy, with 19% (n = 280) showing full copy number changes suggestive of uniform aneuploidy. Among 258 embryos further investigated by genotyping, 95% of trisomies with full copy number changes were identified to be of meiotic origin. For monosomies, a complete loss of heterozygosity (LOH) in the biopsy was observed in 97% of cases, yielding a 96% concordance rate at the embryo level (n = 248/258). Interestingly, 4% of embryos (n = 10/258) showed SNP signatures of non-meiotic gain or putative mosaic loss instead. Meanwhile, 5% of embryos (n = 76/1479) solely displayed HR (2.5%; n = 37) or LR (2.6%; n = 39) intermediate copy number changes, with an additional 2% showing both intermediate and full copy number changes. Among embryos with HR intermediate copy number changes where genotyping was feasible (n = 25/37), 92% (n = 23/25) showed SNP signatures consistent with putative mosaic aneuploidy. However, 8% (n = 2/25) exhibited evidence of meiotic trisomy (9%) or complete LOH in the biopsy (7%). In the LR intermediate group, 1 of 33 (3%) genotyped embryos displayed complete LOH. Furthermore, segmental aneuploidy was detected in 7% of embryos (n = 108/1479) (or 9% (n = 139) with added whole-chromosome aneuploidy). These errors were often (52%) characterized by intermediate copy number values, which closely aligned with genotyping data when examined (94–100%). LARGE SCALE DATA N/A. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The findings were based on single TE biopsies and the true extent of mosaicism was not validated through embryo dissection. Moreover, evidence of absence of a meiotic origin for a trisomy should not be construed as definitive proof of a mitotic error. Additionally, a genotyping diagnosis was not always attainable due to the absence of a recombination event necessary to discern between meiotic II and non-meiotic trisomy, or the unavailability of DNA from both parents. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Interpreting (intermediate) copy number changes of a single TE biopsy alone as evidence for (mosaic) aneuploidy in the embryo remains suboptimal. Integrating genotype information alongside the copy number status could provide a more comprehensive assessment of the embryo's genetic makeup, within and beyond the single TE biopsy. By identifying meiotic aberrations, especially in presumed mosaic embryos, we underscore the potential value of genotyping analysis as a deselection tool, ultimately striving to reduce adverse clinical outcomes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) L.D.W. was supported by the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO; 1S74621N). M.B. K.T. F.V.M. S.J. A.V.T. V.S. D.S. A.D. and S.S. are supported by Ghent University Hospital. B.M. was funded by Ghent University. The authors have no conflicts of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION Which clinical and embryological factors should be considered to apply double embryo transfer (DET) instead of elective single embryo transfer (eSET)? SUMMARY ANSWER No clinical or embryological factor per se justifies a recommendation of DET instead of eSET in IVF/ICSI. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY DET is correlated with a higher rate of multiple pregnancy, leading to a subsequent increase in complications for both mother and babies. These complications include preterm birth, low birthweight, and other perinatal adverse outcomes. To mitigate the risks associated with multiple pregnancy, eSET is recommended by international and national professional organizations as the preferred approach in ART. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development and update of ESHRE guidelines. Literature searches were performed in PUBMED/MEDLINE and Cochrane databases, and relevant papers published up to May 2023, written in English, were included. Live birth rate, cumulative live birth rate, and multiple pregnancy rate were considered as critical outcomes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were discussed until a consensus was reached within the Guideline Development Group (GDG). A stakeholder review was organized after the guideline draft was finalized. The final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The guideline provides 35 recommendations on the medical and non-medical risks associated with multiple pregnancies and on the clinical and embryological factors to be considered when deciding on the number of embryos to transfer. These recommendations include 25 evidence-based recommendations, of which 24 were formulated as strong recommendations and one as conditional, and 10 good practice points. Of the evidence-based recommendations, seven (28%) were supported by moderate-quality evidence. The remaining recommendations were supported by low (three recommendations; 12%), or very low-quality evidence (15 recommendations; 60%). Owing to the lack of evidence-based research, the guideline also clearly mentions recommendations for future studies. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The guideline assessed different factors one by one based on existing evidence. However, in real life, clinicians' decisions are based on several prognostic factors related to each patient's case. Furthermore, the evidence from randomized controlled trials is too scarce to formulate high-quality evidence-based recommendations. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The guideline provides health professionals with clear advice on best practice in the decision-making process during IVF/ICSI, based on the best evidence currently available, and recommendations on relevant information that should be communicated to patients. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in the field. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, the literature searches, and the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. DPB declared receiving honoraria for lectures from Merck, Ferring, and Gedeon Richter. She is a member of ESHRE EXCO, and the Mediterranean Society for reproductive medicine and the president of the Croatian Society for Gynaecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine. CDG is the past Chair of the ESHRE EIM Consortium and a paid deputy member of the Editorial board of Human Reproduction. IR declared receiving reimbursement from ESHRE and EDCD for attending meetings. She holds an unpaid leadership role in OBBCSSR, ECDC Sohonet, and AER. KAR-W declared receiving grants for clinical researchers and funding provision to the institution from the Swedish Cancer Society (200170F), the Senior Clinical Investigator Award, Radiumhemmets Forskningsfonder (Dnr: 201313), Stockholm County Council FoU (FoUI-953912) and Karolinska Institutet (Dnr 2020-01963), NovoNordisk, Merck and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. She received consulting fees from the Swedish Ministry of Health and Welfare. She received honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, and Organon for chairmanship and lectures. She received support from Organon for attending meetings. She participated in advisory boards for Merck, Nordic countries, and Ferring. She declared receiving time-lapse equipment and grants with payment to institution for pre-clinical research from Merck pharmaceuticals and from Ferring. SS-R received research funding from Roche Diagnostics, Organon/MSD, Theramex, and Gedeo-Richter. He received consulting fees from Organon/MSD, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Merck Serono. He declared receiving honoraria for lectures from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Besins, Organon/MSD, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter. He received support for attending Gedeon Richter meetings and participated in the Data Safety Monitoring Board of the T-TRANSPORT trial. He is the Deputy of ESHRE SQART special interest group. He holds stock options in IVI Lisboa and received equipment and other services from Roche Diagnostics and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. KT declared receiving payment for honoraria for giving lectures from Merck Serono and Organon. She is member of the safety advisory board of EDQM. She holds a leadership role in the ICCBBA board of directors. ZV received reimbursement from ESHRE for attending meetings. She also received research grants from ESHRE and Juhani Aaltonen Foundation. She is the coordinator of EHSRE SQART special interest group. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. DISCLAIMER This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose (full disclaimer available at https://www.eshre.eu/Guidelines-and-Legal). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

MicroRNAs (miRNAs), which can be carried inside extracellular vesicles (EVs), play a crucial role in regulating embryo development up to the blastocyst stage. Yet, the molecular mechanisms underlying blastocyst development and quality are largely unknown. Recently, our group identified 69 differentially expressed miRNAs in extracellular vesicles (EVs) isolated from culture medium conditioned by bovine embryos that either developed to the blastocyst stage or did not (non-blastocysts). We found miR-146b to be more abundant in the EVs derived from media conditioned by non-blastocyst embryos. Using RT-qPCR, we here confirmed the upregulation of miR-146b in non-blastocyst (arrested at two- to four-cell and morula stage) embryos compared to blastocysts (P < 0.005), which coincides with the upregulation of miR-146b in EVs derived from the medium of these non-blastocysts. To evaluate a functional effect, bovine embryo culture media were supplemented with miR-146b mimics, resulting in significantly decreased embryo quality, with lower blastocyst rates at day 7 and lower total cell numbers, while the opposite was found after supplementation with miR-146b inhibitors, which resulted in reduced apoptosis rates (P < 0.01). Transcriptomic analysis of embryos treated with miR-146b mimics or inhibitors showed differential expression (P < 0.01) of genes associated with apoptosis, cell differentiation, and the RNA Pol II transcription complex, including WDR36, MBNL2, ERCC6l2, PYGO1, and SNIP1. Overall, miR-146b is overexpressed in non-blastocyst embryos and in EVs secreted by these embryos, and it regulates genes involved in embryo development and apoptosis, resulting in decreased embryo quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hormonal treatments and surgical interventions practiced with the aim to affirm gender identity in transgender and gender diverse patients may impact their future reproductive ability, family building, and family planning options. Whereas it is recommended by international guidelines to discuss the potential risks of infertility and to present fertility preservation (FP) options to transgender individuals and their families prior to initiating any of these treatments, many barriers still remain. Further, transgender and gender diverse individuals often experience barriers to accessing contraception, abortion, pre-conception care, and comprehensive perinatal care. In this review we summarize the current literature on reproductive healthcare issues reported in transgender people including fertility issues, fertility preservation (FP), contraception, pregnancy and lactation and perinatal health. A narrative literature search of major databases (Pubmed, Medline, PsycInfo, Google Scholar, Web of Science) was conducted. Given the paucity and heterogeneity of studies, summative review tactics were not available. The literature was critically reviewed by international experts in the field with focus on the impact of gender-affirming medical interventions on future fertility, current FP options and reproductive health issues in transgender people. The current literature supports that transgender and gender diverse individuals may wish to have genetically related children in the future, rendering the issue of FP relevant to this patient group. The cryopreservation of mature gametes is an efficacious option for FP for post-pubertal adolescents and adults. It is recommended to discuss these options at time of planning for gender-affirming hormonal therapy (GAHT) or engaging with other gender-affirming procedures that can limit future fertility. Discontinuation of GAHT may allow individuals to undergo FP later, but data are limited and there is the concern of symptoms and consequences of stopping GAHT. For pre-pubertal and early pubertal children, FP options are limited to the cryopreservation of gonadal tissue. At present the tissue can become functional only after re-transplantation, which might be undesirable by transgender individuals in the future. Preconception counseling, prenatal surveillance, perinatal support, contraceptive, and pregnancy termination related healthcare need to be meaningfully adapted for this patient population, and many knowledge gaps remain. Specialized FP reproductive healthcare for transgender and gender diverse individuals is in early evolution. Research should be conducted to examine effects of medical interventions on fertility, timing of FP, gamete preservation and outcome of the fertility treatments. Strategies to inform and educate transgender and gender diverse patients can lead to optimization of reproductive care and counseling and decision making of FP for this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]