Literature DB >> 31886877

First PGT-A using human in vivo blastocysts recovered by uterine lavage: comparison with matched IVF embryo controls†.

Santiago Munné1,2,3, Steven T Nakajima4, Sam Najmabadi5,6, Mark V Sauer7, Marlane J Angle8, José L Rivas6, Laura V Mendieta6, Thelma M Macaso5, Sarthak Sawarkar1, Alexander Nadal9, Kajal Choudhary9, Camran Nezhat10, Sandra A Carson3, John E Buster9,11.   

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: After controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and IUI, is it clinically feasible to recover in vivo conceived and matured human blastocysts by uterine lavage from fertile women for preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) and compare their PGT-A and Gardner scale morphology scores with paired blastocysts from IVF control cycles? SUMMARY ANSWER: In a consecutive series of 134 COS cycles using gonadotrophin stimulation followed by IUI, uterine lavage recovered 136 embryos in 42% (56/134) of study cycles, with comparable in vivo and in vitro euploidy rates but better morphology in in vivo embryos. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In vivo developed embryos studied in animal models possess different characteristics compared to in vitro developed embryos of similar species. Such comparative studies between in vivo and in vitro human embryos have not been reported owing to lack of a reliable method to recover human embryos. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a single-site, prospective controlled trial in women (n = 81) to evaluate the safety, efficacy and feasibility of a novel uterine lavage catheter and fluid recovery device. All lavages were performed in a private facility with a specialized fertility unit, from August 2017 to June 2018. Subjects were followed for 30 days post-lavage to monitor for clinical outcomes and delayed complications. In 20 lavage subjects, a single IVF cycle (control group) with the same ovarian stimulation protocol was performed for a comparison of in vivo to in vitro blastocysts. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS,
METHODS: Women were stimulated with gonadotrophins for COS. The ovulation trigger was given when there were at least two dominant follicles ≥18 mm, followed by IUI of sperm. Uterine lavage occurred 4-6 days after the IUI. A subset of 20 women had a lavage cycle procedure followed by an IVF cycle (control IVF group). Recovered embryos were characterized morphologically, underwent trophectoderm (TE) biopsy, vitrified and stored in liquid nitrogen. Biopsies were analyzed using the next-generation sequencing technique. After lavage, GnRH antagonist injections were administered to induce menstruation. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 134 lavage cycles were performed in 81 women. Uterine lavage recovered 136 embryos in 56 (42%) cycles. At the time of cryopreservation, there were 40 (30%) multi-cell embryos and 96 (70%) blastocysts. Blastocysts were of good quality, with 74% (70/95) being Gardener grade 3BB or higher grade. Lavage blastocysts had significantly higher morphology scores than the control IVF embryos as determined by chi-square analysis (P < 0.05). This is the first study to recover in vivo derived human blastocysts following ovarian stimulation for embryo genetic characterization. Recovered blastocysts showed rates of chromosome euploidy similar to the rates found in the control IVF embryos. In 11 cycles (8.2%), detectable levels of hCG were present 13 days after IUI, which regressed spontaneously in two cases and declined after an endometrial curettage in two cases. Persistent hCG levels were resolved after methotrexate in three cases and four cases received both curettage and methotrexate. LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION: The first objective was to evaluate the feasibility of uterine lavage following ovarian stimulation to recover blastocysts for analysis, and that goal was achieved. However, the uterine lavage system was not completely optimized in our earlier experience to levels that were achieved late in the clinical study and will be expected in clinical service. The frequency of chromosome abnormalities of in vivo and IVF control embryos was similar, but this was a small-size study. However, compared to larger historical datasets of in vitro embryos, the in vivo genetic results are within the range of high-quality in vitro embryos. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
FINDINGS: Uterine lavage offers a nonsurgical, minimally invasive strategy for recovery of embryos from fertile women who do not want or need IVF and who desire PGT, fertility preservation of embryos or reciprocal IVF for lesbian couples. From a research and potential clinical perspective, this technique provides a novel platform for the use of in vivo conceived human embryos as the ultimate benchmark standard for future and current ART methods. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Previvo Genetics, Inc., is the sole sponsor for the Punta Mita, Mexico, clinical study. S.M. performs consulting for CooperGenomics. J.E.B. and S.A.C. are co-inventors on issued patents and patents owned by Previvo and ownshares of Previvo. S.N. is a co-author on a non-provisional patent application owned by Previvo and holds stock options in Previvo. S.T.N. and M.J.A. report consulting fees from Previvo. S.T.N., S.M., M.V.S., M.J.A., C.N. and J.E.B. are members of the Previvo Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) and hold stock options in Previvo. J.E.B and S. M are members of the Previvo Board of Directors. A.N. and K.C. are employees of Previvo Genetics. L.V.M, T.M.M, J.L.R and S. S have no conflicts to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Protocol Registration and Results System (PRS) Trial Registration Number and Name: Punta Mita Study TD-2104: Clinical Trials NCT03426007.
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  zzm321990 in vivozzm321990 ; IVF; blastocyst; morphology; next-generation sequencing; preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy; reciprocal pregnancy for lesbian couples; uterine lavage

Year:  2020        PMID: 31886877      PMCID: PMC6993848          DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dez242

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Reprod        ISSN: 0268-1161            Impact factor:   6.918


  18 in total

1.  Culture-induced chromosome abnormalities: the canary in the mine.

Authors:  Santiago Munné; Mina Alikani
Journal:  Reprod Biomed Online       Date:  2011-02-18       Impact factor: 3.828

2.  Biologic and morphologic development of donated human ova recovered by nonsurgical uterine lavage.

Authors:  J E Buster; M Bustillo; I A Rodi; S W Cohen; M Hamilton; J A Simon; I H Thorneycroft; J R Marshall
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1985-09-15       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  Euploidy rates in donor egg cycles significantly differ between fertility centers.

Authors:  S Munné; M Alikani; L Ribustello; P Colls; Pedro A Martínez-Ortiz; D H McCulloh
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 6.918

4.  In vitro fertilization with single euploid blastocyst transfer: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Eric J Forman; Kathleen H Hong; Kathleen M Ferry; Xin Tao; Deanne Taylor; Brynn Levy; Nathan R Treff; Richard T Scott
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2013-03-30       Impact factor: 7.329

Review 5.  Risks of in-vitro production of cattle and swine embryos: aberrations in chromosome numbers, ribosomal RNA gene activation and perinatal physiology.

Authors:  P Hyttel; D Viuff; J Laurincik; M Schmidt; P D Thomsen; B Avery; H Callesen; D Rath; H Niemann; C Rosenkranz; K Schellander; R L Ochs; T Greve
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 6.918

6.  Genome stability of bovine in vivo-conceived cleavage-stage embryos is higher compared to in vitro-produced embryos.

Authors:  Olga Tšuiko; Maaike Catteeuw; Masoud Zamani Esteki; Aspasia Destouni; Osvaldo Bogado Pascottini; Urban Besenfelder; Vitezslav Havlicek; Katrien Smits; Ants Kurg; Andres Salumets; Thomas D'Hooghe; Thierry Voet; Ann Van Soom; Joris Robert Vermeesch
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 6.918

7.  Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer.

Authors:  D K Gardner; M Lane; J Stevens; T Schlenker; W B Schoolcraft
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 7.329

8.  Diagnosis of major chromosome aneuploidies in human preimplantation embryos.

Authors:  S Munné; A Lee; Z Rosenwaks; J Grifo; J Cohen
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 6.918

9.  Blastocyst biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening and fresh embryo transfer significantly increases in vitro fertilization implantation and delivery rates: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Richard T Scott; Kathleen M Upham; Eric J Forman; Kathleen H Hong; Katherine L Scott; Deanne Taylor; Xin Tao; Nathan R Treff
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2013-06-01       Impact factor: 7.329

10.  Transcriptional regulators TRIM28, SETDB1, and TP53 are aberrantly expressed in porcine embryos produced by in vitro fertilization in comparison to in vivo- and somatic-cell nuclear transfer-derived embryos.

Authors:  Jennifer Hamm; Kim Tessanne; Clifton N Murphy; Randall S Prather
Journal:  Mol Reprod Dev       Date:  2014-04-16       Impact factor: 2.609

View more
  10 in total

1.  When pregnancy is a research risk.

Authors:  Ronald M Green
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-09-10       Impact factor: 3.412

2.  IUI and uterine lavage of in vivo-produced blastocysts for PGT purposes: is it a technically and ethically reasonable perspective? Is it actually needed?

Authors:  Lucia De Santis; Danilo Cimadomo; Antonio Capalbo; Cinzia Di Pietro; Daniela Zuccarello; Attilio Anastasi; Emanuele Licata; Catello Scarica; Laura Sosa Fernandez; Francesca Gioia Klinger
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-05-26       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Fertility Technology Research and the Use of Human Beings as Property.

Authors:  Cynthia Jones-Nosacek
Journal:  Linacre Q       Date:  2020-08-13

4.  Medical research and reproductive medicine in an ethical context: a critical commentary on the paper dealing with uterine lavage published by Munné et al.

Authors:  Maximilian Murtinger; Barbara Wirleitner; Libor Hradecký; Giorgio Comploj; Jasmin Okhowat; Dietmar Spitzer; Jürgen Stadler; Robert Haidbauer; Maximilian Schuff; Selma Yildirim; Therese Soepenberg; Kerstin Eibner; Friedrich Gagsteiger
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-10-06       Impact factor: 3.412

5.  Segmental duplications and monosomies are linked to in vitro developmental arrest.

Authors:  N De Munck; A Bayram; I Elkhatib; A Liñán; A Arnanz; L Melado; B Lawrenz; M H Fatemi
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-03-19       Impact factor: 3.357

6.  Cytoplasmic strings between ICM and mTE are a positive predictor of clinical pregnancy and live birth outcomes: A time-lapse study.

Authors:  Bing-Xin Ma; Liu Yang; Yu Tian; Lei Jin; Bo Huang
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-07-28

7.  Single-cell analysis of human embryos reveals diverse patterns of aneuploidy and mosaicism.

Authors:  Margaret R Starostik; Olukayode A Sosina; Rajiv C McCoy
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2020-07-08       Impact factor: 9.043

8.  Closing the circle of reverse genetics in reproductive medicine.

Authors:  David F Albertini
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 3.412

9.  LINE-1 retrotransposon methylation in chorionic villi of first trimester miscarriages with aneuploidy.

Authors:  Stanislav A Vasilyev; Ekaterina N Tolmacheva; Oksana Yu Vasilyeva; Anton V Markov; Daria I Zhigalina; Lada A Zatula; Vasilissa A Lee; Ekaterina S Serdyukova; Elena A Sazhenova; Tatyana V Nikitina; Anna A Kashevarova; Igor N Lebedev
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2020-11-10       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 10.  Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: A review of published blastocyst reanalysis concordance data.

Authors:  Diego Marin; Jia Xu; Nathan R Treff
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2020-10-04       Impact factor: 3.050

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.