Literature DB >> 33904009

Utilization of preimplantation genetic testing in the USA.

Kaitlyn Roche1, Catherine Racowsky2, Joyce Harper3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) and live birth rates (LBR) in the USA from 2014 to 2017 and to understand how PGT is being used at a clinic and state level.
METHODS: This study accessed SART data for 2014 to 2017 to determine LBR and the CDC for years 2016 and 2017 to identify PGT usage. Primary cycles included only the first embryo transfer within 1 year of an oocyte retrieval; subsequent cycles included transfers occurring after the first transfer or beyond 1 year of oocyte retrieval.
RESULTS: In the SART data, the number of primary PGT cycles showed a significant monotonic annual increase from 18,805 in 2014 to 54,442 in 2017 (P = 0.042) and subsequent PGT cycles in these years increased from 2946 to 14,361 (P = 0.01). There was a significant difference in primary PGT cycle use by age, where younger women had a greater percentage of PGT treatment cycles than older women. In both PGT and non-PGT cycles, the LBR per oocyte retrieval decreased significantly from 2014 to 2017 (P<0001) and younger women had a significantly higher LBR per oocyte retrieval compared to older women (P < 0.001). The CDC data revealed that in 2016, just 53 (11.4%) clinics used PGT for more than 50% of their cycles, which increased to 99 (21.4%) clinics in 2017 (P< 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: A growing number of US clinics are offering PGT to their patients. These findings support re-evaluation of the application for PGT.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CDC; PGT; PGT-A; Preimplantation diagnosis; SART

Year:  2021        PMID: 33904009     DOI: 10.1007/s10815-021-02078-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet        ISSN: 1058-0468            Impact factor:   3.412


  8 in total

1.  Adjuncts in the IVF laboratory: where is the evidence for 'add-on' interventions?

Authors:  Joyce Harper; Emily Jackson; Karen Sermon; Robert John Aitken; Stephen Harbottle; Edgar Mocanu; Thorir Hardarson; Raj Mathur; Stephane Viville; Andy Vail; Kersti Lundin
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 6.918

2.  Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus morphology as selection criteria for single frozen-thawed embryo transfer in good-prognosis patients: a multicenter randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Santiago Munné; Brian Kaplan; John L Frattarelli; Tim Child; Gary Nakhuda; F Nicholas Shamma; Kaylen Silverberg; Tasha Kalista; Alan H Handyside; Mandy Katz-Jaffe; Dagan Wells; Tony Gordon; Sharyn Stock-Myer; Susan Willman
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2019-09-21       Impact factor: 7.329

3.  International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) revised glossary of ART terminology, 2009.

Authors:  F Zegers-Hochschild; G D Adamson; J de Mouzon; O Ishihara; R Mansour; K Nygren; E Sullivan; S Vanderpoel
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2009-10-14       Impact factor: 7.329

Review 4.  Assessment of pre-implantation genetic testing for embryo aneuploidies: A SWOT analysis.

Authors:  Alessandra Alteri; Laura Corti; Ana M Sanchez; Elisa Rabellotti; Enrico Papaleo; Paola Viganò
Journal:  Clin Genet       Date:  2019-02-12       Impact factor: 4.438

Review 5.  Impact of blastocyst biopsy and comprehensive chromosome screening technology on preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Elias M Dahdouh; Jacques Balayla; Juan Antonio García-Velasco
Journal:  Reprod Biomed Online       Date:  2014-12-11       Impact factor: 3.828

6.  Reproductive outcome is optimized by genomic embryo screening, vitrification, and subsequent transfer into a prepared synchronous endometrium.

Authors:  Jorge Rodriguez-Purata; Joseph Lee; Michael Whitehouse; Marlena Duke; Lawrence Grunfeld; Benjamin Sandler; Alan Copperman; Tanmoy Mukherjee
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2016-01-14       Impact factor: 3.412

7.  The status of preimplantation genetic testing in the UK and USA.

Authors:  Rachel Theobald; Sioban SenGupta; Joyce Harper
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 6.918

8.  Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (abnormal number of chromosomes) in in vitro fertilisation.

Authors:  Simone Cornelisse; Miriam Zagers; Elena Kostova; Kathrin Fleischer; Madelon van Wely; Sebastiaan Mastenbroek
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-09-08
  8 in total
  4 in total

1.  To mask or not to mask mosaicism? The impact of reporting embryo mosaicism on reproductive potential.

Authors:  A Armstrong; J Miller; M Quinn; A V Nguyen; L Kwan; L Kroener
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2022-07-20       Impact factor: 3.357

2.  Polygenic embryo screening: four clinical considerations warrant further attention.

Authors:  S Pereira; S Carmi; G Altarescu; J Austin; D Barlevy; A Hershlag; E Juengst; K Kostick-Quenet; E Kovanci; R B Lathi; M Mukherjee; I Van den Veyver; O Zuk; G Lázaro-Muñoz; T Lencz
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2022-06-30       Impact factor: 6.353

3.  Polygenic embryo testing: understated ethics, unclear utility.

Authors:  Josephine Johnston; Lucas J Matthews
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2022-03       Impact factor: 87.241

Review 4.  Impact of in vitro fertilization state mandates for third party insurance coverage in the United States: a review and critical assessment.

Authors:  Benjamin J Peipert; Melissa N Montoya; Bronwyn S Bedrick; David B Seifer; Tarun Jain
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2022-08-04       Impact factor: 4.982

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.