P-535 Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy (PGT-A) for patients aged ≤ 37 years: Today, evidence-based medicine does not support its use. A meta-analysis

Abstract

Abstract Study question Do patients aged ≤37 years truly benefit from using PGT-A as an add-on to increase ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR)/live birth rate (LBR) in their first IVF/ICSI cycle? Summary answer The use of PGT-A is not superior to classic morphological embryonic selection to increase OPR/LBR in patients aged ≤37 years in their first IVF/ICSI cycle. What is known already The embryonic aneuploidies increase exponentially with advancing-maternal-age, ranging from 30-50% up to 37 years to 80% in women ≥42 years. Consequently, the use of PGT-A seems to be a useful add-on for patients with advanced-maternal-age, but not necessarily for young women undergoing their first IVF/ICSI cycle. Recent studies investigated the benefit of PGT-A, concluding that it was accompanied with lower OPR/LBR, when compared to conventional-cycles in women aged ≤37 years. However, the use of this add-on in IVF/ICSI cycles is increasing alarmingly. Furthermore, adding PGT-A in reproductive treatments is related with increased costs and limitations inherent to the test itself. Study design, size, duration A systematic review based on electronics searches of databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane database. Keywords: PGT-A; Morphological embryonic selection; ongoing pregnancy; live birth) up to December 2021 was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing clinical outcomes of IVF/ICSI cycles with PGT-A versus Morphological embryonic selection. The primary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates. Participants/materials, setting, methods Seven RCTs were included as targets for data extraction and meta-analysis. Three studies reported on OPR and five reported LBR of patients who underwent their first IVF/ICSI cycle. Data were combined for meta-analysis using StatsDirect statistical software. Dichotomous data were expressed as Relative Risk(RR) with a 95% confidence interval(CI). The amount of heterogeneity was evaluated using Cochran’sQ and I2. Study data were combined using a Random-effects model. P-values <0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. Main results and the role of chance -Ongoing pregnancy rates (three trials): PGT-A group: 67.4% (485/720) versus morphological embryo selection group: 63.2% (460/728) with no statistically significant differences (RR = 1.11; 95% CI = 0.89–1.39; P=0.35) -Live birth rate (five trials): PGT-A group: 58.9% (578/981) versus Morphological embryo selection group: 57.9% (585/1010) with no statistically significant differences (RR = 1.01; 95% CI = 0.81–1.26; P=0.91). Table 1 shows the data. Limitations, reasons for caution The main limitation of this meta-analysis is the low number and heterogeneity of studies included. However, all of the included studies are randomised controlled trials, and the data were meta-analysed using Random-effects. Wider implications of the findings This meta-analysis brings to light a fundamental discussion currently, in which physicians and embryologists employ add-ons to improve clinical outcomes even without adequate scientific support.Medical practices are based on scientific evidence and Reproductive Medicine is not different. Therefore, at the moment, PGT-A should not be indicated for patients aged ≤37years. Trial registration number Not applicable