Does PGT-A improve assisted reproduction treatment success rates: what can the UK Register data tell us?

9Citations
Citations of this article
11Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: To show how naïve analyses of aggregated UK ART Register data held by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to estimate the effects of PGT-A can be severely misleading and to indicate how it may be possible to do a more credible analysis. Given the limitations of the Register, we consider the extent to which such an analysis has the potential to answer questions about the real-world effectiveness of PGT-A. Methods: We utilise the publicly available Register datasets and construct logistic regression models for live birth events (LBE) which adjust for confounding. We compare all PGT-A cycles to control groups of cycles that could have had PGT-A, excluding cycles that did not progress to having embryos for biopsy. Results: The primary model gives an odds ratio for LBE of 0.82 (95% CI 0.68–1.00) suggesting PGT-A may be detrimental rather than beneficial. However, due to limitations in the availability of important variables in the public dataset, this cannot be considered a definitive estimate. We outline the steps required to enable a credible analysis of the Register data. Conclusion: If we compare like with like groups, we obtain estimates of the effect of PGT-A that suggest an overall modest reduction in treatment success rates. These are in direct contrast to an invalid comparison of crude success rates. A detailed analysis of a fuller dataset is warranted, but it remains to be demonstrated whether the UK Register data can provide useful estimates of the impact of PGT-A when used as a treatment add-on.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Roberts, S. A., Wilkinson, J., Vail, A., & Brison, D. R. (2022). Does PGT-A improve assisted reproduction treatment success rates: what can the UK Register data tell us? Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 39(11), 2547–2554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-022-02612-y

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free