Ask Our Doctors – Archive
Our Medical Directors are outstanding physicians that you will find to be very personable and compassionate, who take care to ensure that you have the most cutting-edge fertility treatments at your disposal. This is your outlet to ask your questions to the doctors.
Dr. Sher,
I hope this message finds you in the best of health. My husband and I are healthy 26 and 31 year olds respectively. We’ve been married for 4 years now and our Recurrent Pregnancy Loss journey started six months into our marriage. Since then I’ve had 4 unexplained miscarriages, all naturally conceived. We are also a consanguineous couple. Following is a quick overview of pregnancies, notes and testing done:
1st Pregnancy- lasted 9 weeks
Pregnancy duration: 8 October, 2013 (lmp) – 6 January 2014
• Medications taken: Prenatal vitamins
2nd Pregnancy (Planned)- lasted 9 weeks
Pregnancy duration: 27 September, 2014 (lmp)- 12 December 2014
• Medications taken: Prenatal vitamins, Diclegis (Vit B6 for nausea)
3rd Pregnancy (Planned)- lasted 9 weeks
Pregnancy duration: 22 December, 2015 (lmp)- 10 March 2016
• Medications taken: Aspirin 81mg, L-MethylFolate .75mg, DHA 200mg,
Diclegis (VitB6), Prometrium 200mg (starting from week 6).
4th Pregnancy (Planned)- lasted 7.5 weeks
Pregnancy duration: 26 November, 2016 (lmp) – 18 January, 2017
• Medications taken: Lovenox Injection (40mg), Aspirin 81mg, L-MethylFolate
.75mg, DHA 200mg, Progesterone (vaginal insertion twice a day).
General Notes:
• Fetuses always measuring a few days behind in the sono since lmp
• First 3 fetuses stopped growing after 9 weeks. Normal heartbeats were detected every time.
• 4th pregnancy ended at 7.5 weeks (fetus measuring 6.5). No heartbeat was
detected. Cardiolipin antibody was rechecked during the pregnancy and was still in the intermediate range.
• All 4 pregnancies were missed miscarriages
• 2nd and 3rd pregnancies- fetal tissue tests showed normal female karyotype
• 1st and 3rd pregnancy sonos showed fetal hydrops around 9 weeks
?Tests carried out: Dee
1.Genetic Test for Autosomal Disorders- No disorders found (Negative)
2.Parvo Virus B19 AB (Igg,M)- Negative
3.Karyotyping- Normal female karyotype
4.Thrombophilia (1st test)- Elevated CARDIOLIPIN ANTIBODY (Igm) Intermediate range: 17
5.Thrombophilia (repeated test-after 6 weeks)- Elevated CARDIOLIPIN ANTIBODY (Igm) Intermediate range: 17
6.Hormone Test- Normal (Day 3, AMH,FSH & LH, Progesterone, Estradiol, Testosterone, Thyroid, Prolactin Serum)
?Tests carried out: Husband
1.Genetic Test for Autosomal Disorders- Carrier of Cystic Fibrosis and Hereditary Thymine- Uraciluria
2.Karyotyping- Normal Male Karyotype
3.Semen Analysis- Normal
We have been consulting various renowned Reproductive Endocrinologists in the area and have got mixed reviews:
•Some want us to look into surrogacy or donor egg/sperm- Husband and I not comfortable with that
•Some suggest undergoing IVF with PDG as they think egg quality might be an issue even though my Day 3 FSH (6.3) and AMH (5.79) levels are normal.
We do however, want to explore the Alloimmune side but have been discouraged by every doctor so far; claiming that it’s a relatively new field with no guaranteed outcome or treatment. Based on the facts mentioned above I would greatly value your advise and help in the matter. Do you think we should look into the Alloimmune side? Would IVF with PDG be beneficial for us in addressing the issue we are having? Is there any other testing that you might recommend for us? Looking forward to your reply. Thanks!
I believe I can be of help. We really should talk sooner rather than later!
When it comes to reproduction, humans are the poorest performers of all mammals. In fact we are so inefficient that up to 75% of fertilized eggs do not produce live births, and up to 30% of pregnancies end up being lost within 10 weeks of conception (in the first trimester). RPL is defined as two (2) or more failed pregnancies. Less than 5% of women will experience two (2) consecutive miscarriages, and only 1% experience three or more.
Pregnancy loss can be classified by the stage of pregnancy when the loss occurs:
•Early pregnancy loss (first trimester)
•Late pregnancy loss (after the first trimester)
•Occult “hidden” and not clinically recognized, (chemical) pregnancy loss (occurs prior to ultrasound confirmation of pregnancy)
•Early pregnancy losses usually occur sporadically (are not repetitive).
In more than 70% of cases the loss is due to embryo aneuploidy (where there are more or less than the normal quota of 46 chromosomes). Conversely, repeated losses (RPL), with isolated exceptions where the cause is structural (e.g., unbalanced translocations), are seldom attributable to numerical chromosomal abnormalities (aneuploidy). In fact, the vast majority of cases of RPL are attributable to non-chromosomal causes such as anatomical uterine abnormalities or Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID).
Since most sporadic early pregnancy losses are induced by chromosomal factors and thus are non-repetitive, having had a single miscarriage the likelihood of a second one occurring is no greater than average. However, once having had two losses the chance of a third one occurring is double (35-40%) and after having had three losses the chance of a fourth miscarriage increases to about 60%. The reason for this is that the more miscarriages a woman has, the greater is the likelihood of this being due to a non-chromosomal (repetitive) cause such as IID. It follows that if numerical chromosomal analysis (karyotyping) of embryonic/fetal products derived from a miscarriage tests karyotypically normal, then by a process of elimination, there would be a strong likelihood of a miscarriage repeating in subsequent pregnancies and one would not have to wait for the disaster to recur before taking action. This is precisely why we strongly advocate that all miscarriage specimens be karyotyped.
There is however one caveat to be taken into consideration. That is that the laboratory performing the karyotyping might unwittingly be testing the mother’s cells rather than that of the conceptus. That is why it is not possible to confidently exclude aneuploidy in cases where karyotyping of products suggests a “chromosomally normal” (euploid) female.
Late pregnancy losses (occurring after completion of the 1st trimester/12th week) occur far less frequently (1%) than early pregnancy losses. They are most commonly due to anatomical abnormalities of the uterus and/or cervix. Weakness of the neck of the cervix rendering it able to act as an effective valve that retains the pregnancy (i.e., cervical incompetence) is in fact one of the commonest causes of late pregnancy loss. So also are developmental (congenital) abnormalities of the uterus (e.g., a uterine septum) and uterine fibroid tumors. In some cases intrauterine growth retardation, premature separation of the placenta (placental abruption), premature rupture of the membranes and premature labor can also causes of late pregnancy loss.
Much progress has been made in understanding the mechanisms involved in RPL. There are two broad categories:
1.Problems involving the uterine environment in which a normal embryo is prohibited from properly implanting and developing. Possible causes include:
•Inadequate thickening of the uterine lining
•Irregularity in the contour of the uterine cavity (polyps, fibroid tumors in the uterine wall, intra-uterine scarring and adenomyosis)
•Hormonal imbalances (progesterone deficiency or luteal phase defects). This most commonly results in occult RPL.
•Deficient blood flow to the uterine lining (thin uterine lining).
•Immunologic implantation dysfunction (IID). A major cause of RPL. Plays a role in 75% of cases where chromosomally normal preimplantation embryos fail to implant.
•Interference of blood supply to the developing conceptus can occur due to a hereditary clotting disorder known as Thrombophilia.
2.Genetic and/or structural chromosomal abnormality of the embryo.Genetic abnormalities are rare causes of RPL. Structural chromosomal abnormalities are slightly more common but are also occur infrequently (1%). These are referred to as unbalanced translocation and they result from part of one chromosome detaching and then fusing with another chromosome. Additionally, a number of studies suggest the existence of paternal (sperm derived) effect on human embryo quality and pregnancy outcome that are not reflected as a chromosomal abnormality. Damaged sperm DNA can have a negative impact on fetal development and present clinically as occult or early clinical miscarriage. The Sperm Chromatin Structure Assay (SCSA) which measures the same endpoints are newer and possibly improved methods for evaluating.
IMMUNOLOGIC IMPLANTATION DYSFUNCTION
Autoimmune IID: Here an immunologic reaction is produced by the individual to his/her body’s own cellular components. The most common antibodies that form in such situations are APA and antithyroid antibodies (ATA).
But it is only when specialized immune cells in the uterine lining, known as cytotoxic lymphocytes (CTL) and natural killer (NK) cells, become activated and start to release an excessive/disproportionate amount of TH-1 cytokines that attack the root system of the embryo, that implantation potential is jeopardized. Diagnosis of such activation requires highly specialized blood test for cytokine activity that can only be performed by a handful of reproductive immunology reference laboratories in the United States.
Alloimmune IID, i.e., where antibodies are formed against antigens derived from another member of the same species, is believed to be a relatively common immunologic cause of recurrent pregnancy loss.
Autoimmune IID is often genetically transmitted. Thus it should not be surprising to learn that it is more likely to exist in women who have a family (or personal) history of primary autoimmune diseases such as lupus erythematosus (LE), scleroderma or autoimmune hypothyroidism (Hashimoto’s disease), autoimmune hyperthyroidism (Grave’s disease), rheumatoid arthritis, etc. Reactionary (secondary) autoimmunity can occur in conjunction with any medical condition associated with widespread tissue damage. One such gynecologic condition is endometriosis. Since autoimmune IID is usually associated with activated NK and T-cells from the outset, it usually results in such very early destruction of the embryo’s root system that the patient does not even recognize that she is pregnant. Accordingly the condition usually presents as “unexplained infertility” or “unexplained IVF failure” rather than as a miscarriage.
Alloimmune IID, on the other hand, usually starts off presenting as unexplained miscarriages (often manifesting as RPL). Over time as NK/T cell activation builds and eventually becomes permanently established the patient often goes from RPL to “infertility” due to failed implantation. RPL is more commonly the consequence of alloimmune rather than autoimmune implantation dysfunction.
However, regardless, of whether miscarriage is due to autoimmune or alloimmune implantation dysfunction the final blow to the pregnancy is the result of activated NK cells and CTL in the uterine lining that damage the developing embryo’s “root system” (trophoblast) so that it can no longer sustain the growing conceptus. This having been said, it is important to note that autoimmune IID is readily amenable to reversal through timely, appropriately administered, selective immunotherapy, and alloimmune IID is not. It is much more difficult to treat successfully, even with the use of immunotherapy. In fact, in some cases the only solution will be to revert to selective immunotherapy plus using donor sperm (provided there is no “match” between the donor’s DQa profile and that of the female recipient) or alternatively to resort to gestational surrogacy.
DIAGNOSING THE CAUSE OF RPL
In the past, women who miscarried were not evaluated thoroughly until they had lost several pregnancies in a row. This was because sporadic miscarriages are most commonly the result of embryo numerical chromosomal irregularities (aneuploidy) and thus not treatable. However, a consecutive series of miscarriages points to a repetitive cause that is non-chromosomal and is potentially remediable. Since RPL is most commonly due to a uterine pathology or immunologic causes that are potentially treatable, it follows that early chromosomal evaluation of products of conception could point to a potentially treatable situation. Thus I strongly recommend that such testing be done in most cases of miscarriage. Doing so will avoid a great deal of unnecessary heartache for many patients.
Establishing the correct diagnosis is the first step toward determining effective treatment for couples with RPL. It results from a problem within the pregnancy itself or within the uterine environment where the pregnancy implants and grows. Diagnostic tests useful in identifying individuals at greater risk for a problem within the pregnancy itself include:
•Karyotyping (chromosome analysis) both prospective parents
•Assessment of the karyotype of products of conception derived from previous miscarriage specimens
•Ultrasound examination of the uterine cavity after sterile water is injected or sonohysterogram, fluid ultrasound, etc.)
•Hysterosalpingogram (dye X-ray test)
•Hysteroscopic evaluation of the uterine cavity
•Full hormonal evaluation (estrogen, progesterone, adrenal steroid hormones, thyroid hormones, FSH/LH, etc.)
•Immunologic testing to include:
a)Antiphospholipid antibody (APA) panel
b)Antinuclear antibody (ANA) panel
c)Antithyroid antibody panel (i.e., antithyroglobulin and antimicrosomal antibodies)
d)Reproductive immunophenotype
e)Natural killer cell activity (NKa) assay (i.e., K562 target cell test)
f)Alloimmune testing of both the male and female partners
TREATMENT OF RPL
Treatment for Anatomic Abnormalities of the Uterus: This involves restoration through removal of local lesions such as fibroids, scar tissue, and endometrial polyps or timely insertion of a cervical cerclage (a stitch placed around the neck of the weakened cervix) or the excision of a uterine septum when indicated.
Treatment of Thin Uterine Lining: A thin uterine lining has been shown to correlate with compromised pregnancy outcome. Often this will be associated with reduced blood flow to the endometrium. Such decreased blood flow to the uterus can be improved through treatment with sildenafil and possibly aspirin.
Sildenafil (Viagra) Therapy. Viagra has been used successfully to increase uterine blood flow. However, to be effective it must be administered starting as soon as the period stops up until the day of ovulation and it must be administered vaginally (not orally). Viagra in the form of vaginal suppositories given in the dosage of 25 mg four times a day has been shown to increase uterine blood flow as well as thickness of the uterine lining. To date, we have seen significant improvement of the thickness of the uterine lining in about 70% of women treated. Successful pregnancy resulted in 42% of women who responded to the Viagra. It should be remembered that most of these women had previously experienced repeated IVF failures.
Use of Aspirin: This is an anti-prostaglandin that improves blood flow to the endometrium. It is administered at a dosage of 81 mg orally, daily from the beginning of the cycle until ovulation.
Treating Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction with Selective Immunotherapy: Modalities such as IL/IVIg, heparinoids (Lovenox/Clexane), and corticosteroids (dexamethasone, prednisone, prednisolone) can be used in select cases depending on autoimmune or alloimmune dysfunction.
The Use of IVF in the Treatment of RPL
In the following circumstances, IVF is the preferred option:
1.When in addition to a history of RPL, another standard indication for IVF (e.g., tubal factor, endometriosis, and male factor infertility) is superimposed.
2.In cases where selective immunotherapy is needed to treat an immunologic implantation dysfunction.
The reason for IVF being a preferred approach in such cases is that in order to be effective, the immunotherapy needs to be initiated well before spontaneous or induced ovulation. Given the fact that the anticipated birthrate per cycle of COS with or without IUI is at best about 15%, it follows that short of IVF, to have even a reasonable chance of a live birth, most women with immunologic causes of RPL would need to undergo immunotherapy repeatedly, over consecutive cycles. Conversely, with IVF, the chance of a successful outcome in a single cycle of treatment is several times greater and, because of the attenuated and concentrated time period required for treatment, IVF is far safer and thus represents a more practicable alternative
Since embryo aneuploidy is a common cause of miscarriage, the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), with tests such as CGH, can provide a valuable diagnostic and therapeutic advantage in cases of RPL. PGD requires IVF to provide access to embryos for testing.
There are a few cases of intractable alloimmune dysfunction due to absolute DQ alpha matching where Gestational Surrogacy or use of donor sperm could represent the only viable recourse, other than abandoning treatment altogether and/or resorting to adoption. Other non-immunologic factors such as an intractably thin uterine lining or severe uterine pathology might also warrant that last resort consideration be given to gestational surrogacy.
The good news is that if a couple with RPL is open to all of the diagnostic and treatment options referred to above, a live birthrate of 70%–80% is ultimately achievable.
I strongly recommend that you visit http://www.DrGeoffreySherIVF.com. Then go to my Blog and access the “search bar”. Type in the titles of any/all of the articles listed below, one by one. “Click” and you will immediately be taken to those you select. Please also take the time to post any questions or comments with the full expectation that I will (as always) respond promptly.
•The IVF Journey: The importance of “Planning the Trip” Before Taking the Ride”
•Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) for IVF: Selecting the ideal protocol
•IVF: Factors Affecting Egg/Embryo “competency” during Controlled Ovarian Stimulation(COS)
•The Fundamental Requirements For Achieving Optimal IVF Success
•Ovarian Stimulation for IVF using GnRH Antagonists: Comparing the Agonist/Antagonist Conversion Protocol.(A/ACP) With the “Conventional” Antagonist Approach
•Ovarian Stimulation in Women Who have Diminished Ovarian Reserve (DOR): Introducing the Agonist/Antagonist Conversion protocol
•Anti Mullerian Hormone (AMH) Measurement to Assess Ovarian Reserve and Design the Optimal Protocol for Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) in IVF.
•Human Growth Hormone Administration in IVF: Does it Enhances Egg/Embryo Quality and Outcome?
•The BCP: Does Launching a Cycle of Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS). Coming off the BCP Compromise Response?
•Blastocyst Embryo Transfers Should be the Standard of Care in IVF
•IVF: How Many Attempts should be considered before Stopping?
•“Unexplained” Infertility: Often a matter of the Diagnosis Being Overlooked!
•IVF Failure and Implantation Dysfunction:
•The Role of Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID) & Infertility (IID):PART 1-Background
•Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID) & Infertility (IID):PART 2- Making a Diagnosis
•Immunologic Dysfunction (IID) & Infertility (IID):PART 3-Treatment
•Thyroid autoantibodies and Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID)
•Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction: Importance of Meticulous Evaluation and Strategic Management:(Case Report
•Intralipid and IVIG therapy: Understanding the Basis for its use in the Treatment of Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID)
•Intralipid (IL) Administration in IVF: It’s Composition; How it Works; Administration; Side-effects; Reactions and Precautions
•Natural Killer Cell Activation (NKa) and Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction in IVF: The Controversy!
•Endometrial Thickness, Uterine Pathology and Immunologic Factors
•Vaginally Administered Viagra is Often a Highly Effective Treatment to Help Thicken a Thin Uterine Lining
•Treating Out-of-State and Out-of-Country Patients at Sher-IVF in Las Vegas:
•A personalized, stepwise approach to IVF
•How Many Embryos should be transferred: A Critical Decision in IVF.
•The Role of Nutritional Supplements in Preparing for IVF
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
1.About my Retirement by mid-2018:
After > 30 years in the field of Assisted Reproduction (AR), the time has finally come for me to plan on retiring from full-time clinical medicine within a year. If you are interested in my medical services prior to my retirement, I urge you to contact my concierge, Julie Dahan ASAP to set up a Skype or an in-person consultation with me. You can also contact Julie by phone or via email at 702-533-2691/ Julied@sherivf.com. You can also apply online at http://www.SherIVF.com.
2.The 4th edition of my newest book ,
“In Vitro Fertilization, the ART of Making Babies” is now available as a down-load through http://www.Amazon.com or from most bookstores and public libraries.
Geoffrey Sher MD
Hello,
I am at the tail end of stimulation for IUI in a couple days. I’ve been on 150 menopur and 100 Gonal F days 4-11. Today I had 3-18mm, 1-16mm on one side and 2-17 mm on the other. Several 8-10 mm on both. RE told me to do 75 menopur and ganerelix tonight. 2,500 IU HCG in the morning and then IUI about 28-30 hrs later.
I guess my question is why such a low dose HCG? My old RE (now retired) always had me do 10,000 IU. Will this dosage be sufficient?
Also I am almost 38 yrs old, have PCOS and have had one pregnancy resulting in a healthy 2 yo boy if that makes a difference
In my opinion, 10K hCG is required to optimize egg maturation. I think 2500U is far too low.
Ideal egg development sets the scene for optimal egg maturation that occurs 36-42h prior to ovulation or egg retrieval. Without prior optimal egg development (ovogenesis), egg maturation will be dysfunctional and most eggs will be rendered “incompetent” and unable upon fertilization to propagate viable embryos. In IVF, optimal ovogenesis requires the selection and implementation of an individualized approach to controlled ovaria stimulation (COS). Thereupon, at the ideal time, maturational division of the egg’s chromosomes (i.e. meiosis) is “triggered” through the administration of hCG or an agonist such as Lupron, which induces an LH surge. The, dosage and timing of the “trigger shot” profoundly affects the efficiency of meiosis, the potential to yield “competent (euploid) mature (M2) eggs, and as such represents a rate limiting step in the IVF process .
“Triggering meiosis with Urine-derived hCG (Pregnyl/Profasi/Novarel) versus recombinant hCG (Ovidrel): Until quite recently, the standard method used to “trigger” egg maturation was through the administration of 10,000 units of hCGu. Subsequently,, a DNA recombinant form of hCGr (Ovidrel)was introduced and marketed in 250 mcg doses. But clinical experience strongly suggests that 250 mcg of Ovidrel is most likely not equivalent in biological potency to 10,000 units of hCG. It probably only has 50%-70%of the potency of a 10,000U dose of hCGu and as such might not be sufficient to fully promote meiosis, especially in cases where the woman has numerous follicles. For this reason, I firmly believe that when hCGr is selected as the “trigger shot” the dosage should best be doubled to 500 mcg at which dosage it will probably have an equivalent effect on promoting meiosis as would 10,000 units of hCGu. Failure to “trigger” with 10,000U hCGu or 500mcg hCGr, will in my opinion increase the likelihood of disorderly meiosis, “incompetent (aneuploid) eggs” and the risk of follicles not yielding eggs at egg retrieval (“empty follicles”). Having said this, it is my personal opinion that it is unnecessary to supplant hCGu with hCGr since the latter is considerably more expensive and is probably no more biopotent than the latter.
Some clinicians, when faced with a risk of OHSS developing will deliberately elect to reduce the dosage of hCG administered as a trigger in the hope that by doing so the risk of critical OHSS developing will be lowered. It is my opinion, that such an approach is not optimal because a low dose of hCG (e.g., 5000 units, hCGu or 250mcg hCGr) is likely inadequate to optimize the efficiency of meiosis particularly when it comes to cases such as this where there are numerous follicles. It has been suggested that the preferential use of an “agonist (Lupron) trigger” in women at risk of developing severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome could potentially reduce the risk of the condition becoming critical and thereby placing the woman at risk of developing life-endangering complications. It is with this in mind that many RE’s prefer to trigger meiosis by way of an “agonist (Lupron) trigger rather than through the use of hCG. The agonist promptly causes the woman’s pituitary gland to expunge a large amount of LH over a short period of time and it is this LH “surge” that triggers meiosis. The problem with using this approach, in my opinion, is that it is hard to predict how much LH will be released in by the pituitary gland. For this reason, I personally prefer to use hCGu for the trigger, even in cases of ovarian hyperstimulation hyperstimulated, with one important proviso…that being that is she underwent “prolonged coasting” in order to reduce the risk of critical OHSS, prior to the 10,000 unit hCGu “ trigger”.
The timing of the “trigger shot “to initiate meiosis: This should coincide with the majority of ovarian follicles being >15 mm in mean diameter with several follicles having reached 18-22 mm. Follicles of larger than 22 mm will usually harbor overdeveloped eggs which in turn will usually fail to produce good quality eggs. Conversely, follicles less than 15 mm will usually harbor underdeveloped eggs that are more likely to be aneuploid and incompetent following the “trigger”.
Geoff Sher
1-800-780-7437
Hi Dr. Sher. I have PCOS and have a 2-year old through IVF (1-round, fresh 3-day – we had 9 eggs, 7 mature, 6 fertilized, implanted 1 on day 3). We are doing IVF again now, and I just had my egg retrieval saturday and got 22 eggs, 17 mature, and 17 fertilized. I am turning 35 in a few months, so we signed up with an “open plan” to do PGS (for which we had to do ICSI as a prerequisite to fertilize) but we figured we would see how many embryos we got and how they were growing before deciding what to do. Now we are unsure – and would love some advice. Our #1 goal is to have a healthy baby. Our doctor did not feel we needed to do PGS, but my husband and i are wondering if it would be beneficial to us given my age, and esp given that we have a large number of embryos to work with. My husband feels why not do it if we have the option. Are there any downsides to doing PGS? What would you recommend in our situation (obviously not yet knowing how many we will have by day 5 – which is when they do the biopsy). Right now if we did a fresh transfer it’s looking like day 5 as well. (In addition, all things equal for the health of baby, we do have a gender preference, but this is very secondary.) We are very confused about whether to move forward with a Fresh Cycle Day 5 or do PGS testing on all remaining embryos and do a Frozen cycle next month. Thanks so much for your help.
At 35y, one out of two blastocysts will likely be chromosomally normal and each normal balarocysts would have a good chance of propagating a viable pregnancy. So my advice would be against doing PGS unless gender selection is a priority. I would strongly recommend CVS or amniocentesis once pregnancy is underway.
About a decade ago, I, along with my associate, Levent Keskintepe PhD were the first to introduce full chromosome Preimplantation Genetic Sampling/Screening (PGS) into the IVF clinical realm to try and identify euploid embryos whose cells contained the required 46 chromosomes (23 pairs) necessary to render them potentially “competent” to propagate viable pregnancies. Aneuploid embryos (those that have more or less than a total of 46 chromosomes) are by and large considered to be “incompetent”, far less likely to propagate a viable pregnancy and thus largely unworthy of being transferred to the uterus.
Initially the primary method used for PGS was, comparative genomic hybridization (CGH). The methodology was not without certain problems. A few years ago, new and improved technology known as next generation gene sequencing (NGS) emerged. This has since all but replaced other methodologies. Gene sequencing determines the precise order of nucleotides within a DNA molecule. It includes any method or technology that is used to determine the order of the four bases—adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine—in a strand of DNA.
The widely held belief is that the ideal time to biopsy embryos for PGS is when they reach the most advanced stage of preimplantation development (the blastocyst stage) by 5-6 days post-fertilization. At this point several cells are microsurgically removed from the embryo’s outer cellular layer (trophectoderm-TE), processed and subjected to PGS analysis. The blastocysts are ultra-rapidly frozen (vitrified) and held for future dispensation in a subsequent frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycle, once test results are known.
Access to several cells through TE biopsy provides more DNA for reliable analysis that can be attained through the testing of a single cell removed from a day-2-3 cleaved embryo. It is this plus the belief that the hypercellular blastocyst is far less likely to be damaged through such microsurgical intervention than would be the case with a 4-10 cell, day-3 cleaved embryo that has led to the preferred timing for biopsy to be on day 5-6 blastocysts..
When PGS testing was first introduced, initial results were most-encouraging. Embryo implantation rates of >50% and birth rates of 50-60% when up to two euploid blastocysts were transferred, were being reported. In addition, the reported incidence of miscarriages and chromosomal birth defects was likewise greatly reduced. In fact, we were so encouraged that most of us predicted that a time would come where full embryo karyotyping through PGS would become a routine part of IVF. But alas…..we were soon to be disappointed when following the widespread introduction of PGS testing success rates started dropping. This was especially the case when PGS was performed on embryos derived from the eggs of older women and women with severely diminished ovarian reserve (DOR). With further investigation it began to dawn upon us that:
a)Chromosomal numerical integrity, while being the most important determinant of embryo “competency” was likely not the only factor that impacted embryo “competency”. Indeed advancing age was revealed to increase the incidence of embryo aneuploidy, independent of embryo karyotype and this is probably linked to non-chromosomal, genetic and metabolomic factors that might also be age-related.
b)Independent of embryo competency, there are many variables, that can and also do determine IVF outcome and these are often outside the control of the embryology/genetic laboratory. They include selection and implementation of individualized protocols for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS), endometrial factors that determine embryo implantation (e.g. anatomical an immunologic implantation dysfunction), technical skill of the physician performing embryo transfer etc.
c)Not all PGS-aneuploid embryos are “incompetent”. Some are mosaic (see elsewhere) and these are often capable of “autocorrecting” upon being transferred to the uterus, and propagating healthy babies.
Example A: Under optimal conditions embryo “competency” is determined by age and the protocol used for COS. In women <36Y of age roughly 1:2 blastocysts will likely be euploid “competent” and were such an embryo be gently and expertly transferred to a “receptive” uterine environment, the chance of a viable pregnancy should about 55-60%. This means that when ET is performed in such ideal IVF candidates, the chance of it resulting in a live birth should be about 27%-30% per embryo.
Example B: Conversely, when it comes to a woman in her mid-forties, the chance of an embryo being “competent” is probably < 1:8-10. And, the age-adjusted chance of such a Euploid embryo propagating a live birth is (for reasons cited above) theoretically well below 60% (perhaps around 40%-45%). This extrapolates to a baby rate of no more than 4%-5% per blastocyst transferred. Using the above examples: In Example A: Given that about 50% of the eggs (and thus resulting embryos) of young women are euploid and competent, the transfer up to 2 non-PGS tested blastocysts would likely yield the same results as would the transfer of a single PGS-tested euploid blastocyst. It follows that a patient/couple who are capable and willing to engage a twin pregnancy (which would occur in roughly 25% of such cases), might get as good a result by simply transferring two (2) untested blastocysts and in the process avoid the additional cost of PGS. In Example B: Conversely, the chance of a viable pregnancy in a woman in her mid-40’s would likely be 8-10 times greater when a “competent”, PGS-euploid blastocyst is selectively transferred as compared to when a non-PGS tested blastocyst is transferred to the uterus (4% versus 40%). Albeit that PGS-testing of blastocysts derived from fertilization of an older woman’s eggs is less reliable than for younger counterparts, there would be a distinct benefit/advantage in pre-selecting euploid, “competent” blastocysts for transfer in such cases. Since older women often also have DOR and thus produce fewer eggs/embryos, such women should benefit inordinately from the selective “stockpiling” (banking) of PGS-biopsied blastocysts (vitrification) over several cycles of IVF for collective PGS testing and the subsequent selective transfer of only the most “competent” ones to the uterus with FET. In conclusion, it is my considered opinion that PGS-embryo selection only be considered in the following circumstances: 1.Women over the age of 39Y and those who, regardless of age have significant DOR, are running out of eggs and time, and need to “make hay while the sun shines”! 2.Unexplained IVF failure. 3.Certain cases of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). 4.Family gender balancing cases 5.Women who have alloimmune implantation dysfunction (IID) with activation of uterine natural killer cells (NKa)…see elsewhere. 6.Where karyotyping reveals one or other partner to have a balanced chromosomal translocation 7.Known or anticipated specific genetic abnormalities When selectively used PGS is an excellent tool to improve implantation potential and IVF outcome (see above). While PGS provides a new and unique method for selecting the ideal embryos to be transferred, it is not a panacea when it comes to identifying “competent embryos”. There are factors other than numerical chromosomal integrity (karyotype) that can and do influence embryo “competency”, profoundly. PGS embryo selection is in my opinion currently over-used. This is especially the case when it comes to younger women with normal ovarian reserve. Unless the dust is allowed to settle such that this remarkable technology is properly applied, it is my belief that it stands the risk of progressively falling into disrepute. Good luck! Geoff Sher
I have had reconfirmation that I still indeed suffer with pcos. Next step to try is gonotrophins. My question is, for pcos would IVM be more suitable opposed to ivf please?
In my opinion…absolutely NOT IVM!
Geoff Sher
Hi Doc, I had FET with donor egg on D19, I am advised to be on 2000iu hcg alt days with heparin injections every day.on day 24 noticed spotting with cramping and felt my periods wud start. Is the injections stopping my periods to start or is the spotting due to these medications.
That is hard to say! I doubt the medications are the reasons. The problem you now have is that with the supplemental hCG it is difficult to diagnose when a pregnancy is implanting. Besides, there is no evidence that it helps in implantation. These are a few reasons why I do not supplement with hCG.
Geoff Sher