-
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and... Aug 2021Wide controversy is still ongoing regarding efficiency of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). This systematic review and meta-analysis, aims to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Wide controversy is still ongoing regarding efficiency of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). This systematic review and meta-analysis, aims to identify the patient age group that benefits from PGT-A and the best day to biopsy.
METHODS
A systematic search of the literature was performed on MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Library up to May 2020. Eleven randomized controlled trials employing PGT-A with comprehensive chromosomal screening (CCS) on Day-3 or Day-5 were eligible.
RESULTS
PGT-A did not improve live-birth rates (LBR) per patient in the general population (RR:1.11; 95%CI:0.87-1.42; n=1513; I=75%). However, PGT-A lowered miscarriage rate in the general population (RR:0.45; 95%CI:0.25-0.80; n=912; I=49%). Interestingly, the cumulative LBR per patient was improved by PGT-A (RR:1.36; 95%CI:1.13-1.64; n=580; I=12%). When performing an age-subgroup analysis PGT-A improved LBR in women over the age of 35 (RR:1.29; 95%CI:1.05-1.60; n=692; I=0%), whereas it appeared to be ineffective in younger women (RR:0.92; 95%CI:0.62-1.39; n=666; I=75%). Regarding optimal timing, only day-5 biopsy practice presented with improved LBR per ET (RR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.03-1.82; I=72%).
CONCLUSION
PGT-A did not improve clinical outcomes for the general population, however PGT-A improved live-birth rates strictly when performed on blastocyst stage embryos of women over the 35-year-old mark.
Topics: Adult; Aneuploidy; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Genetic Testing; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Pregnancy; Preimplantation Diagnosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34036455
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-021-02227-9 -
BMJ Open Jan 2016To measure test accuracy of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for Down, Edwards and Patau syndromes using cell-free fetal DNA and identify factors affecting accuracy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To measure test accuracy of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for Down, Edwards and Patau syndromes using cell-free fetal DNA and identify factors affecting accuracy.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase and the Cochrane Library published from 1997 to 9 February 2015, followed by weekly autoalerts until 1 April 2015.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
English language journal articles describing case-control studies with ≥ 15 trisomy cases or cohort studies with ≥ 50 pregnant women who had been given NIPT and a reference standard.
RESULTS
41, 37 and 30 studies of 2012 publications retrieved were included in the review for Down, Edwards and Patau syndromes. Quality appraisal identified high risk of bias in included studies, funnel plots showed evidence of publication bias. Pooled sensitivity was 99.3% (95% CI 98.9% to 99.6%) for Down, 97.4% (95.8% to 98.4%) for Edwards, and 97.4% (86.1% to 99.6%) for Patau syndrome. The pooled specificity was 99.9% (99.9% to 100%) for all three trisomies. In 100,000 pregnancies in the general obstetric population we would expect 417, 89 and 40 cases of Downs, Edwards and Patau syndromes to be detected by NIPT, with 94, 154 and 42 false positive results. Sensitivity was lower in twin than singleton pregnancies, reduced by 9% for Down, 28% for Edwards and 22% for Patau syndrome. Pooled sensitivity was also lower in the first trimester of pregnancy, in studies in the general obstetric population, and in cohort studies with consecutive enrolment.
CONCLUSIONS
NIPT using cell-free fetal DNA has very high sensitivity and specificity for Down syndrome, with slightly lower sensitivity for Edwards and Patau syndrome. However, it is not 100% accurate and should not be used as a final diagnosis for positive cases.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42014014947.
Topics: Biomarkers; Chromosome Disorders; Chromosomes, Human, Pair 13; Chromosomes, Human, Pair 18; DNA; Down Syndrome; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Prenatal Diagnosis; Sensitivity and Specificity; Trisomy; Trisomy 13 Syndrome; Trisomy 18 Syndrome
PubMed: 26781507
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010002 -
Genetics in Medicine : Official Journal... Jul 2022Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) using cell-free DNA has been assimilated into prenatal care. Prior studies examined clinical validity and technical performance in... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) using cell-free DNA has been assimilated into prenatal care. Prior studies examined clinical validity and technical performance in high-risk populations. This systematic evidence review evaluates NIPS performance in a general-risk population.
METHODS
Medline (PubMed) and Embase were used to identify studies examining detection of Down syndrome (T21), trisomy 18 (T18), trisomy 13 (T13), sex chromosome aneuploidies, rare autosomal trisomies, copy number variants, and maternal conditions, as well as studies assessing the psychological impact of NIPS and the rate of subsequent diagnostic testing. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate pooled estimates of NIPS performance (P < .05). Heterogeneity was investigated through subgroup analyses. Risk of bias was assessed.
RESULTS
A total of 87 studies met inclusion criteria. Diagnostic odds ratios were significant (P < .0001) for T21, T18, and T13 for singleton and twin pregnancies. NIPS was accurate (≥99.78%) in detecting sex chromosome aneuploidies. Performance for rare autosomal trisomies and copy number variants was variable. Use of NIPS reduced diagnostic tests by 31% to 79%. Conclusions regarding psychosocial outcomes could not be drawn owing to lack of data. Identification of maternal conditions was rare.
CONCLUSION
NIPS is a highly accurate screening method for T21, T18, and T13 in both singleton and twin pregnancies.
Topics: Cell-Free Nucleic Acids; Down Syndrome; Female; Humans; Noninvasive Prenatal Testing; Pregnancy; Prenatal Diagnosis; Sex Chromosome Aberrations; Trisomy; Trisomy 13 Syndrome; Trisomy 18 Syndrome
PubMed: 35608568
DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.03.019 -
Fertility and Sterility Jul 2023To date, recurrent implantation failure (RIF) has no clear definition and no clearly identified impaired function. Hence, the term RIF is currently used somewhat... (Review)
Review
IMPORTANCE
To date, recurrent implantation failure (RIF) has no clear definition and no clearly identified impaired function. Hence, the term RIF is currently used somewhat haphazardly, on the basis of clinicians' judgment.
OBJECTIVE
International experts in reproductive medicine met on July 1, 2022, in Lugano, Switzerland, to review the different facets of RIF and define the diagnosis and its appropriate management.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
A systematic review without meta-analysis of studies published in English from January 2015 to May 2022.
FINDINGS
Data indicated that RIF has been largely overevaluated, overdiagnosed, and overtreated without sufficient critical assessment of its true nature. Our analyses show that true RIF is extremely uncommon-occurring in <5% of couples with infertility-and that reassurance and continued conventional therapies are warranted in most cases of assisted reproductive technology (ART) failure. Although the true biologic determinants of RIF may exist in a small subset of people with infertility, they elude the currently available tools for assessment. Without identification of the true underlying etiology(ies), it is reasonable not to assign this diagnosis to a patient until she has failed at least 3 euploid blastocyst transfers (or the equivalent number of unscreened embryo transfers, adjusted to the patient's age and corresponding euploidy rate). In addition, other factors should be ruled out that may contribute to her reduced odds of sustained implantation. In such cases, implantation failure should not be the only issue considered in case of ART failure because this may result from multiple other factors that are not necessarily repetitive or persistent. In reality, RIF impacting the probability of further ART success is a very rare occurrence.
CONCLUSION
True RIF is extremely uncommon, occurring in <5% of couples with infertility. Reassurance and continued conventional therapies are warranted in most cases. It would seem reasonable not to assign this diagnosis to a patient until she has failed at least 3 euploid embryo transfers (or the equivalent number of unscreened embryos, adjusted to her age).
RELEVANCE
Given the number of internationally recognized experts in the field present at the Lugano meeting 2022, our publication constitutes a consensus statement.
Topics: Humans; Female; Embryo Implantation; Embryo Transfer; Infertility; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted; Aneuploidy; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36822566
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.02.014 -
Biology of Blood and Marrow... Mar 2020Relapse after stem cell transplantation for Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) remains a significant challenge. In this systematic... (Review)
Review
Relapse after stem cell transplantation for Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) remains a significant challenge. In this systematic review, we compare survival outcomes of second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) nilotinib and dasatinib with first-generation TKI imatinib when these agents are used after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) in Ph+ ALL. In addition, we review the literature on TKI use to prevent relapse in patients who proceed to allo-HSCT beyond first complete response (>CR1). We performed database searches (inception to January 2018) using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. After exclusions, 17 articles were included in this analysis. Imatinib was used post-transplant either prophylactically or preemptively in 12 studies, 7 prospective studies and 5 retrospective studies. Overall survival (OS) for most prospective studies at 1.5 to 3 and 5 years ranged between 62% to 92% and 74.5% to 86.7%. Disease-free survival at 1.5 to 5 years was 60.4% to 92%. Additionally, imatinib failed to show survival benefit in patients who were >CR1 at the time of allo-HSCT. The cumulative OS for most retrospective studies using imatinib at 1 to 2 and 3 to 5 years was 42% to 100% and 33% to 40% respectively. Event-free survival at 1 to 2 and 3 to 5 years was 33.3% to 67% and 20% to 31% respectively. Dasatinib was used as maintenance treatment in 3 retrospective studies (n = 34). The OS for patients with Ph+ ALL using dasatinib as maintenance regimen after allo-HSCT at 1.4 to 3 years was 87% to 100% and disease-free survival at 1.4 to 3 years was 89% to 100%. Ninety-three percent of patients with minimal residual disease (MRD) positive status after allo-HSCT became MRD negative. Three prospective studies used nilotinib. In 2 studies where investigators studied patients with advanced chronic myeloid leukemia and Ph+ ALL, the cumulative OS and event-free survival at 7.5 months to 2 years were 69% to 84% and 56% to 84%, respectively. In the third study (n = 5) in patients with Ph+ ALL, nilotinib use resulted in OS at 5 years of 60%. Our review showed that use of TKIs (all generations) after allo-HSCT for patients in CR1 improved OS when given as a prophylactic or preemptive regimen. Limited data suggest that second-generation TKIs (ie, dasatinib) have a better OS, especially in patients with MRD-positive status. Imatinib did not improve OS in patients who were >CR1 at the time of allo-HSCT; for this population, no data were available with newer generation TKIs. The evaluation of survival benefit with newer generation TKIs and their efficacy in patients in >CR1 needs further study in large randomized clinical trials.
Topics: Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Philadelphia Chromosome; Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma; Prospective Studies; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Retrospective Studies; Secondary Prevention; Transplantation, Homologous
PubMed: 31557532
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.09.022 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2017Common fetal aneuploidies include Down syndrome (trisomy 21 or T21), Edward syndrome (trisomy 18 or T18), Patau syndrome (trisomy 13 or T13), Turner syndrome (45,X),... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Common fetal aneuploidies include Down syndrome (trisomy 21 or T21), Edward syndrome (trisomy 18 or T18), Patau syndrome (trisomy 13 or T13), Turner syndrome (45,X), Klinefelter syndrome (47,XXY), Triple X syndrome (47,XXX) and 47,XYY syndrome (47,XYY). Prenatal screening for fetal aneuploidies is standard care in many countries, but current biochemical and ultrasound tests have high false negative and false positive rates. The discovery of fetal circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) in maternal blood offers the potential for genomics-based non-invasive prenatal testing (gNIPT) as a more accurate screening method. Two approaches used for gNIPT are massively parallel shotgun sequencing (MPSS) and targeted massively parallel sequencing (TMPS).
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of MPSS and TMPS for gNIPT as a first-tier test in unselected populations of pregnant women undergoing aneuploidy screening or as a second-tier test in pregnant women considered to be high risk after first-tier screening for common fetal aneuploidies. The gNIPT results were confirmed by a reference standard such as fetal karyotype or neonatal clinical examination.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched 13 databases (including MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science) from 1 January 2007 to 12 July 2016 without any language, search filter or publication type restrictions. We also screened reference lists of relevant full-text articles, websites of private prenatal diagnosis companies and conference abstracts.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies could include pregnant women of any age, ethnicity and gestational age with singleton or multifetal pregnancy. The women must have had a screening test for fetal aneuploidy by MPSS or TMPS and a reference standard such as fetal karyotype or medical records from birth.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently carried out study selection, data extraction and quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool). Where possible, hierarchical models or simpler alternatives were used for meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
Sixty-five studies of 86,139 pregnant women (3141 aneuploids and 82,998 euploids) were included. No study was judged to be at low risk of bias across the four domains of the QUADAS-2 tool but applicability concerns were generally low. Of the 65 studies, 42 enrolled pregnant women at high risk, five recruited an unselected population and 18 recruited cohorts with a mix of prior risk of fetal aneuploidy. Among the 65 studies, 44 evaluated MPSS and 21 evaluated TMPS; of these, five studies also compared gNIPT with a traditional screening test (biochemical, ultrasound or both). Forty-six out of 65 studies (71%) reported gNIPT assay failure rate, which ranged between 0% and 25% for MPSS, and between 0.8% and 7.5% for TMPS.In the population of unselected pregnant women, MPSS was evaluated by only one study; the study assessed T21, T18 and T13. TMPS was assessed for T21 in four studies involving unselected cohorts; three of the studies also assessed T18 and 13. In pooled analyses (88 T21 cases, 22 T18 cases, eight T13 cases and 20,649 unaffected pregnancies (non T21, T18 and T13)), the clinical sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI)) of TMPS was 99.2% (78.2% to 100%), 90.9% (70.0% to 97.7%) and 65.1% (9.16% to 97.2%) for T21, T18 and T13, respectively. The corresponding clinical specificity was above 99.9% for T21, T18 and T13.In high-risk populations, MPSS was assessed for T21, T18, T13 and 45,X in 30, 28, 20 and 12 studies, respectively. In pooled analyses (1048 T21 cases, 332 T18 cases, 128 T13 cases and 15,797 unaffected pregnancies), the clinical sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI)) of MPSS was 99.7% (98.0% to 100%), 97.8% (92.5% to 99.4%), 95.8% (86.1% to 98.9%) and 91.7% (78.3% to 97.1%) for T21, T18, T13 and 45,X, respectively. The corresponding clinical specificities (95% CI) were 99.9% (99.8% to 100%), 99.9% (99.8% to 100%), 99.8% (99.8% to 99.9%) and 99.6% (98.9% to 99.8%). In this risk group, TMPS was assessed for T21, T18, T13 and 45,X in six, five, two and four studies. In pooled analyses (246 T21 cases, 112 T18 cases, 20 T13 cases and 4282 unaffected pregnancies), the clinical sensitivity (95% CI) of TMPS was 99.2% (96.8% to 99.8%), 98.2% (93.1% to 99.6%), 100% (83.9% to 100%) and 92.4% (84.1% to 96.5%) for T21, T18, T13 and 45,X respectively. The clinical specificities were above 100% for T21, T18 and T13 and 99.8% (98.3% to 100%) for 45,X. Indirect comparisons of MPSS and TMPS for T21, T18 and 45,X showed no statistical difference in clinical sensitivity, clinical specificity or both. Due to limited data, comparative meta-analysis of MPSS and TMPS was not possible for T13.We were unable to perform meta-analyses of gNIPT for 47,XXX, 47,XXY and 47,XYY because there were very few or no studies in one or more risk groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
These results show that MPSS and TMPS perform similarly in terms of clinical sensitivity and specificity for the detection of fetal T31, T18, T13 and sex chromosome aneuploidy (SCA). However, no study compared the two approaches head-to-head in the same cohort of patients. The accuracy of gNIPT as a prenatal screening test has been mainly evaluated as a second-tier screening test to identify pregnancies at very low risk of fetal aneuploidies (T21, T18 and T13), thus avoiding invasive procedures. Genomics-based non-invasive prenatal testing methods appear to be sensitive and highly specific for detection of fetal trisomies 21, 18 and 13 in high-risk populations. There is paucity of data on the accuracy of gNIPT as a first-tier aneuploidy screening test in a population of unselected pregnant women. With respect to the replacement of invasive tests, the performance of gNIPT observed in this review is not sufficient to replace current invasive diagnostic tests.We conclude that given the current data on the performance of gNIPT, invasive fetal karyotyping is still the required diagnostic approach to confirm the presence of a chromosomal abnormality prior to making irreversible decisions relative to the pregnancy outcome. However, most of the gNIPT studies were prone to bias, especially in terms of the selection of participants.
Topics: Aneuploidy; Cell-Free Nucleic Acids; Chromosome Disorders; Disorders of Sex Development; Female; Fetal Diseases; High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy, High-Risk; Prenatal Diagnosis
PubMed: 29125628
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011767.pub2 -
Prenatal Diagnosis Feb 2023The aim was to determine the accuracy of cell-free DNA testing (cfDNA) for detecting sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCA) in singleton pregnancies. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim was to determine the accuracy of cell-free DNA testing (cfDNA) for detecting sex chromosome aneuploidies (SCA) in singleton pregnancies.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess cfDNA accuracy for prenatal detection of 45,X, 47,XXY, 47,XXX and 47,XYY. Inclusion was restricted to studies published between January 2010 and December 2021 reporting both cfDNA and confirmatory diagnostic test results.
RESULTS
For 45,X, the sensitivity was 98.8% (95%CI 94.6%-100%), specificity 99.4% (95%CI 98.7%-99.9%) and positive predictive value (PPV) 14.5% (95%CI 7.0%-43.8%). For 47,XXY, the sensitivity was 100% (95%CI 99.6%-100%), specificity 100% (95%CI 99.9%-100%) and PPV 97.7% (95%CI 78.6%-100%). For 47,XXX, the sensitivity was 100% (95%CI 96.9%-100%), specificity 99.9% (95%CI 99.7%-100%) and PPV 61.6% (95%CI 37.6%-95.4%). For 47,XYY, the sensitivity was 100% (95%CI 91.3%-100%), specificity 100% (95% CI 100%-100%) and PPV 100% (95%CI 76.5%-100%). All four SCAs had estimated negative predictive values (NPV) exceeding 99.99%, though false negatives were reported.
CONCLUSIONS
This analysis suggests that cfDNA is a reliable screening test for SCA, though both false negatives and false positives were reported. These estimates of test performance are derived from pregnancies at high pretest risk for aneuploidy, limiting the generalisability to average risk pregnancies.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Cell-Free Nucleic Acids; Sex Chromosome Aberrations; Aneuploidy; Chromosomes, Human, X; Prenatal Diagnosis
PubMed: 36588186
DOI: 10.1002/pd.6298 -
Human Reproduction Update Apr 2020Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) occurs in 1-3% of all couples trying to conceive. No consensus exists regarding when to perform testing for risk factors in couples with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) occurs in 1-3% of all couples trying to conceive. No consensus exists regarding when to perform testing for risk factors in couples with RPL. Some guidelines recommend testing if a patient has had two pregnancy losses whereas others advise to test after three losses.
OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current evidence on the prevalence of abnormal test results for RPL amongst patients with two versus three or more pregnancy losses. We also aimed to contribute to the debate regarding whether the investigations for RPL should take place after two or three or more pregnancy losses.
SEARCH METHODS
Relevant studies were identified by a systematic search in OVID Medline and EMBASE from inception to March 2019. A search for RPL was combined with a broad search for terms indicative of number of pregnancy losses, screening/testing for pregnancy loss or the prevalence of known risk factors. Meta-analyses were performed in case of adequate clinical and statistical homogeneity. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
OUTCOMES
From a total of 1985 identified publications, 21 were included in this systematic review and 19 were suitable for meta-analyses. For uterine abnormalities (seven studies, odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.79-1.27, I2 = 0%) and for antiphospholipid syndrome (three studies, OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86-1.25, I2 = 0%) we found low quality evidence for a lack of a difference in prevalence of abnormal test results between couples with two versus three or more pregnancy losses. We found insufficient evidence of a difference in prevalence of abnormal test results between couples with two versus three or more pregnancy losses for chromosomal abnormalities (10 studies, OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.55-1.10), inherited thrombophilia (five studies) and thyroid disorders (two studies, OR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.06-4.56).
WIDER IMPLICATIONS
A difference in prevalence in uterine abnormalities and antiphospholipid syndrome is unlikely in women with two versus three pregnancy losses. We cannot exclude a difference in prevalence of chromosomal abnormalities, inherited thrombophilia and thyroid disorders following testing after two versus three pregnancy losses. The results of this systematic review may support investigations after two pregnancy losses in couples with RPL, but it should be stressed that additional studies of the prognostic value of test results used in the RPL population are urgently needed. An evidenced-based treatment is not currently available in the majority of cases when abnormal test results are present.
Topics: Abortion, Habitual; Antiphospholipid Syndrome; Chromosome Aberrations; Female; Fertilization; Humans; Pregnancy; Risk Factors; Thrombophilia; Thyroid Diseases; Urogenital Abnormalities; Uterus
PubMed: 32103270
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmz048 -
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology :... Oct 2019To estimate the procedure-related risk of miscarriage after amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling (CVS) based on a systematic review of the literature and an... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the procedure-related risk of miscarriage after amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling (CVS) based on a systematic review of the literature and an updated meta-analysis.
METHODS
A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library was carried out to identify studies reporting complications following CVS or amniocentesis. Eligible for inclusion were large controlled studies reporting data for pregnancy loss prior to 24 weeks' gestation. Study authors were contacted when required to identify additional necessary data. Data for cases that had an invasive procedure and controls were inputted into contingency tables and the risk of miscarriage was estimated for each study. Summary statistics based on a random-effects model were calculated after taking into account the weighting for each study included in the systematic review. Procedure-related risk of miscarriage was estimated as a weighted risk difference from the summary statistics for cases and controls. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the similarity in risk levels for chromosomal abnormality between the invasive-testing and control groups. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I statistic. Egger's bias was estimated to assess reporting bias in published studies.
RESULTS
The electronic search yielded 2943 potential citations, from which 12 controlled studies for amniocentesis and seven for CVS were selected for inclusion in the systematic review. A total of 580 miscarriages occurred following 63 723 amniocentesis procedures, resulting in a weighted risk of pregnancy loss of 0.91% (95% CI, 0.73-1.09%). In the control group, there were 1726 miscarriages in 330 469 pregnancies with a loss rate of 0.58% (95% CI, 0.47-0.70%). The weighted procedure-related risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis was 0.30% (95% CI, 0.11-0.49%; I = 70.1%). A total of 163 miscarriages occurred following 13 011 CVS procedures, resulting in a risk of pregnancy loss of 1.39% (95% CI, 0.76-2.02%). In the control group, there were 1946 miscarriages in 232 680 pregnancies with a loss rate of 1.23% (95% CI, 0.86-1.59%). The weighted procedure-related risk of miscarriage following CVS was 0.20% (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.52%; I = 52.7%). However, when studies including only women with similar risk profiles for chromosomal abnormality in the intervention and control groups were considered, the procedure-related risk for amniocentesis was 0.12% (95% CI, -0.05 to 0.30%; I = 44.1%) and for CVS it was -0.11% (95% CI, -0.29 to 0.08%; I = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS
The procedure-related risks of miscarriage following amniocentesis and CVS are lower than currently quoted to women. The risk appears to be negligible when these interventions were compared to control groups of the same risk profile. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Adult; Amniocentesis; Chorionic Villi Sampling; Chromosome Aberrations; Embryo Loss; Female; Gestational Age; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, Second; Prenatal Diagnosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 31124209
DOI: 10.1002/uog.20353 -
Advances in Clinical and Experimental... Nov 2019Down syndrome (DS) is the most often diagnosed chromosomal disorder in newborns. The incidence is 1:792 live births. The article describes the irregularities and...
Down syndrome (DS) is the most often diagnosed chromosomal disorder in newborns. The incidence is 1:792 live births. The article describes the irregularities and characteristics found in trisomy 21, which greatly affect the functioning of the stomatognathic system. The most significant disorders include the following: false macroglossia, muscular hypotonia and gothic palate. These abnormalities affect articulation, breathing, food intake, and swallowing. We analyzed the morphological characteristics of the craniofacial region in children with DS based on the current literature review. The following databases were used for the analysis: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, Infona, and Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source. In the course of the study, 199 pieces of literature were analyzed; the analysis also included 18 articles on children and adults with DS. It also took into account the structure of the palate, dental and skeletal defects, size of the tongue, muscular hypotonia, and temporomandibular joint dysfunction. Down syndrome is still a current subject of research. Although macroglossia, hypotonia, malocclusion, and temporomandibular joint abnormalities are not features exclusive to DS, numerous dysfunctions and parafunctions as well as retarded psychomotor development greatly complicate the treatment. Therefore, interdisciplinary treatment of patients with trisomy 21 and early treatment in the first months of life with the use of the Castillo-Morales plate are very important, as they ensure better adaptation to the subsequently used apparatus and reduce the risk of disorders of the stomatognathic system.
Topics: Down Syndrome; Facial Muscles; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Macroglossia; Muscle Hypotonia; Tongue; Trisomy
PubMed: 31778604
DOI: 10.17219/acem/112785