Be mindful of consequences of testing
In an interview, Dr. Jungheim said she was surprised by some of the findings. “I thought we would see that PGT-A utilization was lower in states without mandates given the already high cost of IVF for patients paying out of pocket. I was also surprised to see that more males were born after PGT-A; it suggests that overall, patients using PGT-A favor males.
“For clinicians, we need to be mindful of the long-term impact of our practices,” she emphasized. “Shifting the sex ratio in favor of one sex or the other is an unintended consequence of IVF with PGT-A that can have negative implications for future generations.”
In the study, the researchers proposed a revision to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Ethics Committee opinion on sex selection to provide guidance in keeping with ASRM’s mission of “accessible, ethical, and quality reproductive care for every person.”
However, “even if the ASRM Ethics Committee Opinion was revised, it’s up to clinicians to decide what they are comfortable with,” said Dr. Jungheim. “When patients are paying out of pocket for expensive treatments that require emotional investment and time, it can be difficult to keep medical decision making strictly evidence based.” Improved insurance coverage and access to fertility care may help with some of these decisions, but more real-world evidence is needed.
Let’s talk about sex (selection)
The study findings are both “novel and sobering,” and enhance the current body of evidence of associations between state insurance mandates and IVF outcomes, Jennifer Eaton, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., wrote in an accompanying editorial.
“The association between mandate status and elective sex selection is particularly eye-opening,” said Dr. Eaton. The overall increased use of PGT for sex selection does not account for sex selection as part of testing for aneuploidy. In fact, “patients with euploid embryos of both sexes are frequently given the opportunity to select which embryo to transfer.”
The current study provides “compelling evidence that it is time to revisit the ethical dilemma of elective sex selection in the United States,” Dr. Eaton emphasized. The current ASRM guidance states that IVF clinics are not obligated to provide or refuse to provide nonmedically indicated methods of sex selection, but in light of the current study and other studies, a revision to the existing ASRM Ethics Committee opinion is needed.
The study received no outside funding. Neither the researchers nor Dr. Eaton had any financial conflicts to disclose.