Balkan Journal of Medical Genetics

PREVENTABLE HAZARDS FROM IN VITRO FERTILIZATION – A CASE SERIES OF CF PATIENTS FROM BULGARIA
Yaneva N, Baycheva M, Kostova P, Papochieva V, Mileva S, Miteva D, Savov A, Petrova G
*Corresponding Author: Guergana Petrova, MD, PhD, University Hospital Alexandrovska, Pediatric clinic, Medical University of Sofia; Sofia, Bulgaria, 1 G. Sofiiski bld tel: +3598877570386, e-mail: gal_ps@yahoo.co.uk
page: 83

DISCUSSION

CF is an inherited, multi-organ disease, characterized mainly by progressive chronic lung and pancreas involvement leading to premature death [1]. Standard CF therapy has been purely symptomatic and aimed primarily at maximizing symptom relief and prevention of complications. Over the last decade, drugs aimed at correcting the defective CFTR protein (CFTR-modulators) have become available for pwCF with specific CFTR mutations [2]. Introducing better standards of care, including CFTR modulators, earlier diagnosis with NBS, and specialized center care have greatly improved the prognosis of the disease. However, this therapy is associated with high costs and there are still certain age limits for the medications. Caring for a child with CF has a major psychological impact on the caregivers such as depression, anxiety and even delusions [7]. Assisted reproductive techniques and especially IVF are significant breakthrough technologies that contribute to the treatment of infertility (both female and male). Since more than 90% of male pwCF have atresia of vas deferens, IVF is the most logical choice for them. Female pwCF may also have fertility problems due to the thicker secretions of the genital tracts. From 248 BGpwCF, three males and two females have undergone IVF in the last decade, (two of them are still in the process). The other three patients are currently proud parents of healthy CF-carrier children. According to recent publications, the introduction of therapy with CFTR modulators leads to increased fertility in women with CF, but these drugs cannot restore the missing vas deferens in men [8]. Testing the partner for CFTR mutations is essential in IVF procedures with a parent with CF. More than 30 years have passed since the NEJM publication of a successful pregnancy after IVF and PGD testing in both carrier parents of child with CF, and today such genetic concealing and IVF with PGD (in the case of a carrier partner) are offered to families with CF history [9]. Reproductive problems can also occur in families without a history of CF. The outcome of IVF cycles depends on several factors, such as maternal age, ovarian reserve, endocrine status of patients, body mass index, gynecological diseases such as endometriosis, pelvic inflammatory disease, immunology and others [10]. Assuming there are no risk factors, IVF could lead to positive emotions and a favorable outcome. In a study of 5600 couples who needed IVF, a higher prevalence of CF mutation carrier rate of one in 21.5 was found [11]. The authors conclude that screening prenatal/pre-conceptional patients to identify CFTR mutation carriers may reduce the incidence of CF-affected babies at birth, and that the use of preconceptional screening allows carrier couples to choose between prenatal screening and PGD [11]. On the other hand, two large Italian cohorts found no difference in carrier rates - CFTR mutations were detected in 6.2% of the tested subjects, a percentage similar to that reported in the general population [12] when carrier screening is performed in the general population. The same studies confirmed the significantly higher prevalence of CFTRcarrier status in couples who required IVF - 1 in every 22 compared with 1 in 32 for couples who did not require IVF [13]. It could be speculated that even CFTR carrier status may affect fertility without other health issues. However, sometimes donor gametes must be used due to a very low or absent ovarian reserve or azoospermia in the male. This gives arise to a whole new legal and social side of IVF, such as paternity rights, confidentiality and financial benefits. And since we assume the donors are healthy, PGD is not often performed because of the high cost. In such situations there is a high probability of genetic diseases in the offspring, as in 5 cases described in our study. On the other hand, donors might conceal some medical facts, such as a hereditary disease in the family without considering possible legal and moral consequences. IVF-treatment is an expensive and exhausting (physically, emotionally, and financially) procedure for the prospective parents [5]. The uncertainty of success can plunge the couple into a vicious cycle of high hopes and depression if they do not receive a positive result. This long and bumpy road (hormone treatments, daily laboratory and ultrasound checks, waiting anxiously), for an uncertain outcome is sometimes endured by the couples only because of the hope of having a healthy child. However, one of the unforeseen risks is that the longed-for child suffers from a lethal medical condition, which leads to new disappointments. Carrier screening could exclude the possibility that a donor gamete has a CFTR mutation. Some authors even suggested nationwide screening as a replacement for NBS, claiming the cost would be similar to screening for Down syndrome [14]. There has been controversy because a successful carrier testing programme with 90–95% coverage would indeed likely make newborn screening redundant, but this would be possible if it were universal and not just national level [15]. CF newborn and carrier screening have complementary roles and neither can replace the other. There is a widely accepted consensus on the benefits of NBS for CF with improved quality of life, reduced complications and severity of disease, and earlier appropriate therapy [16]. NBS can also provide better insights into the prevalence of CF and genetic origin in different countries. For example, NBS in North Macedonia confirmed the most common CFTR mutation, c.1521_1523delCTT (F508del) with an overall incidence of 70.6%; the next most common mutations are c.1624G>T (G542X) (11.8%) and c.3909C>G (N1303K) (5.9%). These data are very similar to data for mutations found in BGpwCF [6, 16] which is expected for two neighbor countries with a shared history. These data could serve for the future NBS programme in Bulgaria or for testing protocol to discover which mutations the couples who need IVF have as well as any mutations among the gamete donors. The genetic results of the 5 patients described above are consistent with the aforementioned numbers. In countries without NBS, genetic screening for newborns with respiratory distress has been proposed, but the study found 20% CFTR heterozygous newborns with respiratory issues versus 30% CFTR heterozygous newborns without respiratory problems [18]. In any case, if CFTR carrier status is confirmed, these children must be monitored closely for CFTR-related disease or possible future CF diagnosis (with more extensive NGS testing finding new mutations not currently described). In contrast to NBS, carrier screening allows for informed reproductive decision-making before conception. Couples with positive screening result can either decide not to have children or to adopt, or they can use donor gametes or PGD [19]. One of the presented cases was in a very prestigious private IVF clinic. The clinic changed its own protocol and now tests every donor for CFTR mutations [20]. The CFTR carrier rate in the donor population is similar to that predicted in the general Bulgarian population (1/33 persons) [17].

Number 27 VOL. 27 (2), 2024	Number 27 VOL. 27 (1), 2024
Number 26 Number 26 VOL. 26(2), 2023 All in one	Number 26 VOL. 26(2), 2023
Number 26 VOL. 26, 2023 Supplement	Number 26 VOL. 26(1), 2023
Number 25 VOL. 25(2), 2022	Number 25 VOL. 25 (1), 2022
Number 24 VOL. 24(2), 2021	Number 24 VOL. 24(1), 2021
Number 23 VOL. 23(2), 2020	Number 22 VOL. 22(2), 2019
Number 22 VOL. 22(1), 2019	Number 22 VOL. 22, 2019 Supplement
Number 21 VOL. 21(2), 2018	Number 21 VOL. 21 (1), 2018
Number 21 VOL. 21, 2018 Supplement	Number 20 VOL. 20 (2), 2017
Number 20 VOL. 20 (1), 2017	Number 19 VOL. 19 (2), 2016
Number 19 VOL. 19 (1), 2016	Number 18 VOL. 18 (2), 2015
Number 18 VOL. 18 (1), 2015	Number 17 VOL. 17 (2), 2014
Number 17 VOL. 17 (1), 2014	Number 16 VOL. 16 (2), 2013
Number 16 VOL. 16 (1), 2013	Number 15 VOL. 15 (2), 2012
Number 15 VOL. 15, 2012 Supplement	Number 15 Vol. 15 (1), 2012
Number 14 14 - Vol. 14 (2), 2011	Number 14 The 9th Balkan Congress of Medical Genetics
Number 14 14 - Vol. 14 (1), 2011	Number 13 Vol. 13 (2), 2010
Number 13 Vol.13 (1), 2010	Number 12 Vol.12 (2), 2009
Number 12 Vol.12 (1), 2009	Number 11 Vol.11 (2),2008
Number 11 Vol.11 (1),2008	Number 10 Vol.10 (2), 2007
Number 10 10 (1),2007	Number 9 1&2, 2006
Number 9 3&4, 2006	Number 8 1&2, 2005
Number 8 3&4, 2004	Number 7 1&2, 2004
Number 6 3&4, 2003	Number 6 1&2, 2003
Number 5 3&4, 2002	Number 5 1&2, 2002
Number 4 Vol.3 (4), 2000	Number 4 Vol.2 (4), 1999
Number 4 Vol.1 (4), 1998	Number 4 3&4, 2001
Number 4 1&2, 2001	Number 3 Vol.3 (3), 2000
Number 3 Vol.2 (3), 1999	Number 3 Vol.1 (3), 1998
Number 2 Vol.3(2), 2000	Number 2 Vol.1 (2), 1998
Number 2 Vol.2 (2), 1999	Number 1 Vol.3 (1), 2000
Number 1 Vol.2 (1), 1999	Number 1 Vol.1 (1), 1998

About the journal ::: Editorial ::: Subscription ::: Information for authors ::: Contact