My partner and I put some effort into benefits from polygenic screening, but alas weren’t able to make it work.
Quick details: we had IVF embryos created and screened for a monogenic disease, (1) this didn’t leave us with enough embryos to choose anything, (2) our embryos were created and stored by UCSF clinic, and any screening would have required transferring to another clinic which would have been time consuming and expensive. Unfortunately two rounds of IVF implantation were unsuccessful, so notwithstanding the monogenic disease risk (unclear how bad it’d be), we’ll be trying the natural route.
My guess is the whole process goes better if you plan it from the start and choose a clinic accordingly, unlike us who used UCSF without realizing the impact that’d have.
Sorry to hear your IVF process didn’t work out. UCSF was in the top 59% of clinics nationwide in 2020 and the top 38% in 2019, so while the clinic you chose may not have been the best, you at least didn’t pick a bad clinic.
Your experience is unfortunately fairly common among IVF patients. Most parents using the procedure are just hoping for at least one child through the process, and many don’t have enough embryos to even consider polygenic screening.
I really hope someone does a clinical trial of embryo splitting soon. There’s a roughly 50% chance of success using the process in animals. I bet with research we could get it up to 80-90%, which would make it viable for increasing live birth rates among parents who don’t have many embryos. That’s the type of procedure which would have improved the odds of success for parents like yourselves.
My partner and I put some effort into benefits from polygenic screening, but alas weren’t able to make it work.
Quick details: we had IVF embryos created and screened for a monogenic disease, (1) this didn’t leave us with enough embryos to choose anything, (2) our embryos were created and stored by UCSF clinic, and any screening would have required transferring to another clinic which would have been time consuming and expensive. Unfortunately two rounds of IVF implantation were unsuccessful, so notwithstanding the monogenic disease risk (unclear how bad it’d be), we’ll be trying the natural route.
My guess is the whole process goes better if you plan it from the start and choose a clinic accordingly, unlike us who used UCSF without realizing the impact that’d have.
Hi Ruby,
Sorry to hear your IVF process didn’t work out. UCSF was in the top 59% of clinics nationwide in 2020 and the top 38% in 2019, so while the clinic you chose may not have been the best, you at least didn’t pick a bad clinic.
Your experience is unfortunately fairly common among IVF patients. Most parents using the procedure are just hoping for at least one child through the process, and many don’t have enough embryos to even consider polygenic screening.
I really hope someone does a clinical trial of embryo splitting soon. There’s a roughly 50% chance of success using the process in animals. I bet with research we could get it up to 80-90%, which would make it viable for increasing live birth rates among parents who don’t have many embryos. That’s the type of procedure which would have improved the odds of success for parents like yourselves.