Assisted reproductive technologies and children's health parameters

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The review presents a description of the health status of children conceived using assisted reproductive technologies, identifies possible causes and risk factors for the development of pathology. 

About the authors

Yu. G. Samoilova

Siberian State Medical University of Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2667-4842

Tomsk

Russian Federation

M. V. Matveeva

Siberian State Medical University of Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

Author for correspondence.
Email: matveeva.mariia@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9966-6686

Dr Med. Sci., assistant professor of the department of childhood diseases,

4 Moskovsky trakt, Tomsk 634050

Russian Federation

I. A. Petrov

Siberian State Medical University of Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0697-3896

Tomsk

Russian Federation

D. A. Kudlay

Federal State Budgetary Institution “Institute of Immunology” of Federal Medical and Biological Agency of Russia;
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University)

ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1878-4467

Moscow

Russian Federation

M. S. Davydova

Siberian State Medical University of Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9770-3989

Tomsk

Russian Federation

K. R. Ratkina

Siberian State Medical University of Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9193-1948

Tomsk

Russian Federation

E. V. Mitselya

Siberian State Medical University of Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1429-3604

Tomsk

Russian Federation

T. V. Sivolobova

Siberian State Medical University of Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1806-9044

Tomsk

Russian Federation

Zh. F. Gaifulina

Siberian State Medical University of Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9976-9498

Tomsk

Russian Federation

References

  1. Новикова Н.О., Ипполитова Л.И. Особенности раннего неонатального периода у детей после экстракорпорального оплодотворения. Вестник новых медицинских технологий 2013; 2: 271–3.
  2. Williams R.S., Doody K.J., Schattman G.L., Adashi E.Y. Public reporting of assisted reproductive technology outcomes: past, present, and future. Am J ObstetGynecol 2015; 212 (2): 157–62. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.05.010
  3. Назаренко Т.А., Мишиева Н.Г. Бесплодие и возраст: пути решения проблемы. 2-е изд. М.: МЕДпресс-информ; 2014. 216 с.
  4. Steptoe P.C., Edwards R.G. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet 1978; 12 (2): 366.
  5. Kamel R.M. Assisted Reproductive Technology after the Birth of Louise Brown. J ReprodInfertil 2013; 14 (3): 96–109.
  6. Schieve L.A., Rasmussen S.A., Buck G.M., Schendel D.E., Reynolds M.A., Wright V.C. Are children born after assisted reproductive technology at increased risk for adverse health outcomes? Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103 (6): 1154–63.
  7. Liberman R.F., Getz K.D., Heinke D., Luke B., Stern J.E., Declercq E.R., et al. Assisted Reproductive Technology and Birth Defects: Effects of Subfertility and Multiple Births. Birth Defects Res 2017; 109 (14): 1144–53. doi: 10.1002/bdr2.1055
  8. Yin L., Hang F., Gu L.J., Xu В., Ma D., Zhu G.J., et al. Analysis of birth defects among children 3 years after conception through assisted reproductive technology in China. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2013; 97: 744–9.
  9. Wijers C.H., van Rooij I.A., Rassouli R., Wijnen M.H., Broens P.M.A., Sloots C.E.J., et al. Parental subfertility, fertility treatment, and the risk of congenital anorectal malformations. Epidemiology 2015; 26: 169–76.
  10. Bhattacharya S., Kamath M.S. Reducing multiple births in assisted reproduction technology. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2014; 28: 191–9.
  11. Qin J., Sheng X., Wang H., Liang D., Tan H., Xia J. Assisted reproductive technology and risk of congenital malformations: a meta-analysis based on cohort studies. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015; 292: 777–98.
  12. ART in Europe, 2014: Ch De Geyter C Calhaz-Jorge M S Kupka C Wyns E Mocanu T Motrenko G ScaravelliJ Smeenk S Vidakovic V Goossens, The European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) ART in Europe, 2014: results generated from European registries by ESHRE, Human Reproduction, Volume 33, Issue 9, 1 September 2018, Pages 1586–601. DOI.org/10.1093/humrep/dey242
  13. Регистр ВРТ. Отчет за 2017 год. Доступно по: http://www.rahr.ru/d_registr_otchet/RegistrART2017.pdf. Ссылка активна на 10.03.2021.
  14. Михеева Е.М., Пенкина Н.И. Здоровье детей, рожденных с использованием вспомогательных репродуктивных технологий. Практическая медицина 2014; 9 (85): 47–51.
  15. Macaldowie A., Lee E., Chambers G.M. Assisted reproductive technology in Australia and New Zealand. 2013.
  16. Gunby J. Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) in Canada: 2012 results from the Canadian ART Register. Доступно по: https://cfas.ca/cartr-annual-reports/. Ссылка активна на 13.03.2021.
  17. Min J.K., Breheny S.A., MacLachlan V., Healy D.L. What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? The singleton, term gestation, live birth rate per cycle initiated: the BESST endpoint for assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 2004; 19 (1): 3–7. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deh028
  18. Kalra S.K., Ratcliffe S.J., Coutifaris C., Molinaro Т., Barnhart К.Т. Ovarian Stimulation and low birth weight in newborns conceived through in vitro fertilization. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118 (4): 863–71.
  19. Zegers-Hochschild F., Schwarze J.E., Crosby J.A., Musri C., Urbina M.T. Latin American network of assisted reproduction (REDLARA). assisted reproductive techniques in Latin america: the Latin American registry, 2013. JBRA Assist Reprod 2016; 20 (2): 49–58. doi: 10.5935/1518-0557.20160013
  20. Vergouw C.G., Kostelijk E.H., Doejaaren E., Hompes P.G.A., Lambalk C.B., Schats R. The influence of the type of embryo cuilture medium on neonatal birthweight after single embryo transfer in IVF. Hum Reprod 2012; 27 (9): 2619–26.
  21. Miles H.L., Hofman P.L., Peek J., Harris M., Wilson D., Robinson E.M., et al. In vitro fertilization improves childhood growth and metabolism. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2007; 92 (9): 3441–5.
  22. Basatemur E., Shevlin M., Sutcliff e A. Growth of children conceived by IVF and ICSI up to 12 years of age. Reprod BioMed Online 2010; 20: 144–9.
  23. Ceelen M., Weissenbruch M.M., Roos J.C., Vermeiden J.P.W., van Leeuwen F.E., Delemarre-van de Waal H.A. Body composition in children and adolescents born after in vitro fertilization or spontaneous conception. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2007; 92 (9): 3417–23.
  24. Pelinck M.J., Hadders-Algra M., Haadsma M.L., Nijhuis W.L., Kiewiet S.M., Hoek A., et al. Is the birthweight of singletons born after IVF reduced by ovarian stimulation or by IVF laboratory procedures? Reprod BioMed Online 2010; 21: 245–51.
  25. Ceelen M., van Weissenbruch M.M., Vermeiden J.P., van Leeuwen F.E., Delemarre-van de Waal H.A. Cardiometabolic differences in children born after in vitro fertilization: follow-up study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2008; 93 (5): 1682–8. doi: 10.1210/jc.2007-2432
  26. Chen M., Wu L., Zhao J., Wu F., Davies M.J., Wittert G.A., et al. Altered glucose metabolism in mouse and humans conceived by IVF. Diabetes 2014; 63 (10): 3189–98. doi: 10.2337/db14-0103
  27. Sakka S.D., Loutradis D., Kanaka-Gantenbein C., Margeli А., Papastamataki М., Papassotiriou I., et al. Absence of insulin resistance and low-grade inflammation despite early metabolic syndrome manifestations in children born after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2010; 94: 1693–9.
  28. Scott K.A., Yamazaki Y., Yamamoto M., Lin Y., Melhorn S.J., Krause E.G., et al. Glucose parameters are altered in mouse off spring produced by assisted reproductive technologies and somatic cell nuclear transfer. Biol Reprod 2010; 83 (2): 220–7. doi: 10.1095/biolreprod.109.082826
  29. Sutcliff e A.G., Melhuish E., Barnes J., Gardiner J. Health and development of children born after assisted reproductive technology and sub-fertility compared to naturally conceived children: data from a national study. Pediatr Rep 2014; 6 (1): 5118. doi: 10.4081/pr.2014.5118
  30. Fruchter E., Beck-Fruchter R., Hourvitz A., Weiser M., Goldberg S., Fenchel D., et al. Health and functioning of adolescents conceived by assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 2017; 107 (3): 774– 80. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.12.001
  31. Wang T., Chen L., Yang T., Wang L., Zhao L., Zhang S., et al. Cancer risk among children conceived by fertility treatment. Int J Cancer 2019; 144 (12): 3001–13. doi: 10.1002/ijc.32062
  32. Lerner-Geva L., Boyko V., Ehrlich S., Mashiach S., Hourvitz A., Haas J., et al. Possible risk for cancer among children born following assisted reproductive technology in Israel. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2017; 64 (4). doi: 10.1002/pbc.26292
  33. Reigstad M.M., Larsen I.K., Myklebust T.A., Robsahm T.E., Oldereid N.B., Brinton L.A., et al. Risk of Cancer in Children Conceived by Assisted Reproductive Technology. Pediatrics 2016; 137 (3). doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-2061
  34. Kettner L.O., Henriksen T.B., Bay B., Ramlau-Hansen C.H., Kesmodel U.S. Assisted reproductive technology and somatic morbidity in childhood: a systematic review. Fertil Steril 2015; 103 (3): 707– 19. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.12.095

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2021 Samoilova Y.G., Matveeva M.V., Petrov I.A., Kudlay D.A., Davydova M.S., Ratkina K.R., Mitselya E.V., Sivolobova T.V., Gaifulina Z.F.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.