Download PDF
Semin Reprod Med 2018; 36(03/04): 204-210
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1677526
Review Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Transitioning from Infertility-Based (ART 1.0) to Elective (ART 2.0) Use of Assisted Reproductive Technologies and the DOHaD Hypothesis: Do We Need to Change Consenting?

Paolo Rinaudo
1   Division or Reproductive Endocrinology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
,
Amanda Adeleye
1   Division or Reproductive Endocrinology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
13 March 2019 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The use of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) has increased significantly in recent years. While this is partially due to improved access for infertile patients, another contribution to the growth of ART utilization is represented by individuals without infertility, who electively chose to freeze their gametes and embryos for future use, before ever attempting conception spontaneously. Overall, the safety of ART for parents and children is well described and the risks are modest. However, while long-term health consequences for offspring as postulated by the Developmental Origin of Health and Disease (DOHaD) hypothesis are unknown, numerous animal studies suggest a predisposition for chronic diseases like hypertension and glucose intolerance. In this article, we argue that a key difference exists between infertile patients, who need to use ART as the only means to achieve pregnancy, and (likely) fertile patients who elect to use ART techniques as a family planning option. We believe that these two sets of patients are different and their risks–benefit ratios are different. We propose that while all patients should be aware of the risks, patients planning to utilize ART techniques without a diagnosis of infertility should be encouraged to think critically about the additional risks, particularly the “potential” long-term risks that may be imposed from these elective procedures.

Keywords

ART - DOHaD - IVF - consenting
 

  • References

  • 1 In-Vitro Fertilization: The Pioneers' History. Kovacs G, Brindsden P, De-Cherney A, eds. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 2018. . doi: 10.1017/9781108551946
  • 2 Adamson GD, Tabangin M, Macaluso M, de Mouzon J. The number of babies born globally after treatment with the assisted reproductive technologies (ART). Fertil Steril 2013; 100: S42
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Dyer S. , et al. The international glossary on infertility and fertility care, 2017. Fertil Steril 2017; 108 (03) 393-406
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 ESHRE. ESHRE: ART fact sheet; 2018. Available at: https://www.eshre.eu/~/media/sitecore-files/Guidelines/ART-fact-sheet_vFebr18_VG.pdf?la=en . Accessed August 11, 2018
    PubMed
  • 5 Faddy MJ, Gosden MD, Gosden RG. A demographic projection of the contribution of assisted reproductive technologies to world population growth. Reprod Biomed Online 2018; 36 (04) 455-458
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Reindollar RH, Regan MM, Neumann PJ. , et al. A randomized clinical trial to evaluate optimal treatment for unexplained infertility: the fast track and standard treatment (FASTT) trial. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (03) 888-899
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Glenza J. Fertility and canapés: why egg freezing parties are a hot item on Wall St. The Guardian; 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Practice Committees of American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Mature oocyte cryopreservation: a guideline. Fertil Steril 2013; 99 (01) 37-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hammarberg K, Kirkman M, Pritchard N. , et al. Reproductive experiences of women who cryopreserved oocytes for non-medical reasons. Hum Reprod 2017; 32 (03) 575-581
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 US Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2016 Assisted Reproductive Technology Preliminary National Summary Report; 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Baldwin K, Culley L, Hudson N, Mitchell H, Lavery S. Oocyte cryopreservation for social reasons: demographic profile and disposal intentions of UK users. Reprod Biomed Online 2015; 31 (02) 239-245
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kushnir VA, Barad DH, Albertini DF, Darmon SK, Gleicher N. Effect of embryo banking on U.S. national assisted reproductive technology live birth rates. PLoS One 2016; 11 (05) e0154620
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Feuer SK, Camarano L, Rinaudo PF. ART and health: clinical outcomes and insights on molecular mechanisms from rodent studies. Mol Hum Reprod 2013; 19 (04) 189-204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Luke B, Gopal D, Cabral H, Stern JE, Diop H. Pregnancy, birth, and infant outcomes by maternal fertility status: the Massachusetts Outcomes Study of Assisted Reproductive Technology. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 217: 327-327
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Pinborg A, Wennerholm UB, Romundstad LB. , et al. Why do singletons conceived after assisted reproduction technology have adverse perinatal outcome? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2013; 19 (02) 87-104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Wadhwa PD, Buss C, Entringer S, Swanson JM. Developmental origins of health and disease: brief history of the approach and current focus on epigenetic mechanisms. Semin Reprod Med 2009; 27 (05) 358-368
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Biechele S, Lin C-J, Rinaudo PF, Ramalho-Santos M. Unwind and transcribe: chromatin reprogramming in the early mammalian embryo. Curr Opin Genet Dev 2015; 34: 17-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Reik W. Stability and flexibility of epigenetic gene regulation in mammalian development. Nature 2007; 447 (7143): 425-432
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Doherty AS, Mann MR, Tremblay KD, Bartolomei MS, Schultz RM. Differential effects of culture on imprinted H19 expression in the preimplantation mouse embryo. Biol Reprod 2000; 62 (06) 1526-1535
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Manipalviratn S, DeCherney A, Segars J. Imprinting disorders and assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 2009; 91 (02) 305-315
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Bloise E, Lin W, Liu X. , et al. Impaired placental nutrient transport in mice generated by in vitro fertilization. Endocrinology 2012; 153 (07) 3457-3467
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Duranthon V, Chavatte-Palmer P. Long term effects of ART: what do animals tell us?. Mol Reprod Dev 2018; 85 (04) 348-368
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Alberto ML, Meirelles FV, Perecin F. , et al. Development of bovine embryos derived from reproductive techniques. Reprod Fertil Dev 2013; 25 (06) 907-917
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ecker DJ, Stein P, Xu Z. , et al. Long-term effects of culture of preimplantation mouse embryos on behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004; 101 (06) 1595-1600
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Fernández-Gonzalez R, Moreira P, Bilbao A. , et al. Long-term effect of in vitro culture of mouse embryos with serum on mRNA expression of imprinting genes, development, and behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004; 101 (16) 5880-5885
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Watkins AJ, Platt D, Papenbrock T. , et al. Mouse embryo culture induces changes in postnatal phenotype including raised systolic blood pressure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2007; 104 (13) 5449-5454
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Rexhaj E, Paoloni-Giacobino A, Rimoldi SF. , et al. Mice generated by in vitro fertilization exhibit vascular dysfunction and shortened life span. J Clin Invest 2013; 123 (12) 5052-5060
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Donjacour A, Liu X, Lin W, Simbulan R, Rinaudo PF. In vitro fertilization affects growth and glucose metabolism in a sex-specific manner in an outbred mouse model. Biol Reprod 2014; 90 (04) 80
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Feuer SK, Liu X, Donjacour A. , et al. Use of a mouse in vitro fertilization model to understand the developmental origins of health and disease hypothesis. Endocrinology 2014; 155: 1956-1969
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Sommovilla J, Bilker WB, Abel T, Schultz RM. Embryo culture does not affect the longevity of offspring in mice. Reproduction 2005; 130 (05) 599-601
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Chen M, Heilbronn LK. The health outcomes of human offspring conceived by assisted reproductive technologies (ART). J Dev Orig Health Dis 2017; 8 (04) 388-402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Ceelen M, van Weissenbruch MM, Vermeiden JPW, van Leeuwen FE, Delemarre-van de Waal HA. Cardiometabolic differences in children born after in vitro fertilization: follow-up study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2008; 93 (05) 1682-1688
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Guo X-Y, Liu XM, Jin L. , et al. Cardiovascular and metabolic profiles of offspring conceived by assisted reproductive technologies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2017; 107 (03) 622-631.e5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Meister TA, Rimoldi SF, Soria R. , et al. Association of assisted reproductive technologies with arterial hypertension during adolescence. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018; 72 (11) 1267-1274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Seggers J, Haadsma ML, La Bastide-Van Gemert S. , et al. Is ovarian hyperstimulation associated with higher blood pressure in 4-year-old IVF offspring? Part I: multivariable regression analysis. Hum Reprod 2014; 29 (03) 502-509
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Kuiper D, Hoek A, la Bastide-van Gemert S. , et al. Cardiovascular health of 9-year-old IVF offspring: no association with ovarian hyperstimulation and the in vitro procedure. Hum Reprod 2017; 32 (12) 2540-2548
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Belva F. , et al. Blood pressure in ICSI-conceived adolescents. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl 2012; 27: 3100-3108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Scherrer U, Rimoldi SF, Rexhaj E. , et al. Systemic and pulmonary vascular dysfunction in children conceived by assisted reproductive technologies. Circulation 2012; 125 (15) 1890-1896
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Chen M, Wu L, Zhao J. , et al. Altered glucose metabolism in mouse and humans conceived by IVF. Diabetes 2014; 63 (10) 3189-3198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Gkourogianni A, Kosteria I, Telonis AG. , et al. Plasma metabolomic profiling suggests early indications for predisposition to latent insulin resistance in children conceived by ICSI. PLoS One 2014; 9 (04) e94001
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Wall RJ, Shani M. Are animal models as good as we think?. Theriogenology 2008; 69 (01) 2-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Hewitson L. Primate models for assisted reproductive technologies. Reproduction 2004; 128 (03) 293-299
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Carter AM. Animal models of human placentation--a review. Placenta 2007; 28 (Suppl A): S41-S47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Bay B, Mortensen EL, Hvidtjørn D, Kesmodel US. Fertility treatment and risk of childhood and adolescent mental disorders: register based cohort study. BMJ 2013; 347: f3978-f3978
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Reigstad MM, Larsen IK, Myklebust TÅ. , et al. Risk of cancer in children conceived by assisted reproductive technology. Pediatrics 2016; 137 (03) e20152061
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Hall SS. The Cut: A New Last Chance: There could soon be a baby-boom among women who thought they'd hit an IVF dead end. New York Magazine: 2017
    Google Scholar
  • 47 Treff NR, Forman EJ, Scott Jr RT. Next-generation sequencing for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertil Steril 2013; 99 (06) e17-e18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Capelouto SM, Archer SR, Morris JR, Kawwass JF, Hipp HS. Sex selection for non-medical indications: a survey of current pre-implantation genetic screening practices among U.S. ART clinics. J Assist Reprod Genet 2018; 35 (03) 409-416
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Collier AC, Miyagi SJ, Yamauchi Y, Ward MA. Assisted reproduction technologies impair placental steroid metabolism. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 2009; 116 (1-2): 21-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 de Waal E, Mak W, Calhoun S. , et al. In vitro culture increases the frequency of stochastic epigenetic errors at imprinted genes in placental tissues from mouse concepti produced through assisted reproductive technologies. Biol Reprod 2014; 90 (02) 22
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Madeira JL, Coyne K, Jaeger AS, Parry JP, Lindheim SR. Inform and consent: more than just “sign here”. Fertil Steril 2017; 108 (01) 40-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Kamphuis EI, Bhattacharya S, van der Veen F, Mol BW, Templeton A. ; Evidence Based IVF Group. Are we overusing IVF?. BMJ 2014; 348: g252-g252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 New York State Task Force on Life and the Law. Informed Consent for In Vitro Fertilization and Related Procedures: Practitioner's Guide to Using the Model Form. Available at: https://www.health.ny.gov/regulations/task_force/docs/informed_consent_for_in_vitro_fertilization_guide.pdf . Accessed August 18, 2018
    PubMed
  • 54 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Obstetric Practice, Committee on Genetics & U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Committee Opinion No 671: Perinatal Risks Associated With Assisted Reproductive Technology. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 128: e61-68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; Practice Committee of the Society of Reproductive Biology and Technology. Revised minimum standards for practices offering assisted reproductive technologies: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2014; 102 (03) 682-686
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law including, Pennings G, de Wert G, Shenfield F, Cohen J, Tarlatzis B, Devroey P. ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law 13: the welfare of the child in medically assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 2007; 22 (10) 2585-2588
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Ethics Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Child-rearing ability and the provision of fertility services: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2013; 100 (01) 50-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Roy MC, Dupras C, Ravitsky V. The epigenetic effects of assisted reproductive technologies: ethical considerations. J Dev Orig Health Dis 2017; 8 (04) 436-442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Feuer S, Liu X, Donjacour A, Simbulan R, Maltepe E, Rinaudo P. Common and specific transcriptional signatures in mouse embryos and adult tissues induced by in vitro procedures. Reproduction 2016; pii: REP-16-0473
    PubMedGoogle Scholar