IVF linked to birth defects :(

steddyeddy

A lecturer of mine was saying this for years and I've also said it on boards once or twice but now it seems the evidence is hard to ignore. Is this the modern day Thalidomide where we jumped into a something without understanding the underlying science? In my mind it is. You'll be seeing this word coming up again and again in the future but "epigentics" much like the misunderstanding of Thalidomide's stereochemistry is being completely misunderstood in this case. Article from Time magazine below.

In vitro fertilization (IVF) is responsible for creating thousands of happy families, but the latest research highlights some of the potential long term risks of the procedure.

The role infertility treatments play in birth defect risk isn’t fully understood, and whether it’s the in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures or infertility itself that bears the greatest influence remains up for debate.
Researchers presenting at the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) National Conference and Exhibition in New Orleans report that IVF may significantly increase birth defect risk, especially in the heart, eyes, reproductive organs and urinary systems, among children born through the technique.
In their study, scientists at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) looked at birth defects among infants born both via IVF and conceived through natural means in California, which has the country’s highest rate of IVF use. They included babies born after IVF and other assisted reproductive treatments such as couples’ use of fertility-enhancing drugs and artificial insemination.
(MORE: The Link Between Infertility Treatments and Birth Defects)
Among 4795 babies born after IVF and 46,025 infants who were conceived naturally, 3,463 babies had congenital birth defects. Even after controlling for factors that can affect such birth defects, such as mother’s age, and race, which can influence rates of genetic and environmentally driven developmental disorders, 9% of infants born after IVF had birth defects compared to 6.6% of babies who were conceived naturally. Overall, the babies born after IVF were 1.25 times more likely to be born with abnormalities. The researchers did not find a link between birth defects and other fertility treatments like artificial insemination or ovulation induction.
It’s possible that the higher rate of abnormalities with IVF is due in part to whatever was contributing to infertility in the first place, say the researchers. But the fact that an increase was not seen among babies conceived using artificial insemination or ovulation induction suggests that process of IVF itself, in which eggs are removed from a woman, fertilized in a dish with sperm and then allowed to develop into embryos, which are transplanted back into the womb, is the primary culprit.
(MORE: Stress Doesn’t Hurt Chances of Success With IVF)
“For parents considering in vitro fertilization or other forms of assisted reproductive technology, it is important that they understand and discuss with their doctor the potential risks of the procedure before making a decision,” said lead study author Dr. Lorraine Kelley-Quon, a general surgery resident at at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, in a statement.
(MORE: Does Your Sperm Need a Diet? Fatty Foods Linked to Poor Sperm Quality)
An earlier study in the New England Journal of Medicine also reported a link between fertility treatments and a higher risk of birth defects, but risk varied greatly by procedure. In that study, IVF was not associated with birth defects, but other procedures such as intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and ovulation stimulation medications were. They also reported that frozen embryos created through IVF were less likely to result in babies with birth defects than fresh embryos.
Despite the fact that more than four million babies have been born using IVF, and the first ones are just reaching reproductive age, it’s clear that some of the long term effects of IVF and other assisted reproductive techniques still aren’t well understood.
MORE: The Case of Guiliana Rancic: Is There a Link Between IVF and Cancer?
Even so, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) is taking an important step regarding another infertility treatment by announcing that egg freezing should no longer be considered an “experimental” treatment for couples unable to conceive naturally. The decision is based on a report developed an ASRM committee and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART). After reviewing nearly 1,000 cases of egg freezing, the committee members found that the chances of getting pregnant via IVF were comparable using both fresh and frozen eggs. They also found no increases in birth defects, chromosomal abnormalities and developmental disorders among babies born using frozen eggs. In most cases, women take hormones to in order to release several mature eggs at a time, and these are surgically collected and fertilized as soon as possible. But because the number of eggs generated with each such ovulation cycle varies, some women chose to freeze eggs from a particularly successful cycle so they can be fertilized at a later date.
“I think this will really allow so many more women greater options for family building, which is terrific,” says lead study author Dr. Samantha Pfeifer of the University of Pennsylvania. Successful IVF, for example, requires an adequate supply of sperm to be available when a woman’s eggs are retrieved, and sometimes that’s not possible. Freezing eggs means the eggs can be thawed whenever that robust supply of sperm is available. It’s also an option for couples who aren’t comfortable freezing embryos, which some see as the earliest form of life. “Now they have this as an option,” says Pfeifer.
(MORE: Studies Link Infertility Treatments to Autism)
Lifting the “experimental” classification for egg freezing could also push insurers to cover the expensive procedure, which they currently do not reimburse for infertility treatment (some cover egg freezing costs for women being treated for reproductive cancers). “Insurance companies should have coverage for it and I think more programs are going to be offering this technique. It allows patients to have greater access to the procedure,” says Pfeifer.
However, she warns that it’s too early to tell if the rate of developmental anomalies among babies born from frozen eggs is similar to children born from frozen embryos. Although it appears to be a safe procedure, more long-term research is needed before it’s routinely used. The ASRM is also not advising healthy women without infertility problems to freeze their eggs for future use.

SEPT 23 1989

Too heavy for New Years Eve

Ghandee

The troika are bad news, but you can't single out the IVF OP.

That's a serious allegation.

steddyeddy

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Too heavy for New Years Eve

Happy new years!!! xxxoxoxxoxo

galwayrush

What caused birth defects before IVF?
anyways, poster above is right, too heavy man,

3ndahalfof6

Is he on boards.

Miss Lockhart

galwayrush wrote: »

What caused birth defects before IVF?

This makes no sense.

Interesting reading OP.

galwayrush

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

Is he on boards.

Brain defects.
Might explain a lot of posters i guess.

steddyeddy

3ndahalfof6 wrote: »

Is he on boards.

Is who on boards?

Fox_In_Socks

steddyeddy wrote: »

Is who on boards?

Your lecturer. It seems like the guy doesn't trust you steddyeddy and wants to go to the source!

3ndahalfof6

steddyeddy wrote: »

Is who on boards?

I was going to answer, but I think it might be a trap and I will find myself sidelined for a while,

SEPT 23 1989

Is it not the case that its mainly older women who go for IVF and the risks are much higher anyway

DublinWriter

There could be truth in it. The selective artificial insemination of sperm flies in the face of Spencer's 'Survival of the Fittest' theory in that 50% of the sperm generated by the average male during ejaculation are seriously malformed.

eviltwin

Ivf is so new really there could be some truth in it but who knows. There is always this rush to find the reason for something. I am the parent of an autistic child and everyone wants to find a reason why she is how she is. Sometimes there are no reasons, it just happens.

MagicMarker

Pregnancy linked to birth defects.

steddyeddy

eviltwin wrote: »

Ivf is so new really there could be some truth in it but who knows. There is always this rush to find the reason for something. I am the parent of an autistic child and everyone wants to find a reason why she is how she is. Sometimes there are no reasons, it just happens.

Well there has been breakthroughs in the reasons behind and the treatment of autisim.

mikom

steddyeddy wrote: »

IVF linked to birth defects

NO SURRENDER!!

3ndahalfof6

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well there has been breakthroughs in the reasons behind and the treatment of autisim.

I hate autisim, leaves everywhere, nothing better happen to me.

Fox_In_Socks

mikom wrote: »

NO SURRENDER!!

IMF, UVF...any more?:P

IDF? Israeli Defense Force? Shalom?

steddyeddy

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

Your lecturer. It seems like the guy doesn't trust you steddyeddy and wants to go to the source!

Nah he's in his eighties now!

woodoo

People are full of defects that's what keeps our health system so busy.

Pessimist

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Is it not the case that its mainly older women who go for IVF and the risks are much higher anyway

Yes but as the article states... "Even after controlling for factors that can affect such birth defects, such as mother’s age.. 9% of infants born after IVF had birth defects compared to 6.6% of babies who were conceived naturally.

So they've controlled for age.

Fox_In_Socks

steddyeddy wrote: »

Nah he's in his eighties now!

He could be on here, posting up pictures of lolcats, chatting up the single ladies, going on the MMA forum calling people out.:pac:

SEPT 23 1989

Pessimist wrote: »

Yes but as the article states... "Even after controlling for factors that can affect such birth defects, such as mother’s age.. 9% of infants born after IVF had birth defects compared to 6.6% of babies who were conceived naturally.

So they've controlled for age.

I didnt read the article:D

Teyla Emmagan

Pessimist wrote: »

Yes but as the article states... "Even after controlling for factors that can affect such birth defects, such as mother’s age.. 9% of infants born after IVF had birth defects compared to 6.6% of babies who were conceived naturally.

So they've controlled for age.

I guess it's science intervening where biology would naturally have performed a screening process, thus enabling people who shouldn't have had kids to have kids. Possibly. Not that I bothered reading the article or anything.

For the record I'm all for IVF, I have friends who have IVF babies and they are small miracles, each and every one.

Capt'n Midnight

Absolute risk is low but IVF babies 25 percent more likely to have birth defects

...
This study, titled 'Congenital Malformations Associated With Assisted Reproductive Technology: A California State-wide Analysis', was presented at the American Academy of Paediatrics National Conference and Exhibition in New Orleans, but has not yet been peer reviewed for publication.

Anyone know if it's been peer reviewed since ?

seamus

Not entirely shocking that couples who have difficulty conceiving naturally would result in a heightened incidence of defects during gestation.

It's 25% extra of a relatively low risk, so still a relatively low risk. It's not like couples choose to go the IVF route rather than the traditional one, the option is no baby or IVF, so of course they'll choose IVF, even with increased risks.

Thalidomide is a different thing altogether. That was using drugs where they weren't strictly necessary.

grizzly

DublinWriter wrote: »

There could be truth in it. The selective artificial insemination of sperm flies in the face of Spencer's 'Survival of the Fittest' theory in that 50% of the sperm generated by the average male during ejaculation are seriously malformed.

*snicker* IGMC

steddyeddy

seamus wrote: »

Not entirely shocking that couples who have difficulty conceiving naturally would result in a heightened incidence of defects during gestation.

It's 25% extra of a relatively low risk, so still a relatively low risk. It's not like couples choose to go the IVF route rather than the traditional one, the option is no baby or IVF, so of course they'll choose IVF, even with increased risks.

Thalidomide is a different thing altogether. That was using drugs where they weren't strictly necessary.

It's not an age issue. It's related to epigentic changes to the egg. Thalidomie wasn't entirely a problem with miss prescribing it was related to the racemate nature of thalidomide.

Mr Benevolent

If you force an embryo to become a fetus it's going to cause problems eventually. That's fairly obvious.