To think we don’t know the long term impacts of ivf

[Redteapot67]

I read shocking research (albeit in the daily fail) today that ivf children are x6 more likely to have hypertension, which of course puts them at risk of cardiovascular disease.
It’s a stark reminder the first ivf baby is only 40 years old - we have no idea about the long term impacts on a baby of being born this way which I find frightening.
Please - I just want to discuss this if you are going to be upset by the debate look at another thread.
My personal take is that despite the possible unknown health risks if ivf were my only route to having a baby I would have it.

M3lon I don’t think anyone would ever look back at us in the future and say we made a mistake with ivf I think it’ll more be how unrefined and crap the process was compared to the super duper techniques they’ll have in the future. A bit like looking back on old medical techniques now and thinking god they could have done that better - like alcohol and a saw for amputation compared to modern surgery!

I knew this would come up hmm It's a common misconception that a small sample size = unreliable results

No, its not, sample size is a perfectly valid criterion against which to evaluate the quality of a data set.

Perhaps you could tell the good folk over at Cochrane that they're doing it wrong?

www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/271785.php

This is just one link that comes up if you google health risks IVF. As others have said we just don't know yet. There are many things that we used to think were fine but research over time has shown otherwise. The questions is is the risk worth the benefit? Not for the mothers but for the children who may have to live with the health consequences. But many other things cause health problems like older mothers, toxic fumes, random genetic mutations, accidents etc so maybe we just need to live with the risk.

Isn’t the problem with small data samples that you are more likely to have a skewed result from a random occurrence?

There are statistical tests which work on small sample sizes. There are techniques to decide on the size needed to detect the effect you're interested in in advance. In addition, meta analyses (cochrane) make use of many smaller samples to combine results and draw conclusions to a greater degree of certainty.

It wouldn't be skewed. But yes if you assess against 95% certainty thrn one time in 20 on average you'll get a false positive.

If results are skewed or biased, a larger sample will just reinforce it. A small random, stratified sample is better than a large biased one.

It's such an emotive subject. I'm a fortyish lady trying to conceive my first child with a slightly younger chap. 2 early miscarriages so far but basic tests have shown no obvious problems with either of us. So we'll keep trying until we succeed naturally or it becomes obvious that my fertility has come to an end. To us, we aren't so much worried about the effects of IVF on the children conceived through it, but more so about possible gene mutations in their children or their childrens children and so on. It isn't natural having hormones injected in to us and the lack of data on the effects, short or long term means we just don't want to risk it. It's all sad and scary and just generally horrible though, failing to conceive and/or not ending up with a baby when you do. In some ways I prefer the thought of menopause coming soon than going through any more miscarriages, I think that that would be easier on my mental health.

Given that I’d quite merrily give my life for my DTs born thanks to ivf/icsi, I have to say I’ll take whatever comes my way from having had treatment. I did worry at the time about all the extra hormones I was on, and that it’s still relatively new, but I’ve not got time to worry about it currently!

We had genetic testing, and I know what they possibly might’ve inherited from us. Our reasons for treatment were unexplained, by the time I got to treatment I had a low ovarian reserve, and had paid for icsi already so went ahead with it.

OP, whilst I appreciate you wanted to debate it, it’s very difficult to not get emotional about it. If one conceives naturally, then you’re unlikely to know the agony of going through treatment and it’s more of a black and white issue, if you’ve struggled and gone through it it’s very difficult not to be emotional about it because it’s discussing our bodies and our children, and all the things that may go wrong health wise with them.

82 posts on this thread and no-one's even linked to the actual study in question... Source, anyone?

A couple have asked butterfly myself included

Penguin that sounds awful. Hope you get there soon. Early miscarriages are awful.
I think what people have said about mental health is so important - it’s just as an important consideration as physical health

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/09/03/ivf-children-far-greater-risk-dangerous-high-blood-pressure/amp/

Telegraph link as I can’t face putting a dm link in!

peng you are aware of the risks involved with even natural conceptions over the age of 40 don’t you?

I want - I think (hope) so far we’ve managed debate rather than upsetting anyone.

the theory makes sense to me

This ^ is NOT a good way to form an opinion if you are not highly educated in the relevant field.

I meant a link to the actual study not a media report

Still no link to the actual study. A link to the newspaper article is not a link to the study. Even if you click on the link in the telegraph to the research it only gives you the abstract of the study. In order to properly appraise the quality of the study you need to assess the actual article, not the abstract which says very very little about the methodology used.

Cross post with @butterflyrabbit

Ive only read through this to see if @amummy one miracle egg stuck. Soooo pleased. As you were mntters x

Sorry I don’t know how to get the original - presumably it would be in some paid for scientific journal?

Hopefully the nhs will do their usual thing of commenting on articles like this to give you the pros and cons of the research used etc?

All medical treatment is experimental to some extent in that you can never be 100% certain how each individual will respond to a treatment or procedure. Nothing is 100% 'safe' and and unusual cases make up a significant body of medical literature. Every time a doctor treats a patient they're learning something new.

IVF is still experimental because the first babies born are only halfway through their expected natural lifespan - Louise Brown is only just 40! The first IVF babies are now having their own children, which is of enormous interest to researchers as to whether they have a higher rate of problems conceiving or health problems in their babies than the wider population. At this stage it's still too early to tell. There's a reason that reasearchers use white mice and not humans - we live too long to see whole life effects!

Correlation and causation are tricky things. Cancer and IVF for example- we know that hormones influence certain cancers, but how do you tell whether it's the IVF or the pregnancy that's been the trigger in a specific individual? The answer is always the same - more research needed, and education in the general population about evaluation of risk.

Maybe you could find us a link to the study EarlGrey so we can all do a critical study of the research??