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.

Its certainly an interesting topic, particularly in evolutionary terms and the long term effect on the population.

Can’t really understand why posters get arsey when it’s pointed out them that having a baby via ivf may carry risks to the mother or children that we don’t yet know- that’s explained to you as part of the process so why be chippy about it on here?

It’s thanks to modern science that I am here today (was born 2 months prem nearly 40 years ago it was a miracle I survived apparently!)
And my DS who would have died without medical intervention, my DS has ASD and I sometimes wonder if the recent growing number of ASD people is because previously they never would have survived babyhood, just a theory anyway.

If you're just chatting about research in the news it is not necessary to critically appraise the source study. MN can get ridiculous sometimes with this stuff.

Still no link to the actual study

I've tried. I've got access through a number of institutions and I still can't get the full text.

I'm guessing when people come across an interesting meta analysis they independently verify and replicate the results?

Agree with EarlGrey and butterfly. The media report seems to be suggesting different cohorts and a single blood pressure reading...
would love to know what the actual research methodology was.

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109718354809?via%3Dihub

I don't have access to the full study. But I do find this slightly worrying (as parent of an ART baby). I hadn't realised there was evidence that blood vessels are affected as quoted in the telegraph article

I can't get access to the actual study, but there is a much more thorough seeming summary here: medicalxpress.com/news/2018-09-children-born-ivf-higher-hypertension.html

Note particularly: 'Limitations of this study include that only single-birth children were studied, as well as that participants were recruited from one procreation center. Prematurity, low birth weight and preeclampsia (all known cardiovascular risk factors) were excluded from the study.'

They apparently did try to control for some factors: 'Body mass index, birth weight, gestational age, and maternal BMI, smoking status and cardiovascular risk profile were similar between the ART adolescents and 43 age- and sex-matched control participants.'. However, the editorial comment said ' the study's small cohort may understate the importance of this problem for ART adolescents, especially since multiple birth pregnancies and maternal risk factors (such as eclampsia, chronic hypertension and diabetes) were excluded from the study.' - which suggests to me that they are indeed suggesting a correlation rather than a causation, as both multiple births and maternal risk factors would have been higher in the IVF group and that this would have created a bigger difference between the two groups.

If I was critically appraising that I'd wonder how they could be age and sex matched when the numbers are different. Maybe it wasn't 1-1.

Wider point but maybe this will encourage gp practices to measure bp in children more routinely. I find it shocking most gp practices don’t have the ability to measure a child’s bp.

Also, while I know and appreciate that small cohorts can still reach statistical significance, these numbers do make me raise my (entirely non-expert) eyebrow:

'Through 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, researchers discovered that ART adolescents had both a higher systolic and diastolic blood pressure than the control participants of natural conception at 119/71 mmHg versus 115/69, respectively. Most importantly, eight of the ART adolescents reached the criteria for the diagnosis of arterial hypertension (over 130/80 mmHg) whereas only one of the control participants met the criteria.'

That's a huge proportional difference, but they are such tiny numbers.

I don't know about health risks to children born from IVF but I do know there is reason to be concerned about the potential increased risks to women who go through fertility treatments. I have gone through a round of IVF and several rounds of IUI myself and I won't lie, one of the reasons I stopped was my concern about the long term implications of high doses of hormones. The truth is that the fertility industry right now can say in all honesty that there are no known increased risks due to fertility treatment and the reason they can say this is because no one is tracking or studying the health impacts on women. The fertility industry is an incredibly profitable industry with no desire to investigate potential risks to women's health. This article from the New York Times about the increased risks that egg donors face is interesting.

www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/well/live/are-there-long-term-risks-to-egg-donors.html

They are, and that is why specific tests are run. The denominator size is also important.

Thanks lisa

In our work, we take full developmental history of children prior to intervention/treatment (a specific area of AEN). We are noticing a very high number of referrals conceived through IVF & it's worrying.

The underlying philosophical question is more interesting.

Would you rather be born with a known higher risk of hypertension, or never be born at all?

blue25 what's AEN in this context?

Blue what type of work is that?

Fred of course you’d be born every time.

I think rather than putting people off it research like this might help scientists refine the process and reduce any risk factors

stealth it's about reading for yourself what was actually found rather than relying on an interpretation of it! Every area I've worked in that's ended up being in a news article has always been grossly distorted and sensationalist compared with the actual facts and full picture so you should always go to the actual source to check, or not bother reading it at all.

All these statistics.... as I recall there are studies showing adverse effects in later life from everything from assisted reproduction, c-section births, use of antibiotics in pregnancy, maternal infections, use of mobile phones in pregnancy, exposure to toxins and let’s not even get started on factors post-birth.

It’s all about maternal guilt. I’m not saying there aren’t links but one study does not a cause make. I also wonder about the other factors involved - is it the factors leading to
the infertility itself which cause the problems rather than the treatment?

standbyyour: I do wonder if these threads are started by religious fanatics

Well, quite. It does remind me somewhat of the (totally groundless) "abortion causes breast cancer" lies that the American religious right are so fond of promoting.

If anyone would like to see the original study in full then send me a PM.

It's going to be a long time before we know for sure what the long term effects are.

I would be more concerned about the risk to the mother from the drugs, but I think that is part of why a lot of clinics are looking more at light and natural IVF as options.

Other than the hypertension study linked to, the only IVF risk that I know of for the baby is that the child could have lower fertility itself, but I think that is only linked to a specific situation with make factor (can't remember what off the top of my head - may be extraction for azoospermia).

I'm still willing to take the risk of it gets me the baby I am yearning for.

I agree- it will be interesting to see research on this- both for the parent and the child. The mother is Injected with high doses of hormones to stimulate, which may have some long term effect- but I'd imagine even if there is a risk, women would be happy to take it for a child. The Children, in some situations, are the result of 'weak' sperm or eggs- the process is forced with substandard eggs and sperm that naturally aren't strong enough to get together naturally. This surely has to in some cases lead to increased issues for the child (my experience of this is completely anecdotal- I wouldn't claim it is any way 'researched ') it's such an emotional topic- you assume studies must be getting carried out, but after 40 years there doesn't seem to be much out there that's made it 'mainstream'

Fermats and stand by your - there’s no fanatics here - just people who have seen the news and want to talk about it

I think there’s a lack of research to date because very little difference has been seen in ivf v non Ivf babies to date
Also like a Pp said who would pay for the research? It’s not in the fertility industries interests to do it