Why children born by IVF may be more at risk of autism and childhood cancers

Long Article: excerpts below
J
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article1943649.ece
Why children born by Invitro Fertilization may be more at risk of autism
and childhood cancers
byEve Ahmed
Published: 31 October 2006

But the University of California study is not the first to raise questions
about other health effects on children born after IVF. I discovered a US
study which showed that full-term singleton babies conceived through ART
were more than twice as likely as infants in the general population to be
born underweight. I found out that IVF babies, according to a Swedish
study, have three times the rate of cerebral palsy compared with children
in the general population, whether they are twins, triplets or singletons
of normal birth weight.

In my blissful ignorance, I hadn't realised that an Australian study
(published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine) has found
that babies conceived through assisted conception are more than twice as
likely as naturally conceived infants to be diagnosed with multiple birth
defects in their first year of life. These infants had more major
cardiovascular, genitourinary, chromosomal and musculoskeletal defects.

I learnt that the use of frozen embryos raises the risk of an ectopic
pregnancy 17-fold, and that intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), in
which a single sperm cell is injected directly into an egg, helps men with
low sperm counts but also bypasses the body's natural mechanisms for
weeding out weak sperm, meaning the sperm has a greatly increased risk of
carrying damaged genetic material.

Previous studies have also suggested that IVF children may be more prone
to developing cancers. Dutch researchers found that these babies have a
five to seven times higher chance of developing a rare form of eye cancer
than those from naturally occurring pregnancies.

A recent UK study claimed that IVF children run four times the normal risk
of a rare genetic imprinting disorder, Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome, which
causes too much growth, kidney abnormalities and an increased risk of
tumours. The authors argue that children conceived by artificial
techniques should be followed up during the first years of life.

Dr Wolf Reik, one of the study's authors, added that other research has
suggested an increased risk of Angelman syndrome, an imprinting disorder
that causes neurobehavioural symptoms, in children born after IVF. He
said: "Obviously, the vast majority of IVF babies are born healthy and
happy, but parents should be informed of all potential risks. I also feel
that the IVF community has not taken on board the need for study of these
children's long-term health. For example, I know of no study of cancer
rates among artificially conceived children. Research on such basic
questions is sorely needed."

Professor Lord Robert Winston has spoken of "lowering clouds" over
assisted-conception therapies he pioneered, with women and children being
used in a "mass experiment" by the medical community, trying out
techniques before they have been properly researched. As to the mums
concerned, one research project found that infertile women who had taken
fertility drugs had 2.7 times the risk of developing ovarian cancer of
those who had never taken them. University College London is currently
investigating this.

Dr Richard Kennedy is a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist, and a
spokesperson for the British Fertility Society. He agrees that, with up to
4 per cent of IVF babies having something wrong with them compared with
2-3 per cent of all babies, it's important to discover the cause of the
discrepancy. "Monitoring of IVF offspring for the next 20 to 30 years is
long overdue. I'm broadly confident there are no serious long-term risks
to mums from the treatment, but as for babies, we're just not sure.
Remember, though - nothing in medicine is risk-free."

But why is this "long overdue" follow-up of IVF babies not in place
already, as we come up to three decades since the first birth? Professor
Peter Brodie, a specialist in reproductive medicine at Guy's Hospital,
says: "The lack of it has been a big problem for the UK, because patients
do need to be reassured. But the HFEA, which keeps the database of who's
had treatment, is prevented by law from sharing that information with, for
example, cancer and death registers. It's common sense that that situation
should change."

Now this legislation is under review, with the HFEA recommending that
restrictions on its database are lifted to enable proper monitoring to
take place. However, a spokesperson warns: "Many IVF parents still feel
there's stigma attached to infertility, don't want people to know they had
treatment and will refuse to take part in a follow-up."

Letting your emotions cloud your judgment in this way is typical of those
of us touched by infertility. According to a Scottish survey, women
awaiting IVF are more willing to have a child with a chronic adverse birth
outcome including cerebral palsy and cognitive and visual impairment than
have no child at all.

.

Relevant Pages