Complications related to in vitro reproductive techniques support the implementation of natural procreative technologies

Main Article Content

Aysha Karim Kiani
Stefano Paolacci
Pietro Scanzano
Sandro Michelini
Natale Capodicasa
Leonardo D'Agruma
Angelantonio Notarangelo
Gerolamo Tonini
Daniela Piccinelli
Kalantary Rad Farshid
Paolo Petralia
Ezio Fulcheri
Pietro Chiurazzi
Corrado Terranova
Francesco Plotti
Roberto Angioli
Marco Castori
Matteo Bertelli

Keywords

assisted reproductive technology, genetic infertility, NaProTechnology

Abstract

Background and aim: Infertility affects ~20% of the couples in the world. Assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) are currently the most common treatment option for infertility. Nevertheless, ARTs may be associated with complications for mothers and/or offspring. Natural procreative technology (NaProTechnology) is a natural treatment which minimizes these risks by seeking to identify the causes of infertility to enable better treatments. This narrative review summarizes the complications related to ARTs and clarifies how the NaProTechnology approach can help ARTs to achieve better results or be used in alternative to ARTs. Methods: Data in the literature indicate that NaProTechnology is a natural approach for treating infertility. Results: The percentage of live births obtained by NaProTechnology is similar to that of ARTs. Conclusions An extensive search for the genetic defects causing infertility or subfertility through genetic testing can help both ARTs and NaProTechnology to achieve successful pregnancies. By discovering the underlying causes of infertility, genetic tests enable better family counseling, like the implications of transmitting risk- and disease-alleles to future generations.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...
Abstract 0 |

References

1. Mascarenhas MN, Flaxman SR, Boerma T, Vanderpoel S, Stevens GA. National, regional, and global trends in infertility prevalence since 1990: A systematic analysis of 277 health surveys. PLoS Med 2012; 9: e1001356.
2. Quaas A, Dokras A. Diagnosis and treatment of unexplained infertility. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2008; 1 :69–76.
3. Scaravelli G, Spoletini R. The application of reproductive techniques (ART): worldwide epidemiology phenomenon and treatment outcomes. In: Handbook of Fertility. Academic Press: Tucson, 2015.
4. Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, Chambers GM, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology: World report on assisted reproductive technology, 2011. Fertil Steril 2018; 110: 1067–80.
5. Bhandari H, Choudhary M, Stewart J. Complications of assisted reproductive technology treatment and the factors influencing reproductive outcome. Obstet Gynaecol 2018; 20: 177–86.
6. Boyle PC, de Groot T, Andralojc KM, Parnell TA. Healthy singleton pregnancies from restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) after failed IVF. Front Med 2018; 5: 210.
7. Bewley S, Foo L, Braude P. Adverse outcomes from IVF. BMJ 2011; 342: d436.
8. Devroey P, Fauser BCJM, Diedrich K. Approaches to improve the diagnosis and management of infertility. Hum Reprod Update 2009; 15: 391–408.
9. Vrooman LA, Bartolomei MS. Can assisted reproductive technologies cause adult-onset disease? Evidence from human and mouse. Reprod Toxicol 2017; 68: 72–84.
10. Smith V, Osianlis T, Vollenhoven B. Prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: A review. Obstet Gynecol Int 2015; 2015: 514159.
11. Nastri CO, Teixeira DM, Moroni RM, Leitão VMS, Martins WP. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: Pathophysiology, staging, prediction and prevention. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 45: 377–93.
12. Kanayama S, Kaniwa H, Tomimoto M, Zhang B, Nishioka K, Oi H. Laparoscopic detorsion of the ovary in ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome during the sixth week of gestation: A case report and review. Int J Surg Case Rep 2019; 59: 50–3.
13. Perkins KM, Boulet SL, Kissin DM, Jamieson DJ. Risk of ectopic pregnancy associated with assisted reproductive technology in the United States, 2001-2011. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 125: 70–8.
14. Crosignani PG. Breast cancer and hormone-replacement therapy in the Million Women Study. Maturitas 2003; 46: 91–2.
15. Schneider J, Lahl J, Kramer W. Long-term breast cancer risk following ovarian stimulation in young egg donors: A call for follow-up, research and informed consent. Reprod Biomed Online 2017; 34: 480–5.
16. Say L, Chou D, Gemmill A, et al. Global causes of maternal death: A WHO systematic analysis. Lancet Glob Heal 2014; 2: e323–33.
17. Allen VM, Wilson RD, Cheung A, Genetics Committee, Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility Committee. Pregnancy outcomes after assisted reproductive technology. J Obstet Gynaecol Canada 2016; 28: 220–33.
18. Vergouw CG, Hanna Kostelijk E, Doejaaren E, Hompes PGA, Lambalk CB, Schats R. The influence of the type of embryo culture medium on neonatal birthweight after single embryo transfer in IVF. Hum Reprod 2012; 27: 2619–26.
19. Jiang Z, Wang Y, Lin J, Xu J, Ding G, Huang H. Genetic and epigenetic risks of assisted reproduction. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2017; 44: 90–104.
20. Jackson RA, Gibson KA, Wu YW, Croughan MS. Perinatal outcomes in singletons following in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103: 551–63.
21. Shevell T, Malone FD, Vidaver J, et al. Assisted reproductive technology and pregnancy outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106: 1039–45.
22. Wisborg K, Ingerslev HJ, Henriksen TB. IVF and stillbirth: A prospective follow-up study. Hum Reprod 2010; 25: 1312–6.
23. Ericson A, Källén B. Congenital malformations in infants born after IVF: A population-based study. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 504–9.
24. Niemitz EL, Feinberg AP. Epigenetics and assisted reproductive technology: A call for investigation. Am J Hum Genet 2004; 74: 599–609.
25. Hattori H, Hiura H, Kitamura A, et al. Association of four imprinting disorders and ART. Clin Epigenetics 2019; 11: 21.
26. Tournaire M, Devouche E, Espié M, et al. Cancer risk in women exposed to diethylstilbestrol in utero. Therapie 2015; 70: 433–41.
27. Melamed I, Bujanover Y, Hammer J, Spirer Z. Hepatoblastoma in an infant born to a mother after hormonal treatment for sterility. N Engl J Med 1982; 307: 820.
28. White L, Giri N, Vowels MR, Lancaster PAL. Neuroectodermal tumours in children born after assisted conception. Lancet 1990; 336: 1577.
29. Kobayashi N, Matsui I, Tanimura M, et al. Childhood neuroectodermal tumours and malignant lymphoma after maternal ovulation induction. Lancet 1991; 336: 1577.
30. Stanford J, Parnell T, Boyle P. Outcomes from treatment of infertility with natural procreative technology in an Irish general practice. J Am Board Fam Med 2008; 21: 375–84.
31. Malizia BA, Hacker MR, Penzias AS. Cumulative live-birth rates after in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 236–43.
32. Maheshwari A, Kalampokas T, Davidson J, Bhattacharya S. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from the transfer of blastocyst-stage versus cleavage-stage embryos generated through in vitro fertilization treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2013; 100: 1615-21.
33. Chan PTK. Genetic risks associated with advanced assisted reproductive technology. J Sex Reprod Med 2002; 2: 161–4.
34. Vogt PH. Genetic aspects of artificial fertilization. Hum Reprod 1995; 10: 128–37.
35. Clayton-Smith J, Laan L. Angelman syndrome: a review of the clinical and genetic aspects. J Med Genet 2003; 40: 87–95.
36. DeBaun MR, Niemitz EL, Feinberg AP. Association of in vitro fertilization with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome and epigenetic alterations of LIT1 and H19. Am J Hum Genet 2003; 72: 156–60.
37. Simpson JL, Lamb DJ. Genetic effects of intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Semin Reprod Med 2001; 19: 239–49.
38. Hemminki E, Gissler M, Toukomaa H. Exposure to female hormone drugs during pregnancy: effect on malformations and cancer. Br J Cancer 1999; 80: 1092–7.
39. Vélez JR. An ethical comparison between in-vitro fertilization and NaProTechnology. Linacre Q 2012; 79: 57–72.
40. Hilgers T. The Medical & Surgical Practice of NaProTechnology. Pope Paul VI Institute Press: Omaha, 2004.
41. Sunderam S, Kissin DM, Zhang Y, et al. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance - United States, 2016. MMWR Surveill Summ 2019; 68: 1–23.
42. Xiao WL, Zhang DZ, Hou JW, Sun J, Jia MY. Multiple orofacial malformations in a boy who was conceived by intracytoplasmic sperm injection. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg 2009; 62: e298–300.
43. Anthony S, Buitendijk S, Dorrepaal C, Lindner K, Braat D, den Ouden A. Congenital malformations in 4224 children conceived after IVF. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 2089–95.
44. Wen J, Jiang J, Ding C, et al. Birth defects in children conceived by in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection: A meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2012; 97: 1331-7.e1-4.
45. Harper JC, Aittomäki K, Borry P, et al. Recent developments in genetics and medically assisted reproduction: From research to clinical applications. Eur J Hum Genet 2018; 26: 12–33.
46. Fertility: assessment and treatment for people with fertility problems. NICE Clinical Guidelines. Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists: London, 2013.
47. Billings EL, Brown JB, Billings JJ, Burger HG. Symptoms and hormonal changes accompanying ovulation. Lancet 1972; 1: 282–4.
48. Dunson DB, Stanford JB. Bayesian inferences on predictors of conception probabilities. Biometrics 2005; 61: 126–33.
49. Scarpa B, Dunson DB, Giacchi E. Bayesian selection of optimal rules for timing intercourse to conceive by using calendar and mucus. Fertil Steril 2007; 88: 915–24.
50. Arévalo M, Sinai I, Jennings V. A fixed formula to define the fertile window of the menstrual cycle as the basis of a simple method of natural family planning. Contraception 1999; 60: 357–60.
51. Zorrilla M, Yatsenko AN. The genetics of infertility: Current status of the field. Curr Genet Med Rep 2013; 1.
52. Gil-Arribas E, Herrer R, Serna J. Pros and cons of implementing a carrier genetic test in an infertility practice. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2016; 28: 172–7.
53. Horne SD, Abdallah BY, Stevens JB, et al. Genome constraint through sexual reproduction: application of 4D-Genomics in reproductive biology. Syst Biol Reprod Med 2013; 59: 124–30.
54. Le Bouc Y, Rossignol S, Azzi S, Steunou V, Netchine I, Gicquel C. Epigenetics, genomic imprinting and assisted reproductive technology. Ann Endocrinol (Paris) 2010; 71: 237–8.
55. Vendrell X, Escribà MJ. The model of “genetic compartments”: A new insight into reproductive genetics. J Assist Reprod Genet 2019; 36: 363–9.
56. Martin J, Asan Yi Y, Alberola T, et al. Comprehensive carrier genetic test using next-generation deoxyribonucleic acid sequencing in infertile couples wishing to conceive through assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 2015; 104: 1286–93.
57. Strauss JF, Romero R, Gomez-Lopez N, et al. Spontaneous preterm birth: Advances toward the discovery of genetic predisposition. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 218: 294–314.
58. Sallevelt SCEH, De Koning B, Szklarczyk R, Paulussen ADC, De Die-Smulders CEM, Smeets HJM. A comprehensive strategy for exome-based preconception carrier screening. Genet Med 2017; 19: 583–92.
59. Normand EA, Alaimo JT, Van den Veyver IB. Exome and genome sequencing in reproductive medicine. Fertil Steril 2018; 109: 213–20.