Search

STUDY QUESTION Do women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have a greater risk of adverse pregnancy complications (gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, cesarean section, placental abnormalities) and neonatal outcomes (preterm birth, small for gestational age, prolonged delivery hospitalization) compared to women without a PCOS diagnosis and does this risk vary by BMI, subfertility and fertility treatment utilization? SUMMARY ANSWER Deliveries to women with a history of PCOS were at greater risk of complications associated with cardiometabolic function, including gestational diabetes and preeclampsia, as well as preterm birth and prolonged length of delivery hospitalization. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Prior research has suggested that women with PCOS may be at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. However, findings have been inconsistent possibly due to lack of consistent adjustment for confounding factors, small samples size and other sources of bias. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Massachusetts deliveries among women ≥18 years old during 2013–2017 from state vital records linked to hospital discharges, observational stays and emergency department visits were linked to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System (SART CORS) and the Massachusetts All-Payers Claims Database (APCD). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS PCOS was identified by ICD9 and ICD10 codes in APCD prior to index delivery. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% CI for pregnancy and delivery complications were modeled using generalized estimating equations with a log link and a Poisson distribution to take multiple cycles into account and were adjusted a priori for maternal age, BMI, race/ethnicity, education, plurality, birth year, chronic hypertension and chronic diabetes. Tests for homogeneity investigated differences between maternal pre-pregnancy BMI categories ( MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Among 91 825 deliveries, 3.9% had a history of PCOS. Women with a history of PCOS had a 51% greater risk of gestational diabetes (CI: 1.38–1.65) and a 25% greater risk of preeclampsia (CI: 1.15–1.35) compared to women without a diagnosis of PCOS. Neonates born to women with a history of PCOS were more likely to be born preterm (RR: 1.17, CI: 1.06–1.29) and more likely to have a prolonged delivery hospitalization after additionally adjusting for gestational age (RR: 1.23, CI: 1.09–1.40) compared to those of women without a diagnosis of PCOS. The risk for gestational diabetes for women with PCOS was greater among women with a pre-pregnancy BMI LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION PCOS was defined by ICD documentation prior to delivery so there may be women with undiagnosed PCOS or PCOS diagnosed after delivery included in the unexposed group. The study population is limited to deliveries within Massachusetts among most private insurance payers and inpatient or observational hospitalization in Massachusetts during the follow-up window, therefore there may be diagnoses and or deliveries outside of the state or outside of our sample that were not captured. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS In this population-based study, women with a history of PCOS were at greater risk of pregnancy complications associated with cardiometabolic function and preterm birth. Obstetricians should be aware of patients’ PCOS status and closely monitor for potential pregnancy complications to improve maternal and infant perinatal health outcomes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This work was supported by the NIH (R01HD067270). S.A.M. receives grant funding from NIH, AbbVie and the Marriot Family Foundation; payment/honoraria from the University of British Columbia, World Endometriosis Research Foundation and Huilun Shanghai; travel support for attending meetings for ESHRE 2019, IASP 2019, National Endometriosis Network UK meeting 2019; SRI 2022, ESHRE 2022; participates on the data safety monitoring board/advisory board for AbbVie, Roche, Frontiers in Reproductive Health; and has a leadership role in the Society for Women’s Health Research, World Endometriosis Research Foundation, World Endometriosis Society, American Society for Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE. The other authors have no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.

STUDY QUESTION Are toddlers conceived by fertility treatment at higher risk of failing a screening tool for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) than toddlers not conceived by treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER Compared with children not conceived by infertility treatment, children conceived by any infertility treatment, ovulation induction with or without intrauterine insemination (OI/IUI), or assisted reproductive technologies (ART) appeared to have had higher odds of failing an ASD screening; however, results were inconclusive and need replication. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Although most of the studies which have examined risk of ASD after ART show no association, the results are mixed. Thus, further studies are needed to clarify this association. STUDY DESIGN SIZE, DURATION The Upstate KIDS Study is a population-based, prospective cohort study of children born in New York State between 2008 and 2010. Children were screened for ASD using the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (M-CHAT) at ages 18 and 24 months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, AND METHODS The New York State live-birth registry was used to identify newborns conceived with and without fertility treatment with a 1:3 ratio, frequency matched on region of birth. At 18 and 24 months, 3183 and 3063 mothers, respectively, completed the M-CHAT questionnaire. The current analysis included 2586 singletons and 1296 twins with M-CHAT information at 18 and/or 24 months. Multivariable logistic regression with generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to estimate odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) after adjustment for covariates such as maternal age, education and plurality. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE We found that 200 (5.2%) and 115 (3.0%) children failed the M-CHAT at 18 and 24 months, respectively. The associations between use of infertility treatment and failing the M-CHAT at 18 and/or 24 months were positive but inconclusive as they failed to exclude no association (18 months aOR 1.71, 95% CI: 0.81–3.61; 24 months aOR 1.78, 95% CI: 0.66–4.81; and both 18 and 24 months aOR 1.53, 95% CI: 0.78–2.99). The relationships between OI/IUI and ART with M-CHAT failure at 18 and/or 24 months were similar to those of using any fertility treatment. In vitro fertilization with intracytoplasmic sperm injection was not consistently positively or inversely associated with M-CHAT failure at each time point (18 months aOR 1.20, 95% CI: 0.51–2.83; 24 months aOR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.37–2.31; and both 18 and 24 months aOR 1.09, 95% CI: 0.50–2.60). LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION The M-CHAT is a screening tool used for ASD risk assessment, and therefore, M-CHAT failure does not indicate ASD diagnosis. In addition, we did not have power to detect associations of small magnitude. Finally, non-response to follow-up may bias the results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Despite lack of precision, the positive associations between ART and M-CHAT failure suggest that larger population-based studies with longer follow-up are needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) Supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD; contracts HHSN275201200005C, HHSN267200700019C). The sponsor played no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis or interpretation, writing of the manuscript or decision to submit the article for publication. There are no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Not applicable.

STUDY QUESTION How do the assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes of women presenting for ART after cancer diagnosis compare to women without cancer? SUMMARY ANSWER The likelihood of a live birth after ART among women with prior cancer using autologous oocytes is reduced and varies by cancer diagnosis but is similar to women without cancer when donor oocytes are used. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Premenopausal patients faced with a cancer diagnosis frequently present for fertility preservation. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Population-based cohort study of women treated with ART in NY, TX and IL, USA. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Women with their first ART treatment between 2004 and 2009 were identified from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System database and linked to their respective State Cancer Registries based on name, date of birth and social security number. Years were rounded, i.e. year 1 = 6-18 months before treatment. This study used reports of cancer from 5 years, 6 months prior to treatment until 6 months after first ART treatment. Women who only presented for embryo banking were omitted from the analysis. The likelihood of pregnancy and of live birth with ART using autologous oocytes was modeled using logistic regression, with women without prior cancer as the reference group, adjusted for woman's age, parity, cumulative FSH dosage, infertility diagnosis, number of diagnoses, number of ART cycles, State of residency and year of ART treatment. Results of the modeling are reported as adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and (95% confidence intervals). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The study population included 53 426 women; 441 women were diagnosed with cancer within 5 years prior to ART cycle start. Mean (±SD) age at cancer diagnosis was 33.4 ± 5.7 years; age at start of ART treatment was 34.9 ± 5.8 for women with cancer compared with 35.3 ± 5.3 years for women without cancer (P = 0.03). Live birth rates among women using autologous oocytes differed substantially by cancer status (47.7% without cancer versus 24.7% with cancer, P < 0.0001), and cancer diagnosis (ranging from 53.5% for melanoma to 14.3% for breast cancer, P < 0.0001. The live birth rates among women using donor oocytes did not vary significantly by cancer status (60.4% for women with any cancer versus 64.5% for women without cancer), or by cancer diagnosis (ranging from 57.9% for breast cancer to 63.6% for endocrine cancer). Women with breast cancer make up about one-third of all cancers in this cohort. Among women with breast cancer, 2.8% of the 106 women who underwent ART within 6 months of being diagnosed with cancer used donor oocytes compared with 34.8% of the 46 women who received ART treatment a longer time after being diagnosed with cancer (P < 0.0001). We conjecture that the former group were either unaware that they had cancer or decided to undergo ART therapy prior to cancer treatment. However, their live birth rate was only 11.7% compared with 28.8%, the overall live birth rate for all women with cancer using autologous oocytes (P < 0.0001). The live birth rate for women diagnosed with breast cancer more than 6 months before ART (23.3%) did not differ significantly from the overall live birth rate for cancer (P = 0.49). If this difference is substantiated by a larger study, it would indicate a negative effect of severe recent illness itself on ART success, rather than the poor outcome being only related to the destructive effects of chemotherapies on ovarian follicles. Alternatively, because of the short time difference between cancer diagnosis and ART treatment, these pre-existing cancers may have been detected due to the increased medical surveillance during ART therapy. In women who only used autologous oocytes, women with prior cancers were significantly less likely to become pregnant and to have a live birth than those without cancer (adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 0.34, [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.27, 0.42] and 0.36 [0.28, 0.46], respectively). This was also evident with specific cancer diagnoses: breast cancer (0.20 [0.13, 0.32] and 0.19 [0.11, 0.30], respectively), cervical cancer (0.36 [0.15, 0.87] and 0.33 [0.13, 0.84], respectively) and all female genital cancers (0.49 [0.27, 0.87] and 0.47 [0.25, 0.86], respectively). Of note, among women with cancer who became pregnant, their likelihood of having a live birth did not differ significantly from women without cancer (85.8 versus 86.7% for women using autologous oocytes, and 85.3 versus 86.9% for women using donor oocytes). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Women may not have been residents of the individual States for the entire 5-year pre-ART period, and therefore some cancers may not have been identified through this linkage. As a result, the actual observed number of cancers may be an underestimate. In addition, the overall prevalence is low due to the age distributions. Also, because we restricted the pre-ART period to 5 years prior, we would not have identified women who were survivors of early childhood cancers (younger than age 13 years at cancer diagnosis), or who had ART more than 5 years after being diagnosed with cancer. Additional analyses are currently underway evaluating live birth outcomes after embryo banking among women with cancer prior to ART, cycles which were excluded from the analyses in this paper. Future studies are planned which will include more States, as well as linkages to vital records to obtain information on spontaneous conceptions and births, to further clarify some of the issues raised in this analysis. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Since the live birth rates using donor oocytes were not reduced in women with a prior cancer, but were reduced with autologous cycles, this suggests that factors acting in the pre- or peri-conceptional periods may be responsible for the decline. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS The study was funded by grant R01 CA151973 from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, USA. B.L. is a research consultant for the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. All other authors report no conflict of interest.

Background Our aim was to increase understanding of how patient selection is handled by assisted reproductive technology (ART) clinicians. Methods Ethically complex case scenarios were evaluated by the directors of USA ART clinics. Scenarios included using a son as sperm donor for his father, sex selection without associated disease, treatment of morally irresponsible couples, and a dispute over embryo disposition. Respondents reviewed eight scenarios and gave their opinions on whether to offer treatment. Reasons given for these decisions were placed into one of 13 categories. Results Survey response rate was 57%. Between 3 and 50% of respondents would treat in each case. Of reasons given, 'conditional' responses (requiring counselling, blood tests or agreement to other 'conditions') were common (31.4%). Non-maleficence (risk) accounted for 29.4% of responses, philosophy of medicine 18.9%, respect for patient autonomy 5.9% and legal concerns 4.6%. Discrimination and threats were each significant in one case. Reasons evoking absolutist beliefs, personal discomfort, commitment to justice, religion and ethical relativism were rare. Conclusions Clinicians felt conflict between a desire to respect patient autonomy and their discomfort over the risk associated with the procedure. They raised concerns about misuse of medical technology. Attempts to resolve complex issues through negotiation and compromise were common.