Influence of subfertility and assisted reproductive technology treatment on mortality of women after delivery

Fertility drugs and cancer: a guideline

Methodological limitations in studying the association between the use of fertility drugs and cancer include the inherent increased risk of cancer in women who never conceive, the increased risk of cancer because of factors (endometriosis and unopposed estrogen) associated with infertility, the low incidence of most of these cancers, and that the diagnosis of cancer is typically several years after fertility drug use. On the basis of available data, there does not appear to be an association between fertility drugs and breast, colon, or cervical cancer. There is no conclusive evidence that fertility drugs increase the risk of uterine cancer, although women with infertility are at higher risk of uterine cancer. There are insufficient data to comment on the risk of melanoma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma associated with fertility drug use. Women should be informed that there may be an increased risk of invasive and borderline ovarian cancers and thyroid cancer associated with fertility treatment. It is difficult to determine whether this risk is related to underlying endometriosis, female infertility, or nulliparity.

Assisted Reproductive Technology or Infertility: What underlies adverse outcomes? Lessons from the Massachusetts Outcome Study of Assisted Reproductive Technology

Numerous studies have demonstrated that assisted reproductive technology (ART: defined here as including only in vitro fertilization and related technologies) is associated with increased adverse pregnancy, neonatal, and childhood developmental outcomes, even in singletons. The comparison group for many had often been a fertile population that conceived without assistance. The Massachusetts Outcome Study of Assisted Reproductive Technology (MOSART) was initiated to define a subfertile population with which to compare ART outcomes. Over more than 10 years, we have used the MOSART database to study pregnancy abnormalities and delivery complications but also to evaluate ongoing health of women, infants, and children. This article will review studies from MOSART in the context of how they compare with those of other investigations. We will present MOSART studies that identified the influence of ART and subfertility/infertility on adverse pregnancy (pregnancy hypertensive disorder, gestational diabetes, placental abnormality) and delivery (preterm birth, low birthweight) outcomes as well as on maternal and child hospitalizations. We will provide evidence that although subfertility/infertility increases the risk of adverse outcomes, there is additional risk associated with the use of ART. Studies exploring the contribution of placental abnormalities as one factor adding to this increased ART-associated risk will be described.

RUBIC (ReproUnion Biobank and Infertility Cohort): A binational clinical foundation to study risk factors, life course, and treatment of infertility and infertility-related morbidity

BACKGROUND

Infertility affects 15%-25% of all couples during their reproductive life span. It is a significant societal and public health problem with potential psychological, social, and economic consequences. Furthermore, infertility has been linked to adverse long-term health outcomes. Despite the advanced diagnostic and therapeutic techniques available, approximately 30% of infertile couples do not obtain a live birth after fertility treatment. For these couples, there are no further options to increase their chances of a successful pregnancy and live birth.

OBJECTIVES

Three overall questions will be studied: (1) What are the risk factors and natural life courses of infertility, early embryonic loss, and adverse pregnancy outcomes? (2) Can we develop new diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for fecundity and treatment success? And (3) what are the health characteristics of women and men in infertile couples at the time of fertility treatment and during long-term follow-up?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

ReproUnion Biobank and Infertility Cohort (RUBIC) is established as an add-on to the routine fertility management at Copenhagen University Hospital Departments in the Capital Region of Denmark and Reproductive Medicine Centre at Skåne University Hospital in Sweden. The aim is to include a total of 5000 couples equally distributed between Denmark and Sweden. The first patients were enrolled in June 2020. All eligible infertile couples are prospectively asked to participate in the project. Participants complete an extensive questionnaire and undergo a physical examination and collection of biospecimens (blood, urine, hair, saliva, rectal swabs, feces, semen, endometrial biopsies, and vaginal swabs). After the cohort is established, the couples will be linked to the Danish and Swedish national registers to obtain information on parental, perinatal, childhood, and adult life histories, including disease and medication history. This will enable us to understand the causes of infertility and identify novel therapeutic options for this important societal problem.

Optimizing the control group for evaluating ART outcomes: can outpatient claims data yield a better control group?

Purpose

We previously developed a subfertile comparison group with which to compare outcomes of assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment. In this study, we evaluated whether insurance claims data in the Massachusetts All Payers Claims Database (APCD) defined a more appropriate comparison group.

Methods

We used Massachusetts vital records of women who delivered between 2013 and 2017 on whom APCD data were available. ART deliveries were those linked to a national ART database. Deliveries were subfertile if fertility treatment was marked on the birth certificate, had prior hospitalization with ICD code for infertility, or prior fertility treatment. An infertile group included women with an APCD outpatient or inpatient ICD 9/10 infertility code prior to delivery. Fertile deliveries were none of the above. Demographics, health risks, and obstetric outcomes were compared among groups. Multivariable generalized estimating equations were used to calculate adjusted relative risk (aRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

There were 70,726 fertile, 4,763 subfertile, 11,970 infertile, and 7,689 ART-treated deliveries. Only 3,297 deliveries were identified as both subfertile and infertile. Both subfertile and infertile were older, and had more education, chronic hypertension, and diabetes than the fertile group and less than the ART-treated group. Prematurity (aRR = 1.15–1.17) and birthweight (aRR = 1.10–1.21) were increased in all groups compared with the fertile group.

Conclusion

Although the APCD allowed identification of more women than the previously defined subfertile categorization and allowed us to remove previously unidentified infertile women from the fertile group, it is not clear that it offered a clinically significantly improved comparison group.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10815-021-02111-6.