Assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs): evaluation of evidence to support public policy development

Alexa A Nardelli, Tania Stafinski, Tarek Motan, Kristin Klein, Devidas Menon, Alexa A Nardelli, Tania Stafinski, Tarek Motan, Kristin Klein, Devidas Menon

Abstract

Over the years, IVF/ICSI protocols have continued to evolve with efforts to improve outcomes. As a result, treatment success may be related to certain procedural factors, including number of embryos transferred and stage at which they are transferred. This review aims to assess the safety and effectiveness of IVF/ICSI in comparison to spontaneous conception and less invasive ARTs and the impact of procedure-related factors on the outcomes of IVF/ICSI in order to support the development of local clinical and policy guidance. Following Cochrane Collaboration guidelines and the PRISMA statement, a comprehensive systematic review of literature examining the impact of procedural characteristics on the safety or effectiveness of IVF/ICSI from 2007 to date was performed. 33 systematic reviews and 3 primary studies evaluating the impact of procedural differences, IVF/ICSI in comparison to less invasive ARTs, and ARTs in comparison to spontaneous conception were found. IVF was shown to offer significant benefits over no treatment and IUI in achieving pregnancy and live birth among couples with endometriosis or unexplained infertility. Frozen and blastocyst-stage embryo transfers were as effective as fresh and cleavage-stage embryo transfers, respectively. In comparison to single embryo transfer, double embryo transfer significantly increased pregnancy, live birth and multiple pregnancy/birth rates. IVF/ICSI was associated with more complications during pregnancy and delivery, and in infants compared to naturally conceived pregnancies, particularly when multiple embryo transfer was used. Frozen embryo transfer had fewer adverse events during pregnancy and delivery than fresh embryo transfer, and was at least as safe in terms of infant outcomes. The potential complications of IVF/ICSI may be minimized through procedural choices, but such choices often impact effectiveness. Thus, in developing clinical and policy guidance around IVF/ICSI, the risk-benefit trade-offs patients and providers are willing to accept must be carefully considered.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flowchart of literature search results and study selection for safety and clinical effectiveness review: systematic reviews.
Figure 2
Figure 2
PRISMA flowchart of literature search results and study selection for safety and clinical effectiveness review: additional primary studies.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Quality of systematic reviews: Oxman and Guyatt index of scientific quality for systematic reviews.

References

    1. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, De MJ, Ishihara O, Mansour R, Nygren K, Sullivan E, Vanderpoel S. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) revised glossary of ART terminology, 2009. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1520–1524. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.09.009.
    1. Fertility: Assessment and Treatment for People with Fertility Problems (update). Draft Guidance for Stakeholder Consultation. 2012, London: RCOG Press/National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)
    1. Gurunath S, Pandian Z, Anderson RA, Bhattacharya S. Defining infertility-a systematic review of prevalence studies. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:575–588. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmr015.
    1. Norris S. Reproductive Infertility: Prevalence, Causes, Trends and Treatments. Ottawa: Library of Parliament. Parliamentary Research Branch; 2001.
    1. Fertility: Assessment and Management (update). Scope. 2010, London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)
    1. Jose-Miller AB, Boyden JW, Frey KA. Infertility. Am Fam Physician. 2007;75:849–856.
    1. Homan GF, Davies M, Norman R. The impact of lifestyle factors on reproductive performance in the general population and those undergoing infertility treatment: a review. Hum Reprod Update. 2007;13:209–223. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dml056.
    1. American Society for Reproductive Medicine Smoking and infertility: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:1400–1406. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.07.1146.
    1. Dondorp W, de Wert G, Pennings G, Shenfield F, Devroey P, Tarlatzis B, Barri P. Lifestyle-related factors and access to medically assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:578–583. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deq012.
    1. Infertility FAQs. 2011, Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
    1. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Volume v.5.1.0. 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration, updated March 2011
    1. Dunn AL, Stafinski T, Menon P. An International Survey of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ARTs) Policies and the Effects of these Policies on Costs, Utilization, and Health Outcomes. Health Policy. 2014;116:238. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.03.006.
    1. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:37–46. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000104.
    1. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:1271–1278. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90160-B.
    1. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. The Oxman & Guyatt index of scientific quality [scoring system for systematic review] Bandolier Professional. 2003;7:1–10.
    1. ᅟ . ⊠: Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence. Oxford (UK): Oxford Centre for Evidence-based medicine; 2011.
    1. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Meerpohl J, Norris S, Guyatt GH. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:401–406. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015.
    1. Wen J, Jiang J, Ding C, Dai J, Liu Y, Xia Y, Liu J, Hu Z. Birth defects in children conceived by in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:1331–1337. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.02.053.
    1. Rossi AC, D’Addario V. Neonatal outcomes of assisted and naturally conceived twins: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Perinat Med. 2011;39:489–493. doi: 10.1515/jpm.2011.058.
    1. Wilson CL, Fisher JR, Hammarberg K, Amor DJ, Halliday JL. Looking downstream: a review of the literature on physical and psychosocial health outcomes in adolescents and young adults who were conceived by ART. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1209–1219. doi: 10.1093/humrep/der041.
    1. McDonald SD, Han Z, Mulla S, Ohlsson A, Beyene J, Murphy KE. Preterm birth and low birth weight among in vitro fertilization twins: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;148:105–113. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.09.019.
    1. McDonald SD, Han Z, Mulla S, Murphy KE, Beyene J, Ohlsson A. Preterm birth and low birth weight among in vitro fertilization singletons: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;146:138–148. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.05.035.
    1. Hvidtjorn D, Schieve L, Schendel D, Jacobsson B, Svaerke C, Thorsen P. Cerebral palsy, autism spectrum disorders, and developmental delay in children born after assisted conception: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009;163:72–83. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2008.507.
    1. Vitthala S, Gelbaya TA, Brison DR, Fitzgerald CT, Nardo LG. The risk of monozygotic twins after assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2009;15:45–55. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmn045.
    1. Bertelsmann H, de Carvalho GH, Mund M, Bauer S, Matthias K. The risk of malformation following assisted reproduction. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2008;105:11–17.
    1. Middelburg KJ, Heineman MJ, Bos AF, Hadders-Algra M. Neuromotor, cognitive, language and behavioural outcome in children born following IVF or ICSI-a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2008;14:219–231. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmn005.
    1. Farhi J, Fisch B. Risk of major congenital malformations associated with infertility and its treatment by extent of iatrogenic intervention. Pediatr Endocrinol Rev. 2007;4:352–357.
    1. Pandey S, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S, Maheshwari A. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18:485–503. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dms018.
    1. Grady R, Alavi N, Vale R, Khandwala M, McDonald SD. Elective single embryo transfer and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:324–331. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.11.033.
    1. Pandian Z, Gibreel A, Bhattacharya S. In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;4:CD003357.
    1. Pinborg A, Wennerholm UB, Romundstad LB, Loft A, Aittomaki K, Soderstrom-Anttila V, Nygren KG, Hazekamp J, Bergh C. Why do singletons conceived after assisted reproduction technology have adverse perinatal outcome? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;19:87–104. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dms044.
    1. Hansen M, Kurinczuk JJ, Milne E, de Klerk N, Bower C. Assisted reproductive technology and birth defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19:330–353. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmt006.
    1. Hart R, Norman RJ. The longer-term health outcomes for children born as a result of IVF treatment: Part I-General health outcomes. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19:232–243. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dms062.
    1. Hart R, Norman RJ. The longer-term health outcomes for children born as a result of IVF treatment. Part II: mental health and development outcomes. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19:244–250. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmt002.
    1. Thomopoulos C, Tsioufis C, Michalopoulou H, Makris T, Papademetriou V, Stefanadis C. Assisted reproductive technology and pregnancy-related hypertensive complications: a systematic review. J Hum Hypertens. 2013;27:148–157. doi: 10.1038/jhh.2012.13.
    1. McLernon DJ, Harrild K, Bergh C, Davies MJ, De ND, Dumoulin JC, Gerris J, Kremer JA, Martikainen H, Mol BW, Norman RJ, Thurin-Kjellberg A, Tiitinen A, van Montfoort AP, van Peperstraten AM, Van Royen E, Bhattacharya S. Clinical effectiveness of elective single versus double embryo transfer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;341:c6945. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c6945.
    1. Gelbaya TA, Tsoumpou I, Nardo LG. The likelihood of live birth and multiple birth after single versus double embryo transfer at the cleavage stage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:936–945. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.04.003.
    1. Baruffi RL, Mauri AL, Petersen CG, Nicoletti A, Pontes A, Oliveira JB, Franco JG. Single-embryo transfer reduces clinical pregnancy rates and live births in fresh IVF and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2009;7:36. doi: 10.1186/1477-7827-7-36.
    1. Pandian Z, Bhattacharya S, Ozturk O, Serour G, Templeton A. Number of embryos for transfer following in-vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;15:CD003416.
    1. van Loendersloot LL, van Wely M, Limpens J, Bossuyt PM, Repping S, van der Veen F. Predictive factors in in vitro fertilization (IVF): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16:577–589. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmq015.
    1. Jee BC, Suh CS, Kim SH. Ectopic pregnancy rates after frozen versus fresh embryo transfer: a meta-analysis. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2009;68:53–57. doi: 10.1159/000213048.
    1. D’Angelo A, Amso N. Embryo freezing for preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;18:CD002806.
    1. Wennerholm UB, Soderstrom-Anttila V, Bergh C, Aittomaki K, Hazekamp J, Nygren KG, Selbing A, Loft A. Children born after cryopreservation of embryos or oocytes: a systematic review of outcome data. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:2158–2172. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dep125.
    1. Maheshwari A, Pandey S, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from the transfer of frozen thawed versus fresh embryos generated through in vitro fertilization treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:368–377. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.05.019.
    1. Roque M, Lattes K, Serra S, Sola I, Geber S, Carreras R, Checa MA. Fresh embryo transfer versus frozen embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2012;99:156–162. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.09.003.
    1. Chang HJ, Lee JR, Jee BC, Suh CS, Kim SH. Impact of blastocyst transfer on offspring sex ratio and the monozygotic twinning rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:2381–2390. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.03.066.
    1. Papanikolaou EG, Kolibianakis EM, Tournaye H, Venetis CA, Fatemi H, Tarlatzis B, Devroey P. Live birth rates after transfer of equal number of blastocysts or cleavage-stage embryos in IVF. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:91–99. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dem339.
    1. Blake DA, Farquhar CM, Johnson N, Proctor M. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;17:CD002118.
    1. Glujovsky D, Blake D, Farquhar C, Bardach A. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;7:CD002118.
    1. Johnson N, Blake D, Farquhar C. Blastocyst or cleavage-stage embryo transfer? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;21:21–40. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2006.09.008.
    1. Fernando D, Halliday JL, Breheny S, Healy DL. Outcomes of singleton births after blastocyst versus nonblastocyst transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:579–584. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.12.032.
    1. Dar S, Librach CL, Gunby J, Bissonnette F, Cowan L. Increased risk of preterm birth in singleton pregnancies after blastocyst versus day 3 embryo transfer: Canadian ART Register (CARTR) analysis. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:924–928. doi: 10.1093/humrep/des448.
    1. van der Hoorn ML, Lashley EE, Bianchi DW, Claas FH, Schonkeren CM, Scherjon SA. Clinical and immunologic aspects of egg donation pregnancies: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16:704–712. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmq017.
    1. Keenan JA, Gissler M, Finger R. Assisted reproduction using donated embryos: outcomes from surveillance systems in six countries. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:747–752. doi: 10.1093/humrep/der459.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться