News

Do Genes Matter? Families Are Studied

 

Fertilization crop

I'm always interested in new studies and research related to human genetics. Especially because we used a donors' genetics to create our children. There is a lot of published research coming out of England that is specifically related to donor conception. I'd like to share this article with you, and wonder what your thoughts are, please feel free to comment below.

Do genes matter? Families under the microscope

02 June 2014   By Petra Nordqvist

Lecturer in Sociology, University of Manchester

Appeared in BioNews 756

There is an increasing tendency to want to explain everything human, from stress, to being gay, or having a zest for life as something that is 'in our genes'. The explosion of biomedical research into genetics recently has had a major impact on popular ideas about what defines a person; 'genetic thinking' has become so hugely influential that human life now seems almost determined by a person's genetic make-up.

This 'geneticisation of society' (1) also filters through to assumptions about family life. There is a tendency to think that genetic relationships are the relationships that really matter in families, whereas non-genetic relationships are less well-recognised as important, and sometimes not even seen as 'real'.

But how do genes and genetic relationships actually matter in the messy and complex world of everyday life? Is there perhaps an argument that we need to think more critically about the supposedly ever-increasing importance of genetic links?

These questions were addressed in the event 'Do Genes Matter? Families and Donor Conception ', co-organised by the Progress Educational Trust and the Morgan Centre at the University of Manchester. It drew together a panel of speakers discussing genetic connections and family life from the legal, sociological and scientific points of view.

The event looked specifically at families through donor conception: families formed using donated eggs, sperm or embryos from a third party. Whereas genetic families might not have to think too hard about what genes mean to them, families by donor conception face a series of questions because they operate outside the framework that family relationships are defined by sharing genetic material. These families therefore offer an interesting viewpoint from which to explore the meaning and importance of genes.

Carol Smart, professor of sociology at the University of Manchester, presented findings from our recently finished sociological study 'Relative Strangers', which looked at how parents as well as grandparents experience the impact of donor conception on family life. She suggested that while people do think genes matter, the way in which they understand what genes are and what they do is far from straightforward. There was no consensus at all about how genes matter or why.

We also discovered that people are able to hold entirely contradictory views at the same time, saying that on the one hand, genes are important, and on the other, they don't matter at all. Smart gave the example of a grandmother who felt that it made no difference that her grandchildren were conceived using donor embryos, and yet wondered if perhaps her grandchildren's taste for olives was due to being conceived from a Spanish donor egg.

Erika Tranfield, co-founder of Pride Angel and member of the panel, suggested that parents and donors in non-clinical donor arrangements hold very different views on the meaning of the genetic relationships that ensue from donor conception, thus adding to the idea that the social meaning of genes is in fact very varied.

The idea that there is a need to question the meaning of genetic connections was taken further by Natalie Gamble of Natalie Gamble Associates. Gamble spoke of how courts of law perceive genetic relationships in families; cases involving donor conception andsurrogacy present some unique challenges to the courts, which are faced with the task of determining how to prioritise relationships. Gamble showed that in recent legal cases genes are both understood to determine relationships, and carry limited significance.

In the light of this complexity, it might be assumed that at least scientists know what genes are and what they do. However, Anneke Lucassen, professor of clinical genetics at the University of Southampton, persuasively argued that even from a scientific point of view, genes and the way they work are infinitely complex. She noted that only a very small proportion of genes can be relied upon to predict a person's characteristics.

The message that emerged with some force on the evening was that genetic connections operate with extraordinary complexity and that the social, scientific and legal meaning of genes is deeply varied and intricate. How we view them, the meaning we attach to them, and how they are understood to matter, shift and change. What emerged from the discussion was that it is important to view genetic relationships as one factor among a multitude of others shaping life and family relationships. The event thus provided a sobering perspective on the seemingly central significance of genes, suggesting that other things matter too.

 

 

Read more →

Young People Know A Lot About Genome Sequencing

I'd like to share this article with you. It's another reminder for parents of donor conceived children to inform their child's genetic origins with them from an early age. Technology and the genetic sciences are moving at lightening speed, and is a lot like parenting. Before we know it our young toddlers will be entering high school. Inquisitive minds always search for a path to understanding who they are, let them hear it from you first.

By BioNews Appeared in BioNews 773

Young people are surprisingly well-informed about the basics of genetics and thoughtful about the kind of information they'd like to receive from genome studies, results from an international survey suggest.

'While it's a little premature to start speaking of "genomic natives" as the media does about "digital natives", our results show that young people's understanding of genetics is at least on a par with adults'', said Dr Anna Middleton - senior scientist at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridge, and co-lead researcher of the GenomEthics study.

Research using whole genome sequencing (WGS) technologies - where all of a person's DNA is decoded - is increasingly common, but there are many dilemmas over what information, if any, should be given to research participants.

The GenomEthics study, run by researchers at the Sanger Institute, seeks to resolve some of these dilemmas by asking people directly what they think via an online questionnaire available at the GenomEthics website.

The questionnaire was not designed with young people in mind, but when the first tranche of completed surveys were analysed, 222 out of the 6,944 respondents were found to be 19 or younger, giving researchers a unique insight into the generation growing up as WGS nears widespread use.

Participants' understanding of genetics was assessed by asking two true-or-false questions: 'A condition is only genetic if more than one family member is affected' (correct answer – false), and 'Some genetic conditions express themselves later in adult life' (true). Young respondents gave correct answers in 75 percent and 95 percent of cases respectively. This did not represent a significant difference from the accuracy of adults' responses.

Furthermore, Dr Middleton says that her preconceived ideas of how young people would answer were scotched in two important areas.

For one, she says, 'I thought young people would be fearless and they'd just want to know everything from the raw data. In fact, they were slightly more likely than adults to be "information discriminators", that is they were slightly more cautious in selecting the information they would like access to'.

It would appear from the survey that whether or not young people wanted access to personal genetic information was largely determined by its usefulness. In other words, they were more likely to want information about a genetic variant predisposing to a preventable medical condition than an unpreventable one.

The second surprise was that, when it came to how they wanted the information to be presented, younger respondents were rather traditional.

'I assumed that younger respondents would mostly want information to be delivered electronically and wouldn't be interested in engaging with health professionals', says Dr Middleton. 'That was not the case at all'.

Indeed, in response to the question 'How should information relating to serious life-threatening conditions be delivered?' 85 percent favoured direct contact with a health professional.

However, despite the reassuring signs from the survey that young people are thoughtful, well-informed and well-prepared for the genomics revolution, Dr Middleton has this message for policymakers: 'Getting genomics onto the school curriculum remains an absolutely urgent issue. It is being introduced and young people need to understand that knowing something about genomics will be relevant for the whole of their lives. Genomics is what connects us all. Not only is it relevant to our health, but it explains who we are'.

'Very soon, the NHS will be embracing genomic data on a large scale and that means that it is likely to crop up during routine engagements with healthcare professionals. At least knowing the basics about genetics will put young people ahead of the game'.

 

Dr Anna Middleton was talking about her work prior to her presentation 'Young people and sequencing technologies: confusion and clarity' given on Tuesday 23 September 2014 at the British Society for Genetic Medicine's annual conference at the Liverpool Arena and Convention Centre.

Read more →

Calling All Parents of a donor-conceived child aged 4 - 17, A Research Study

Little girl Research studies like this are often done in other countries such as the UK, Canada, and Australia. However, this one is being conducted in the US. Please help, we need more support in the US for communication information to help us be the best parents we can. They say that the survey takes about 20 minutes, but really it's more like 10 minutes. Here are the details: The Family Communication Project (FCP) is a collaborative research effort lead by Dr. Martha Rueter at University of Minnesota. The FCP team includes researchers from across the U.S. and the families who participate in FCP research studies. Working together, team members are helping to understand how to promote children’s health and well-being through family communication. If you would like to talk to Dr.Rueter to learn more about the FCP, please give a call at (612) 625-3163 or email Dr.Rueter at mrueter@umn.edu. You can also check out our website at: http://www.cehd.umn.edu/fsos/projects/fcp/ or our Facebook page at: https://www.facebook.com/umnfcp?ref=hl. This 20-minute online survey ask about your child(ren) and your experiences as a parent. To be eligible for this study, you must be over 18 and be a parent or primary caregiver of a donor-conceived child aged 4 - 17. If you are interested, please click on the link below to fill out the survey. Please complete it as soon as you are able. http://www.cehd.umn.edu/fsos/projects/fcp/survey.html Thank you so much for your help with this important study!
Read more →

This is National Infertility Awareness Week - "Nobless Oblige"

In honor of RESOLVE.org and their tireless efforts for the last 25 years, we are giving away 7 of our hardcover keepsake children's books to the infertility awareness community! Enter to win here: http://tinyurl.com/kcmvs3e Infertile couples who have to use fertility treatments to get pregnant usually don’t need to go to the extent of using a third party donor – but some do

April 20th-26th, 2014 in the United States, is National Infertility Awareness Week. And to participate in this event, we created an infographic we'd like to share with you titled "Resolve to Know More About Parenting After Infertility." (scroll down to view) Infertile couples who have to use fertility treatments to get pregnant usually don’t need to go to the extent of using a third party donor – but some do, like us. We are the fortunate ones. And this reminds us of the old French saying "Noblesse oblige" which literally translates to imply that with wealth, power, and prestige come responsibilities. A more broadly accepted definition is a general obligation for the more fortunate to help the less fortunate. And as in our case, for those of us who have been there, suffering alongside all the other infertile couples, we understand. However, because we did succeed, and others didn't, we can only understand up to a point. We will never really understand or know the heartbreaking pain of those that didn't succeed. Empathy can only go so far, but awareness goes further, and this is where we can help.

Because of infertility awareness and the advances of Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) the number of donor conceived births are increasing worldwide. The climate for openness on this topic has also been increasing with the number of support groups and networks for parents and their children (i.e.RESOLVE.org and Donor Sibling Registry, and Donor Conception Network UK). Parents of donor conceived children are not alone, and talking about it and sharing awareness about it with your family, friends and most importantly your child could clearly be considered an "oblige." 

According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) approximately 12% of fertility patients use donor eggs and embryos. And an estimated 30,000-60,000 children born in this country via artificial insemination are from donor sperm. Those are only two of the findings included in our new infographic. (see below, and share) This infographic advocates the importance for parents to tell their donor conceived children about their unique beginnings. Parents who used an egg donor, or a sperm donor go through quite a different process in order to conceive, but are similar in that one of the child’s parents is not genetically related. This is where the crux of disclosure becomes important. Factual genetic information is something you want your child(ren) to be aware of. Not just for physical appearance and medical reasons, but also as an opportunity for parents to present “honesty and trust” early on as the foundation of their own family culture.

When a child is conceived this way, parents must decide whether to tell their child or keep this information private. This may be a difficult choice to make for various reasons and sometimes parents do not know where to begin. Parents may ask “why” and “how” and “when?” At first, the thought of telling your child about their donor origins may seem like a difficult topic to broach, but it doesn’t have to be. In our experience raising our own donor conceived children, along with research, data and inquiry from professional family psychologists have all concluded, that telling your child about their genetic origins at an early age, is best for the child.

That is what inspired us to write and illustrate our own children’s book “How We Became a Family” (for ages 2-10). We wanted to write a book that we could read to our children that included the facts of nature, science, the help of a donor and the possibility of a multiple birth. And we want to help you, other parents like us, who have struggled with infertility to struggle less, and to be at ease with telling your child early on, one step at a time. Our children’s book “How We Became a Family” is a tool that helps parents begin the process of telling in an easy way.”

TellYourChild-FNL_w

Read more →

Canada Funds IVF For Infertil Couples

Ontario to fund in-vitro fertilization with a caveat — one embryo at a time to cut risky multiple birthsivf_-_process

Above photo, Microscope: a 3-day-old, 8-cell embryo created through in vitro fertilization is held in place with a pipette (left) while a drill makes a hole in the right wall of the embryo shell at Abington Reproductive Medicine, in Abington, Pennsylvania, during an embryo screening process.
 | April 9, 2014 7:37 PM ET
The Ontario government announced Thursday it will become only the second province in Canada to fund in-vitro fertilization [IVF] for people unable to have children otherwise, a move specialists have long urged to help curb the country’s epidemic of risky multiple births. The province will pay for the cost of one “cycle” of IVF treatment per patient suffering from “all forms of infertility,” said Deb Matthews, the Ontario Health Minister. The government will also set up an advisory body to ensure high-quality practices are followed, including ensuring that only one embryo is used per treatment. So-called single-embryo transfer has  been shown elsewhere to cut the number of twins, triplets and other multiples that result. Patients paying for the service out of pocket now usually have two or more embryos transferred to increase their chances of pregnancy.
“Supporting the safe use of modern IVF treatment will result in fewer high risk pregnancies – while at the same time helping thousands of Ontarians realize their dream of having their own family,” Ms. Matthews said in a statement. Critics, though, say taxpayers will essentially be tackling a problem created by the for-profit fertility field, which is now holding governments “to ransom” — and call IVF funding a generally questionable allocation of scarce health dollars. The government said the new policy would cover the cost of IVF for 4,000 more people a year – facing both “medical and non-medical” impediments to having children – at an estimated annual cost of about $50 million. Word that Ontario would join Quebec in more widely financing the procedure — which costs in the range of $10,000 — was welcomed heartily by patients and fertility doctors.
“Patients … are absolutely thrilled,” said Gloria Poirier, acting head of the Infertility Awareness Association of Canada. “[To afford IVF] some people are remortgaging their house, some people are not buying their house, some people are getting their inheritance from their parents early. It’s a huge financial burden.” Art Leader, an Ottawa fertility doctor who co-authored an advisory report that urged the Liberals in 2009 to pay for IVF, said he was “delighted” the government is going ahead with the idea. “It’s the smart thing to do, in terms of cost savings and avoiding twins and higher-order multiples,” said Dr. Leader. “And it’s also the right thing to do because these people suffer from an illness.… Infertility is recognized as a disease.” But Amir Attaran, a professor of law and population health at the University of Ottawa who filed a human rights complaint over the lack of IVF funding, said he is skeptical about the announcement, saying the Liberals made a similar promise in 2007 and didn’t deliver on it. The province also received expert advice in 2009 that the most cost-effective approach is to fund three in-vitro cycles per patient, not just one, said Prof. Attaran. The number of multiples born in Canada has soared in the last few decades as IVF and other fertility treatments have become increasingly popular, though the rate dipped slightly in 2012. Multiples have a greater risk of complications at birth and long-term health problems, their treatment assumed by the public health-care system.
When Quebec began funding IVF in 2010 — with the proviso that only one embryo could be transferred per “cycle” — the rate of multiple births from the treatments dropped to 7.9% from 30%, which experts say has saved hundreds of millions of dollars. The program has proven more popular than expected, though, with Quebec spending $60-million a year for about 8,000 treatments. The province began a review of the policy last year, as some doctors questioned whether single mothers, same-sex couples and others with no medical infertility problems should be eligible. Perhaps more fundamentally, fertility specialists ought not hold the medicare system “to ransom” by agreeing to restrict the number of embryos only if the procedure was covered by medicare, said Francoise Baylis, a bioethicist at Dalhousie University and long-time expert on the field.“Doctors should practice good medicine,” said Prof. Baylis. “You should not be creating multiple births, and you can’t turn around and say to the government ‘the only way for me to practice good medicine is for you to fund it.’ ”
It is not the industry or physicians who are resisting single-embryo transfer, however, it is financially stretched patients who want the best chance at pregnancy with each treatment, said Dr. Leader.
Prof. Baylis also said funding fertility treatment should not be a priority in light of the many other, more pressing demands on the system — from the need for more family doctors to making medication affordable for everyone. But Sara Cohen, a Toronto-based fertility lawyer, said there is no reason why assisted reproduction should be considered less important than any other service funded by medicare. “It isn’t appropriate to pick and choose which types of health care ought to be funded,” she said. “It also doesn’t sit well with me that individuals who have the means to access treatment are better able to build their families when faced with infertility than are individuals without the means to do so.” Ontario actually does fund about 2,000 IVF treatments a year currently, but only for women whose fallopian tubes are blocked because of disease or surgery, said Dr. Leader. Another 6,000 IVF treatments are paid for by the patients themselves, he said. Read Full Article here: http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/04/09/ontario-to-fund-in-vitro-fertilization-with-a-caveat-one-embryo-at-a-time-to-cut-risky-multiple-births/  
Read more →

First British women to have £1,000 'no-frills' IVF: Budget procedure

article

Procedure inspired by Alka-Seltzer to be available within weeks

  • Newly developed method economizes on expensive drugs and incubators
  • Instead it uses cheap test-tube set and reaction inspired by hangover pills
  • However, expert warns that the new procedure may not work for all women
By FIONA MACRAE  30 January 2014 A ‘no-frills’ IVF treatment costing under £1,000 should be available to British women within weeks. The budget procedure, which was developed last year, economises on expensive drugs and incubators. Instead, it uses a cheap test-tube set and a chemical reaction inspired by Alka-Seltzer hangover tablets.

Despite its low-tech approach, a pilot study showed the treatment to be at least as effective as the conventional equivalent, which costs up  to £15,000. Dr Geeta Nargund, of the Walking Egg foundation, who is bringing the procedure to Britain, believes it will allow the NHS to pay for more  IVF treatments. Thousands of women are denied IVF each year because health trusts cannot afford the cost, leaving patients to choose between finding the thousands of pounds needed to go private or remain childless.

The cheap new technique has been tested in Belgium, where a third of the women involved became pregnant, resulting in 16 births. Dr Nargund’s London clinic, Create, will now treat 50 women aged 37 or younger, comparing their progress with 50 given normal IVF. If the study is a success, the technique could be generally available by later this year. Although the no-frills women will be charged under £1,000, and Dr Nargund insists this will be the cost of the procedure, other doctors have warned that the final commercial price may be higher. The huge savings are possible because the new treatment does without an array of expensive equipment. An embryo must be grown in a nutrient mixture that is neither too acidic nor too alkaline. This is achieved by pumping expensive, medical-grade carbon dioxide into an incubator, which itself must be in a room kept sterile with purified air. But Professor Jonathan Van Blerkom, of the University of Colorado, showed it was possible to provide the gas by dissolving an Alka-Seltzer tablet in water. He then moved on to using baking soda mixed with citric acid.

 

Inspiration: Professor Jonathan Van Blerkom showed it was possible to make the gas needed for IVF by dissolving Alka-Seltzer tablets in water rather than an incubator, he used two rubber-stoppered test-tubes costing 7p and connected by a plastic tube. The gas is made in the first and travels up the tube to the second. The eggs and sperm are injected into the second tube, where, if all goes well, at least one egg is fertilised. The stoppers keep everything airtight, removing the need for purified air, and the embryos grow inside the tube. After three to five days, they are ready for transfer to the womb.
The process uses fewer drugs at lower doses, which cuts costs and should lead to fewer, higher quality embryos, meaning the costs of selecting screening for genetic faults and freezing spare embryos should be reduced. There may also be less need for expensive sperm injections. Professor Van Blerkom, whose main aim was to help couples in the developing world, said: ‘The embryos don’t know if they are living in an expensive incubator and a lab with purified air or in a little tube. They don’t care. There’s nothing magical.’
Dr Nargund, whose Walking Egg Foundation is planning to launch the kit in the developing world, said: ‘I see couples in my NHS work who are in tears when they learn there is no funding and they have no money to pay for private treatment. ‘We have an obligation to reduce costs as much as we can and increase accessibility.’ In an editorial in the journal Reproductive Biomedicine Online, Martin Johnson, emeritus professor of reproductive sciences at Cambridge University, described the results so far as ‘encouragingly impressive’. However, he warned against raising false hope, saying that the technique won’t be suitable for all couples.
This will make it difficult to lower costs in western clinics, because they will still need to have the staff, equipment and expertise to offer conventional treatments. Dr Allan Pacey, a Sheffield University fertility expert, said: ‘We should be realistic about how and when it might change the face of IVF in high-resource countries like the UK. This may never happen but it is laudable to try.’ See original story here
Read more →

More Women Successfully Using Egg Donors

usatodayphoto

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More U.S. women are attempting to have children using eggs donated by other women and taking home healthy babies as a result, a new study shows. Fertility clinics reported 18,306 procedures using fresh or frozen donated eggs in 2010, up from 10,801 in 2000, according to the study published online by the Journal of the American Medical Association, or JAMA, and presented Thursday in Boston at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the International Federation of Fertility Societies. Nearly one-quarter of the women who used donor eggs in 2010 ended up with what doctors consider an optimum outcome: a single baby, born after at least 37 weeks of pregnancy, weighing at least 5.5 pounds, the study found. That's up from 18.5% in 2000. "There's still room for improvement," but the trends are encouraging for couples increasingly looking for ways to extend child-bearing years, says lead author Jennifer Kawwass, a fellow in reproductive endocrinology and infertility at the Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta.

Donor eggs often are used by women who are older than 35 and having trouble becoming pregnant because their own viable eggs are in short supply. However, the study shows that traditional in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures – in which women use their own eggs, with sperm from their partner or a donor – remain much more common, comprising 89% of procedures in 2010. Older women who use their own eggs are less likely to end up with a baby, but "for most people, the desire to have a child that is genetically from both parents is very strong," says Evan Myers, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C. "Donor eggs are still often seen as a last resort."

In an editorial accompanying the study, Myers says the fact that poor birth outcomes did not increase as the ages of egg recipients increased suggests that using donor eggs from younger women may help prevent pregnancy complications usually associated with a woman's age – something that should be further studied. Recipients had an average of age of 41 and donors an average age of 28 in 2010, about the same as in 2000, the study found. The study did not look at health effects on donors, who typically are paid $5,000 to $10,000 for undergoing a month of fertility drug treatments and an egg retrieval procedure. Myers says more study is needed, especially to learn how many donors suffer a complication known as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome – which can cause rapid weight gain, abdominal pain and other symptoms.

The study did have data on one important safety consideration for recipients and their babies: the number of embryos placed in each prospective mother's womb. Since risks increase with multiple fetuses, the reproductive medicine society recommends that patients and doctors use no more than two embryos and consider using a single embryo when the donor is under age 35. In 2000, single embryos were used less than 1% of the time; in 2010, they were used in 14.5% of cases, the study found.

The fact that most patients still got more than one embryo largely reflects patient preferences, says William Schlaff, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Jefferson University Hospitals, Philadelphia. Schlaff, who was not involved in the study, says many patients are willing to take the risk of having twins to raise their chances of having at least one baby and to decrease costs. Some, he says, are eager for twins: "They come in saying 'We only want to do this once.' " About 56% of couples who used fresh eggs in 2010 took home babies and two-thirds of those couples had just one baby, Kawwass says. About one third had twins and fewer than 1% had triplets. Two-thirds of the single babies, 25% of the twins and just 1% of triplets were born after 37 weeks and at a healthy weight, she says. The study did not look at similar outcomes for frozen eggs. Data for the study came from 443 clinics reporting to a registry maintained by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The clinics represent 93% of such facilities in the United States This story is from usatoday.com: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/17/donor-egg-pregnancy/2996959/

Read more →

IVF twins do just as well as natural twins

singleton-twins-triplets-w

Nearly all aspects of the development of IVF and natural twins are similar

November 2011 - Researchers from the Dutch Twin Register (NTR) from a large number of twin pairs compared the development of twins born after assisted reproductive techniques and pregnancy with twins naturally arose. An examination of the researchers of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam shows that IVF twins do just as well as natural twins.

1500 twins studied. The study covered the birth, growth, motor and behavioral development of 1500 twins by IVF (artificial reproduction by so-called in vitro fertilization) compared with twins born after a spontaneous pregnancy. The data on children from their parents and teachers. Higher risk of complications VU professor Dorret Boomsma: "Existing research on the development of IVF children are focused on singletons. A significant part of the IVF treatments, however, result in a twin pregnancy.

We already know that twin pregnancies have a higher risk of complications than singleton pregnancies. It is therefore important to examine how the development of two-and multiple births born after IVF expires. " Some of the differences The researchers found some differences: IVF twins were more often born after a caesarean (36%) than spontaneous twins (27%). Also, IVF twins after the birth a little lighter. The main outcome of the study is that the development of IVF twins is the same as that of "spontaneous" twins. The age at which children start crawling, sitting and walking is comparable between the two groups. The growth until the age of 12 is the same.

Both parents and teachers do not report more behavioral and emotional problems for IVF twins than for the twins in the natural group. In a large set of twin pairs, we compared twins born after IVF to naturally conceived twins with respect to birth characteristics, growth, attainment of motor milestones, and emotional and behavioral problems.

Twin families were registered with the Netherlands Twin Register. We included 1534 dizygotic (DZ) twins born after IVF, 5315 naturally conceived (NC) DZ twins, and 1504 control NC DZ twins who were matched to the IVF twins based on maternal age, maternal educational level, smoking during pregnancy, gestational age, and offspring sex. Data were obtained by longitudinal surveys sent to fathers, mothers, and teachers at ages 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, and 12 years. Results showed no differences in growth, in attainment of motor milestones, and in behavioral development between IVF and matched NC twins. It can be concluded that for nearly all aspects, development in IVF and NC children is similar.

Comparison Study of Naturally Conceived and IVF-DZ Twins in the Netherlands 2011
Read more →