Examining Infertility Treatment and Early Childhood Development in the Upstate KIDS Study | Child Development | JAMA Pediatrics | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.204.186.91. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Sunderam  S, Kissin  DM, Crawford  SB, Folger  SG, Jamieson  DJ, Barfield  WD; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  Assisted reproductive technology surveillance: United States, 2011.  MMWR Surveill Summ. 2014;63(10):1-28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
2.
Kupka  MS, Ferraretti  AP, de Mouzon  J,  et al; European IVF-Monitoring Consortium, for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.  Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2010: results generated from European registers by ESHRE.  Hum Reprod. 2014;29(10):2099-2113.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Schieve  LA, Devine  O, Boyle  CA, Petrini  JR, Warner  L.  Estimation of the contribution of non-assisted reproductive technology ovulation stimulation fertility treatments to US singleton and multiple births.  Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170(11):1396-1407.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Duwe  KN, Reefhuis  J, Honein  MA, Schieve  LA, Rasmussen  SA.  Epidemiology of fertility treatment use among US women with liveborn infants, 1997-2004.  J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2010;19(3):407-416.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Nelissen  EC, Van Montfoort  AP, Coonen  E,  et al.  Further evidence that culture media affect perinatal outcome: findings after transfer of fresh and cryopreserved embryos.  Hum Reprod. 2012;27(7):1966-1976.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Sandin  S, Nygren  KG, Iliadou  A, Hultman  CM, Reichenberg  A.  Autism and mental retardation among offspring born after in vitro fertilization.  JAMA.2013;310(1):75-84. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Devroey  P, Bourgain  C, Macklon  NS, Fauser  BC.  Reproductive biology and IVF: ovarian stimulation and endometrial receptivity.  Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2004;15(2):84-90.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Ombelet  W, Martens  G, De Sutter  P,  et al.  Perinatal outcome of 12,021 singleton and 3108 twin births after non-IVF-assisted reproduction: a cohort study.  Hum Reprod. 2006;21(4):1025-1032.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
McDonald  SD, Han  Z, Mulla  S, Murphy  KE, Beyene  J, Ohlsson  A; Knowledge Synthesis Group.  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(2):138-148.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Hediger  ML, Bell  EM, Druschel  CM, Buck Louis  GM.  Assisted reproductive technologies and children's neurodevelopmental outcomes.  Fertil Steril.2013;99(2):311-317. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
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(3):244-250. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Lyall  K, Baker  A, Hertz-Picciotto  I, Walker  CK.  Infertility and its treatments in association with autism spectrum disorders: a review and results from the CHARGE Study.  Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10(8):3715-3734.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Bay  B, Mortensen  EL, Hvidtjorn  D, Kesmodel  US.  Fertility treatment and risk of childhood and adolescent mental disorders: register based cohort study.  BMJ.2013;347:f3978. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Fountain  C, Zhang  Y, Kissin  DM,  et al.  Association between assisted reproductive technology conception and autism in California, 1997-2007.  Am J Public Health. 2015;105(5):963-971.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Schieve  LA, Fountain  C, Boulet  SL,  et al.  Does autism diagnosis age or symptom severity differ among children according to whether assisted reproductive technology was used to achieve pregnancy?  J Autism Dev Disord. 2015;45(9):2991-3003.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Lehti  V, Brown  AS, Gissler  M, Rihko  M, Suominen  A, Sourander  A.  Autism spectrum disorders in IVF children: a national case-control study in Finland.  Hum Reprod.2013;28(3):812-818. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Klemetti  R, Sevón  T, Gissler  M, Hemminki  E.  Health of children born as a result of in vitro fertilization.  Pediatrics. 2006;118(5):1819-1827.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Lyall  K, Pauls  DL, Spiegelman  D, Santangelo  SL, Ascherio  A.  Fertility therapies, infertility and autism spectrum disorders in the Nurses' Health Study II.  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol.2012;26(4):361-372. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Carson  C, Kelly  Y, Kurinczuk  JJ, Sacker  A, Redshaw  M, Quigley  MA.  Effect of pregnancy planning and fertility treatment on cognitive outcomes in children at ages 3 and 5: longitudinal cohort study.  BMJ.2011;343:d4473. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Kissin  DM, Zhang  Y, Boulet  SL,  et al.  Association of assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment and parental infertility diagnosis with autism in ART-conceived children.  Hum Reprod.2015;30(2):454-465. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Buck Louis  GM, Hediger  ML, Bell  EM,  et al.  Methodology for establishing a population-based birth cohort focusing on couple fertility and children’s development: the Upstate KIDS Study.  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2014;28(3):191-202.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Buck Louis  GM, Druschel  C, Bell  E,  et al.  Use of assisted reproductive technology treatment as reported by mothers in comparison with registry data: the Upstate KIDS Study.  Fertil Steril. 2015;103(6):1461-1468.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Gollenberg  AL, Lynch  CD, Jackson  LW, McGuinness  BM, Msall  ME.  Concurrent validity of the parent-completed Ages and Stages Questionnaires, 2nd Ed with the Bayley Scales of Infant Development II in a low-risk sample.  Child Care Health Dev. 2010;36(4):485-490.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Schonhaut  L, Armijo  I, Schönstedt  M, Alvarez  J, Cordero  M.  Validity of the ages and stages questionnaires in term and preterm infants.  Pediatrics. 2013;131(5):e1468-e1474.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Guevara  JP, Gerdes  M, Localio  R,  et al.  Effectiveness of developmental screening in an urban setting.  Pediatrics. 2013;131(1):30-37.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Squires  J, Bricker  D.  Ages & Stages Questionnaires, Third Edition (ASQ-3). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing; 2009.
27.
Squires  J, Potter  L, Bricker  D.  The ASQ User’s Guide for the Ages & Stages Questionnaires: A Parent-Completed, Child-Monitoring System. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co; 1999.
28.
Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986. Pub L No. 99-457, 100 Stat 1145.
29.
Robins  DL, Fein  D, Barton  ML.  The Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (M-CHAT). Storrs, CT: Self-published; 1999.
30.
Almgren  M, Schlinzig  T, Gomez-Cabrero  D,  et al.  Cesarean delivery and hematopoietic stem cell epigenetics in the newborn infant: implications for future health?  Am J Obstet Gynecol.2014;211(5):502.e1-8. PubMedGoogle Scholar
31.
Potijk  MR, Kerstjens  JM, Bos  AF, Reijneveld  SA, de Winter  AF.  Developmental delay in moderately preterm-born children with low socioeconomic status: risks multiply.  J Pediatr. 2013;163(5):1289-1295.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Julvez  J, Ribas-Fitó  N, Torrent  M, Forns  M, Garcia-Esteban  R, Sunyer  J.  Maternal smoking habits and cognitive development of children at age 4 years in a population-based birth cohort.  Int J Epidemiol. 2007;36(4):825-832.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Schisterman  EF, Cole  SR, Platt  RW.  Overadjustment bias and unnecessary adjustment in epidemiologic studies.  Epidemiology. 2009;20(4):488-495.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Seaman  SR, White  IR.  Review of inverse probability weighting for dealing with missing data.  Stat Methods Med Res. 2013;22(3):278-295.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Ackerman  S, Wenegrat  J, Rettew  D, Althoff  R, Bernier  R.  No increase in autism-associated genetic events in children conceived by assisted reproduction.  Fertil Steril. 2014;102(2):388-393.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Hardy  S, Haisley  L, Manning  C, Fein  D.  Can screening with the Ages and Stages Questionnaire detect autism?  J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2015;36(7):536-543.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Steenis  LJ, Verhoeven  M, Hessen  DJ, van Baar  AL.  Parental and professional assessment of early child development: the ASQ-3 and the Bayley-III-NL.  Early Hum Dev. 2015;91(3):217-225.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Simard  MN, Luu  TM, Gosselin  J.  Concurrent validity of ages and stages questionnaires in preterm infants.  Pediatrics. 2012;130(1):e108-e114.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Fallah  R, Akhavan Karbasi  S, Galalian  MT, Dehghani-Firouzabadi  R.  Comparison of developmental status of 5-year-old singleton children born through assisted and natural conceptions.  Iran J Reprod Med. 2013;11(5):365-370.PubMedGoogle Scholar
40.
Molenberghs  GV.  Models for Discrete Longitudinal Data. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media Inc; 2006.
Original Investigation
March 2016

Examining Infertility Treatment and Early Childhood Development in the Upstate KIDS Study

Author Affiliations
  • 1Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Maryland
  • 2Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University at Albany School of Public Health, Albany, New York
  • 3Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University at Albany School of Public Health, Albany, New York
  • 4Bureau of Environmental and Occupational Epidemiology, Center for Environmental Health, New York State Department of Health, Albany
  • 5Division of Family Health, New York State Department of Health, Albany
  • 6Developmental Pediatrics, CapitalCare Pediatrics–Troy, Troy, New York
JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170(3):251-258. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.4164
Abstract

Importance  An increasing percentage of births are conceived with assisted reproductive technology (ART) and other infertility treatment. Despite findings that such treatments may be associated with diminished gestation and birth size, scarce data exist regarding infertility treatments and children’s development in the United States.

Objective  To assess the use and type of infertility treatment in relation to children’s development through age 36 months.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Prospective cohort study (conducted 2008-2014) that sampled based on infertility treatment and plurality. Included in the study were infants born between 2008 and 2010 in New York state (excluding New York City) whose parents completed developmental screening instruments through 36 months of age. A total of 4824 mothers (97% of 4989) completed 1 or more developmental screening instruments for 5841 children, including 1830 conceived with infertility treatment and 2074 twins.

Exposures  Maternal self-report of any infertility treatment was further categorized into ART and ovulation induction/intrauterine insemination. Assisted reproductive technology use was previously validated by linkage with the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology–Clinical Outcome Reporting System.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Five developmental domains (fine motor, gross motor, communication, personal-social functioning, and problem-solving ability), as measured by the parental completion of the Ages and Stages Questionnaires at 4, 8, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months of age. Generalized linear mixed modeling techniques estimated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs for use and type of infertility treatment in relation to failing a developmental domain. Data were stratified by plurality and weighted for the sampling scheme.

Results  There were 1422 mothers (29.5%; mean [SD], age, 34.1 [5.2] years) who underwent infertility treatment. Infertility treatment was not associated with risk of their children failing any developmental domain (aOR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.94-1.89). Assisted reproductive technology was associated with increased risk for failing any developmental domain but only when singletons and twins were evaluated together (aOR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.21-2.72). Adjustment for birth weight further attenuated this estimate (aOR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.82-1.93). After stratifying by plurality, type of treatment also was not significantly associated with failing any developmental domain for ovulation induction/intrauterine insemination (aOR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.57-1.77 for singletons and aOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.76-2.21 for twins) or ART (aOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.78-2.43 for singletons and aOR, 1.58; 95% CI, 0.94-2.65 for twins).

Conclusions and Relevance  After considering plurality, children’s development through age 3 years was similar irrespective of infertility treatment or specific type. To our knowledge, these findings are among the first to focus on non-ART treatments in the United States.

×