Margareta D Pisarska1,2, Jessica L Chan1, Kate Lawrenson1, Tania L Gonzalez1, Erica T Wang1,2. 1. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 2. David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Infertility affects 10% of the reproductive-age population. Even the most successful treatments such as assisted reproductive technologies still result in failed implantation. In addition, adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with infertility have been attributed to these fertility treatments owing to the presumed epigenetic modifications of in vitro fertilization and in vitro embryo development. However, the diagnosis of infertility has been associated with adverse outcomes, and the etiologies leading to infertility have been associated with adverse pregnancy and long-term outcomes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We have comprehensively summarized the data available through observational, experimental, cohort, and randomized studies to better define the effect of the underlying infertility diagnosis vs the epigenetics of infertility treatments on treatment success and overall outcomes. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Most female infertility results from polycystic ovary syndrome, endometriosis, and unexplained infertility, with some cases resulting from a polycystic ovary syndrome phenotype or underlying endometriosis. In addition to failed implantation, defective implantation can lead to problems with placentation that leads to adverse pregnancy outcomes, affecting both mother and fetus. CONCLUSION: Current research, although limited, has suggested that genetics and epigenetics of infertility diagnosis affects disease and overall outcomes. In addition, other fertility treatments, which also lead to adverse outcomes, are aiding in the identification of factors, including the supraphysiologic hormonal environment, that might affect the overall success and healthy outcomes for mother and child. Further studies, including genome-wide association studies, epigenomics studies, and experimental studies, are needed to better identify the factors leading to these outcomes.
CONTEXT: Infertility affects 10% of the reproductive-age population. Even the most successful treatments such as assisted reproductive technologies still result in failed implantation. In addition, adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with infertility have been attributed to these fertility treatments owing to the presumed epigenetic modifications of in vitro fertilization and in vitro embryo development. However, the diagnosis of infertility has been associated with adverse outcomes, and the etiologies leading to infertility have been associated with adverse pregnancy and long-term outcomes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We have comprehensively summarized the data available through observational, experimental, cohort, and randomized studies to better define the effect of the underlying infertility diagnosis vs the epigenetics of infertility treatments on treatment success and overall outcomes. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Most female infertility results from polycystic ovary syndrome, endometriosis, and unexplained infertility, with some cases resulting from a polycystic ovary syndrome phenotype or underlying endometriosis. In addition to failed implantation, defective implantation can lead to problems with placentation that leads to adverse pregnancy outcomes, affecting both mother and fetus. CONCLUSION: Current research, although limited, has suggested that genetics and epigenetics of infertility diagnosis affects disease and overall outcomes. In addition, other fertility treatments, which also lead to adverse outcomes, are aiding in the identification of factors, including the supraphysiologic hormonal environment, that might affect the overall success and healthy outcomes for mother and child. Further studies, including genome-wide association studies, epigenomics studies, and experimental studies, are needed to better identify the factors leading to these outcomes.
Authors: Laura A Schieve; Susan F Meikle; Cynthia Ferre; Herbert B Peterson; Gary Jeng; Lynne S Wilcox Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-03-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Evan B Selzer; Delphine Blain; Robert B Hufnagel; Philip J Lupo; Laura E Mitchell; Brian P Brooks Journal: Surv Ophthalmol Date: 2021-12-31 Impact factor: 6.197
Authors: Sara Arian; Jessica Rubin; Imen Chakchouk; Momal Sharif; Sangeetha K Mahadevan; Hadi Erfani; Katharine Shelly; Lan Liao; Isabel Lorenzo; Rajesh Ramakrishnan; Ignatia B Van den Veyver Journal: Reprod Sci Date: 2020-10-22 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: E París-Oller; S Navarro-Serna; C Soriano-Úbeda; J S Lopes; C Matás; S Ruiz; R Latorre; O López-Albors; R Romar; S Cánovas; P Coy Journal: J Anim Sci Biotechnol Date: 2021-02-15