Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T10:13:24.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A meta-analysis of sperm donation offspring health outcomes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 August 2016

D. H. Adams ,
R. A. Clark ,
M. J. Davies  and
S. de Lacey
D. H. Adams*
Affiliation:
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia
R. A. Clark
Affiliation:
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia
M. J. Davies
Affiliation:
Robinson Institute, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
S. de Lacey
Affiliation:
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia
*
*Address for correspondence: D. Adams, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA 5042, Australia. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although the use of donor sperm as a treatment modality for male infertility has become common place, the health outcomes for those conceived has been poorly studied. A structured search of the literature using PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Reviews was performed to investigate the health outcomes of offspring conceived from donor sperm. Eight studies were eligible and included in the review, and of these, three were included in a meta-analysis. Meta-analysis of clinical outcomes showed that donor sperm neonates are not at increased risk of being born of low birth weight (<2500 g), preterm (<37 weeks) or with increased incidences of birth defects, than spontaneously conceived neonates.

Keywords

Donor conceptionmeta-analysisneonateoutcomesperm
Type
Review
Information
Journal of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , February 2017 , pp. 44 - 55
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press and the International Society for Developmental Origins of Health and Disease 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Gregoire, AT, Mayer, RC. The impregnators. Fertil Steril. 1965; 16, 130–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Boulet, SL, Mehta, A, Kissin, DM, et al. Trends in use of and reproductive outcomes associated with intracytoplasmic sperm injection. JAMA. 2015; 313, 255–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Jain, T, Gupta, RS. Trends in the use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357, 251–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Moskovtsev, SI, Dacanay, D, Baratz, A, et al. Significant increase in utilization of donor sperm by lesbian couples after the ligalization of same sex marriages in Ontario, Canada. Fertil Steril. 2013; 100, S67, O-219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Viloria, T, Garrido, N, Minaya, F, et al. Report of results obtained in 2934 women using donor sperm: donor insemination versus in vitro fertilization according to indication. Fertil Steril. 2011; 96, 1134–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Jadva, V, Badger, S, Morrissette, M, Golombok, S. ‘Mom by choice, single by life’s circumstance…’ Findings from a large scale survey of the experiences of single mothers by choice. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2009; 12, 175–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. González-Comadran, M, Urresta Avila, J, Saavedra Tascón, A, et al. The impact of donor insemination on the risk of preeclampsia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014; 182, 160–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Smith, GN, Walker, M, Tessier, JL, Millar, KG. Increased incidence of preeclampsia in women conceiving by intrauterine insemination with donor versus partner sperm for treatment of primary infertility. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 177, 455–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Hoy, J, Venn, A, Halliday, J, Kovacs, G, Waalwyk, K. Perinatal and obstetric outcomes of donor insemination using cryopreserved semen in Victoria, Australia. Hum Reprod. 1999; 14, 1760–1764.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Salha, O, Sharma, V, Dada, T, et al. The influence of donated gametes on the incidence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 1999; 14, 2268–2273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Need, JA, Bell, B, Meffin, E, Jones, WR. Pre-eclampsia in pregnancies from donor inseminations. J Reprod Immunol. 1983; 5, 329–338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Challis, JR, Lockwood, CJ, Myatt, L, et al. Inflammation and pregnancy. Reprod Sci. 2009; 16, 206–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Zetterström, K, Lindeberg, SN, Haglund, B, Hanson, U. Chronic hypertension as a risk factor for offspring to be born small for gestational age. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006; 85, 1046–1050.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Geelhoed, JJ, Fraser, A, Tilling, K, et al. Preeclampsia and gestational hypertension are associated with childhood blood pressure independently of family adiposity measures: the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. Circulation. 2010; 122, 1192–1199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Jayet, PY, Rimoldi, SF, Stuber, T, et al. Pulmonary and systemic vascular dysfunction in young offspring of mothers with preeclampsia. Circulation. 2010; 122, 488–494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Himmelmann, A. Blood pressure and left ventricular mass in children and adolescents: the Hypertension in Pregnancy Offspring Study. Blood Press Suppl. 1994; 3, 1–46.Google ScholarPubMed
17. Davis, EF, Newton, L, Lewandowski, AJ, et al. Pre-eclampsia and offspring cardiovascular health: mechanistic insights from experimental studies. Clin Sci (Lond). 2012; 123, 53–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Davis, EF, Lazdam, M, Lewandowski, AJ, et al. Cardiovascular risk factors in children and young adults born to preeclamptic pregnancies: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2012; 129, e1552–e1561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Wu, CS, Sun, Y, Vestergaard, M, et al. Preeclampsia and risk for epilepsy in offspring. Pediatrics. 2008; 122, 1072–1078.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Wu, CS, Nohr, EA, Bech, BH, et al. Health of children born to mothers who had preeclampsia: a population-based cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 201, 269.e1–269.e10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Kajantie, E, Eriksson, JG, Osmond, C, Thornburg, K, Barker, DJ. Pre-eclampsia is associated with increased risk of stroke in the adult offspring: the Helsinki Birth Cohort Study. Stroke. 2009; 40, 1176–1180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Mann, JR, McDermott, S, Bao, H, Hardin, J, Gregg, A. Pre-eclampsia, birth weight, and autism spectrum disorders. J Autism Dev Disord. 2010; 40, 548–554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Saito, S, Shiozaki, A, Nakashima, A, Sakai, M, Sasaki, Y. The role of the immune system in preeclampsia. Mol Aspects Med. 2007; 28, 192–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Sargent, IL, Borzychowski, AM, Redman, CW. Immunoregulation in normal pregnancy and pre-eclampsia: an overview. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006; 13, 680–686.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Kyrou, D, Kolibianakis, EM, Devroey, P, Fatemi, HM. Is the use of donor sperm associated with a higher incidence of preeclampsia in women who achieve pregnancy after intrauterine insemination? Fertil Steril. 2010; 93, 1124–1127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Johnson v. Superior Ct., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1050, 1056-57 (Ct. App. 2000).Google Scholar
27. Gebhardt, D. Sperm donor suffers years later from inherited disease. J Med Ethics. 2002; 28, 213–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Callum, P, Messiaen, L, Bower, P, et al. Gonosomal mosaicism for an NF1 deletion in a sperm donor: evidence of the need for co-ordinated, long-term communication of health information among relevant parties. Hum Reprod. 2012; 27, 1223–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. Stewart, GJ, Tyler, JP, Cunningham, AL, et al. Transmission of human T-cell lymphotropic virus type III (HTLV-IIl) by artificial insemination by donor. Lancet. 1985; 2, 581–585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30. Zribi, N, Feki Chakroun, N, El Euch, H, et al. Effects of cryopreservation on human sperm deoxyribonucleic acid integrity. Fertil Steril. 2010; 93, 159–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31. Dalzell, LH, McVicar, CM, McClure, N, Lutton, D, Lewis, SE. Effects of short and long incubations on DNA fragmentation of testicular sperm. Fertil Steril. 2004; 82, 1443–1445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Di Santo, M, Tarozzi, N, Nadalini, M, Borini, A. Human sperm cryopreservation: update on techniques, effect on DNA integrity, and implications for ART. Adv Urol. 2012; 2012, 854837.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Toro, E, Fernández, S, Colomar, A, et al. Processing of semen can result in increased sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertil Steril. 2009; 92, 2109–2112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34. Thomson, LK, Fleming, SD, Aitken, RJ, et al. Cryopreservation-induced human sperm DNA damage is predominantly mediated by oxidative stress rather than apoptosis. Hum Reprod. 2009; 24, 2061–2070.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35. Tatone, C, Di Emidio, G, Vento, M, Ciriminna, R, Artini, PG. Cryopreservation and oxidative stress in reproductive cells. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2010; 26, 563–567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36. Adams, DH, Clark, RA, Davies, MJ, de Lacey, S. A meta-analysis of neonatal health outcomes from oocyte donation. J Dev Orig Health Dis. 2016; 7, 257–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37. Class, QA, Rickert, ME, Lichtenstein, P, D’Onofrio, BM. Birth weight, physical morbidity, and mortality: a population-based sibling-comparison study. Am J Epidemiol. 2014; 179, 550–558.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38. Calkins, K, Devaskar, SU. Fetal origins of adult disease. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care. 2011; 41, 158–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39. Barker, DJP. The fetal and infant origins of adult disease. 1992. BMJ Books: London.Google Scholar
40. Skora, D, Frankfurter, D. Adverse perinatal events associated with ART. Semin Reprod Med. 2012; 30, 84–91.Google ScholarPubMed
41. Barrington, KJ, Janvier, A. The paediatric consequences of assisted reproductive technologies, with special emphasis on multiple pregnancies. Acta Paediatr. 2013; 102, 340–348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42. Joanna Briggs Institute. Reviewers’ Manual. 2011. Joanna Briggs Institute, University of Adelaide: Adelaide, Australia.Google Scholar
43. Thapar, A, Harold, G, Rice, F, et al. Do intrauterine or genetic influences explain the foetal origins of chronic disease? A novel experimental method for disentangling effects. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007; 7, 25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44. Gaudoin, M, Dobbie, R, Finlayson, A, et al. Ovulation induction/intrauterine insemination in infertile couples is associated with low-birth-weight infants. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 188, 611–616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45. Amuzu, B, Laxova, R, Shapiro, SS. Pregnancy outcome, health of children, and family adjustment after donor insemination. Obstet Gynecol. 1990; 75, 899–905.Google ScholarPubMed
46. Iizuka, R, Sawada, Y, Nishina, N, Ohi, M. The physical and mental development of children born following artificial insemination. Int J Fertil. 1968; 13, 24–32.Google ScholarPubMed
47. Davies, MJ, Moore, VM, Willson, KJ, et al. Reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366, 1803–1813.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
48. Lansac, J, Thepot, F, Mayaux, MJ, et al. Pregnancy outcome after artificial insemination or IVF with frozen semen donor: a collaborative study of the French CECOS Federation on 21597 pregnancies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1997; 74, 223–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49. Forse, RA, Ackman, CF, Fraser, FC. Possible teratogenic effects of artificial insemination by donor. Clin Genet. 1985; 28, 23–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
50. Tanaka, K. An Intelligence Test by Tanaka and Binet. 1954. Nippon-Bunkasha: Tokyo.Google Scholar
51. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States and Canada: 1995 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril. 1998; 69, 389–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States and Canada: 1994 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril. 1996; 66, 697–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States and Canada: 1993 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril. 1995; 64, 13–21.Google Scholar
54. American Fertility Society & Society of Assisted Reproductive Technology. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States and Canada: 1992 results generated from the American Fertility Society/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril. 1994; 62, 1121–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55. Luke, B, Keith, LG. The contribution of singletons, twins and triplets to low birth weight, infant mortality and handicap in the United States. J Reprod Med. 1992; 37, 661–666.Google ScholarPubMed
56. Blondel, B, Kogan, MD, Alexander, GR, et al. The impact of the increasing number of multiple births on the rates of preterm birth and low birthweight: an international study. Am J Public Health. 2002; 92, 1323–1330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
57. Poikkeus, P, Saisto, T, Punamaki, RL, et al. Birth experience of women conceiving with assisted reproduction: a prospective multicenter study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014; 93, 880–887.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
58. Gillet, E, Martens, E, Martens, G, Cammu, H. Prelabour caesarean section following IVF/ICSI in older-term nulliparous women: too precious to push? J Pregnancy. 2011; 2011, 362518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
59. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Code of Practice, 1st edn, 1991. HFEA: London.Google Scholar
60. Tyler, JP, Dobler, KJ, Driscoll, GL, Stewart, GJ. The impact of AIDS on artificial insemination by donor. Clin Reprod Fertil. 1986; 4, 305–317.Google ScholarPubMed
61. American Fertility Society. Revised new guidelines for the use of semen-donor insemination. Fertil Steril. 1988; 49, 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
62. Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society. Guidelines for Therapeutic Donor Insemination. 1988. CFAS: Montreal.Google Scholar
63. Brant, AM, Munakata, Y, Boomsma, DI, et al. The nature and nurture of high IQ: an extended sensitive period for intellectual development. Psychol Sci. 2013; 24, 1487–1495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
64. Committee to Consider the Social, Ethical and Legal Issues Arising from In Vitro Fertilization. Issues paper on donor gametes in IVF. 1983. Victorian Government: Melbourne.Google Scholar
65. Paul, S, Harbottle, S, Stewart, JA. Recruitment of sperm donors: the Newcastle-upon-Tyne experience 1994-2003. Hum Reprod. 2006; 21, 150–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
66. Cushing, AL. ‘I just want more information about who I am’: the search experience of sperm-donor offspring, searching for information about their donors and genetic heritage. Inform Res. 2010; 15, 428.Google Scholar
67. Tomlinson, MJ, Pooley, K, Pierce, A, Hopkisson, JF. Sperm donor recruitment within an NHS fertility service since the removal of anonymity. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2010; 13, 159–167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
68. Shukla, U, Deval, B, Jansa Perez, M, et al. Sperm donor recruitment, attitudes and provider practices – 5 years after the removal of donor anonymity. Hum Reprod. 2013; 28, 676–682.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
69. Pacey, A. Sperm donor recruitment in the UK. TOG. 2010; 12, 43–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
70. American Academy of Pediatrics, Section on Ophthalmology, Council on Children with Disabilities; American Academy of Ophthalmology; American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus; American Association of Certified Orthoptists. Joint statement – learning disabilities, dyslexia, and vision. Pediatrics. 2009; 124, 837–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
71. Scruggs, TE, Mastropieri, MA. On babies and bathwater: addressing the problems of identification of learning disabilities. Learn Disabil Q. 2002; 25, 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
72. Lyon, GR. Learning disabilities. Future Child. 1996; 6, 54–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
73. Boyle, CA, Decouflé, P, Yeargin-Allsopp, M. Prevalence and health impact of developmental disabilities in US children. Pediatrics. 1994; 93, 399–403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
74. Pfeiffer, SI. Identifying gifted and talented students. J Appl School Psychol. 2002; 19, 31–50.Google Scholar
75. Halliday, J, Wilson, C, Hammarberg, K, et al. Comparing indicators of health and development of singleton young adults conceived with and without assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2014; 101, 1055–1063.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Adams supplementary material S1

Supplementary Table

Download Adams supplementary material S1(File)
File 12.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Adams supplementary material S2

Supplementary Table

Download Adams supplementary material S2(File)
File 30.9 KB