Suchergebnisse

STUDY QUESTION: Is the growth pattern of children conceived by ART different compared to naturally conceived children. SUMMARY ANSWER: Both ART and underlying parental subfertility may contribute to differences in early childhood growth between children conceived with and without the use of ART. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Children conceived by ART weigh less and are shorter at the time of delivery. The extent to which differences in growth according to mode of conception persist during childhood, and the role of underlying parental subfertility, remains unclear. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We conducted a prospective study population-based study. We studied 81 461 children participating in the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study (MoBa) and 544 113 adolescents screened for military conscription. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Conception by ART as registered in the Medical Birth Registry. We compared maternally reported length/height and weight among children in MoBa from mid-pregnancy to age 7 according to mode of conception using mixed-effects linear regression. Differences in self-reported height and weight at 17 years of age at screening for military conscription were assessed with linear regression. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: At birth, children conceived by ART were shorter (boys −0.3 cm; 95% CI, −0.5 to −0.1), girls −0.4 cm; 95% CI, −0.5 to −0.3) and lighter (boys −113 grams; 95% CI, −201 to −25, girls −107 grams; 95% CI, −197 to −17). After birth, children conceived by ART grew more rapidly, achieving both greater height and weight at age 3. Children conceived by ART had a greater height up to age 7, but did not have a greater height or weight by age 17. Naturally conceived children of parents taking longer time to conceive had growth patterns similar to ART children. Children born after frozen embryo transfer had larger ultrasound measures and were longer and heavier the first 2 years than those born after fresh embryo transfer. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTIONS: Selection ...

STUDY QUESTION: What is the association between BMI and subfertility? SUMMARY ANSWER: We observed a J-shaped relationship between BMI and subfertility in both sexes, when using both a standard multivariable regression and Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: High BMI in both women and men is associated with subfertility in observational studies and this relationship is further substantiated by a few small randomized controlled trials of weight reduction and success of assisted reproduction. Women with low BMI also have lower conception rates with assisted reproduction technologies. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Cohort study (the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study), 28 341 women and 26 252 men, recruited from all over Norway between 1999 and 2008. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women (average age 30, average BMI 23.1 kg/m2) and men (average age 33, average BMI 25.5 kg/m2) had available genotype data and provided self-reported information on time-to-pregnancy and BMI. A total of 10% of couples were subfertile (time-to-pregnancy ≥12 months). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Our findings support a J-shaped association between BMI and subfertility in both sexes using multivariable logistic regression models. Non-linear MR validated this relationship. A 1 kg/m2 greater genetically predicted BMI was linked to 18% greater odds of subfertility (95% CI 5% to 31%) in obese women (≥30.0 kg/m2) and 15% lower odds of subfertility (-24% to -2%) in women with BMI <20.0 kg/m2. A 1 kg/m2 higher genetically predicted BMI was linked to 26% greater odds of subfertility (8-48%) among obese men. Low genetically predicted BMI values were also related to greater subfertility risk in men at the lower end of the BMI distribution. A genetically predicted BMI of 23 and 25 kg/m2 was linked to the lowest subfertility risk in women and men, respectively. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The main limitations of our study were that we did not know whether the subfertility was driven by the women, men or both; the exclusive consideration of individuals of northern European ancestry; and the limited amount of participants with obesity or BMI values <20.0 kg/m2. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our results support a causal effect of obesity on subfertility in women and men. Our findings also expand the current evidence by indicating that individuals with BMI values <20 kg/m2 may have an increased risk of subfertility. These results suggest that BMI values between 20 and 25 kg/m2 are optimal for a minimal risk of subfertility. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The MoBa Cohort Study is supported by the Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services and the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. This project received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement No 947684). It was also partly supported by the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence funding scheme, project number 262700. Open Access funding was provided by the Folkehelseinstituttet/Norwegian Institute of Public Health. D.A.L. is a UK National Institute for Health Research Senior Investigator (NF-SI-0611-10196) and is supported by the US National Institutes of Health (R01 DK10324) and a European Research Council Advanced Grant (DevelopObese; 669545). The funders had no role in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the article for publication. D.A.L. receives (or has received in the last 10 years) research support from National and International government and charitable bodies, Roche Diagnostics and Medtronic for research unrelated to the current work. The rest of the authors declare that no competing interests exist. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Funder: Folkehelseinstituttet/Norwegian Institute of Public Health ; Funder: Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services ; Funder: Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services and the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research ; Funder: Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research ; Study question What is the association between BMI and subfertility? Summary answer We observed a J-shaped relationship between BMI and subfertility in both sexes, when using both a standard multivariable regression and Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis. What is known already High BMI in both women and men is associated with subfertility in observational studies and this relationship is further substantiated by a few small randomized controlled trials of weight reduction and success of assisted reproduction. Women with low BMI also have lower conception rates with assisted reproduction technologies. Study design, size, duration Cohort study (the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study), 28 341 women and 26 252 men, recruited from all over Norway between 1999 and 2008. Participants/materials, setting, methods Women (average age 30, average BMI 23.1 kg/m2) and men (average age 33, average BMI 25.5 kg/m2) had available genotype data and provided self-reported information on time-to-pregnancy and BMI. A total of 10% of couples were subfertile (time-to-pregnancy ≥12 months). Main results and the role of chance Our findings support a J-shaped association between BMI and subfertility in both sexes using multivariable logistic regression models. Non-linear MR validated this relationship. A 1 kg/m2 greater genetically predicted BMI was linked to 18% greater odds of subfertility (95% CI 5% to 31%) in obese women (≥30.0 kg/m2) and 15% lower odds of subfertility (-24% to -2%) in women with BMI <20.0 kg/m2. A 1 kg/m2 higher genetically predicted BMI was linked to 26% greater odds of subfertility (8-48%) among obese men. Low genetically predicted BMI values were also related to greater subfertility risk in men at the lower end of the BMI distribution. A genetically predicted BMI of 23 and 25 kg/m2 was linked to the lowest subfertility risk in women and men, respectively. Limitations, reasons for caution The main limitations of our study were that we did not know whether the subfertility was driven by the women, men or both; the exclusive consideration of individuals of northern European ancestry; and the limited amount of participants with obesity or BMI values <20.0 kg/m2. Wider implications of the findings Our results support a causal effect of obesity on subfertility in women and men. Our findings also expand the current evidence by indicating that individuals with BMI values <20 kg/m2 may have an increased risk of subfertility. These results suggest that BMI values between 20 and 25 kg/m2 are optimal for a minimal risk of subfertility. Study funding/competing interest(s) The MoBa Cohort Study is supported by the Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services and the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. This project received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement No 947684). It was also partly supported by the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence funding scheme, project number 262700. Open Access funding was provided by the Folkehelseinstituttet/Norwegian Institute of Public Health. D.A.L. is a UK National Institute for Health Research Senior Investigator (NF-SI-0611-10196) and is supported by the US National Institutes of Health (R01 DK10324) and a European Research Council Advanced Grant (DevelopObese; 669545). The funders had no role in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the article for publication. D.A.L. receives (or has received in the last 10 years) research support from National and International government and charitable bodies, Roche Diagnostics and Medtronic for research unrelated to the current work. The rest of the authors declare that no competing interests exist. Trial registration number N/A.

National health care registries in the Nordic countries share many attributes, but different legal and ethical frameworks represent a challenge to promoting effective joint research. Internationally, there is a lack of knowledge about how ethical matters are considered in Nordic registry-based research, and a lack of knowledge about how Nordic ethics committees operate and what is needed to obtain an approval. In this paper, we review ethical aspects of registry-based research, the legal framework, the role of ethics review boards in the Nordic countries, and the structure of the ethics application. We discuss the role of informed consent in registry-based research and how to safeguard the integrity of study participants, including vulnerable subjects and children. Our review also provides information on the different government agencies that contribute registry-based data, and a list of the major health registries in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Both ethical values and conditions for registry-based research are similar in the Nordic countries. While Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden have chosen different legal frameworks, these differences can be resolved through mutual recognition of ethical applications and by harmonizing the different systems, likely leading to increased collaboration and enlarged studies.

Jonas F Ludvigsson,1,2 Siri E Håberg,3 Gun Peggy Knudsen,3 Pierre Lafolie,4,5 Helga Zoega,6 Catharina Sarkkola,7 Stephanie von Kraemer,7 Elisabete Weiderpass,1,7–10 Mette Nørgaard11 1Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, 2Department of Pediatrics, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden; 3Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway; 4Department of Medicine, Clinical Pharmacology Unit, 5The Stockholm Regional Ethical Review Board, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; 6Center of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland; 7Genetic Epidemiology Group, Folkhälsan Research Center, Helsinki, Finland; 8Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Tromsø, 9The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, 10Department of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway; 11Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark Abstract: National health care registries in the Nordic countries share many attributes, but different legal and ethical frameworks represent a challenge to promoting effective joint research. Internationally, there is a lack of knowledge about how ethical matters are considered in Nordic registry-based research, and a lack of knowledge about how Nordic ethics committees operate and what is needed to obtain an approval. In this paper, we review ethical aspects of registry-based research, the legal framework, the role of ethics review boards in the Nordic countries, and the structure of the ethics application. We discuss the role of informed consent in registry-based research and how to safeguard the integrity of study participants, including vulnerable subjects and children. Our review also provides information on the different government agencies that contribute registry-based data, and a list of the major health registries in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Both ethical values and conditions for registry-based research are similar in the Nordic countries. While Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden have chosen different legal frameworks, these differences can be resolved through mutual recognition of ethical applications and by harmonizing the different systems, likely leading to increased collaboration and enlarged studies. Keywords: ethical review, ethics, institutional review board, Nordic countries, registry-based research, informed consent