Developmental outcome of 9-year-old children born after PGS: follow-up of a randomized trial
Kuiper, D.; Bennema, A.; la Bastide-van Gemert, S.; Seggers, J.; Schendelaar, P.; Mastenbroek, S.; Hoek, A.; Heineman, M.J.; Roseboom, T.J.; Kok, J.H.; Hadders-Algra, M.
Human Reproduction 33(1): 147-155
Does Day-3 cleavage-stage PGS affect neurodevelopment of 9-year-old IVF offspring? We did not find evidence of adverse consequences of Day-3 cleavage-stage PGS on neurodevelopment of 9-year-old IVF offspring, although children born after IVF with or without PGS often had a non-optimal neurological condition. Knowledge on long-term sequelae for development and health of children born following PGS is lacking. This is striking as evidence accumulates that IVF itself is associated with increased risk for impaired health and development in the offspring. This prospective, assessor-blinded, multicentre, follow-up study evaluated development and health of 9-year-old IVF children born to women who were randomly assigned to IVF with PGS (PGS group) or without PGS (control group). The follow-up examination at 9 years took place between March 2014 and May 2016. In total, 408 women were included and randomly assigned to IVF with or without Day-3 cleavage-stage PGS. This resulted in 52 ongoing pregnancies in the PGS group and 74 in the control group. In the PGS group, 59 children were born alive; in the control group, 85 children were born alive. At the age of 9 years, 43 children born after PGS and 56 control children participated in the study. Our primary outcome was the neurological optimality score, a sensitive measure of neurological condition assessed with a standardized, age-specific test (Touwen test). Secondary outcomes were adverse neurological condition (neurologically abnormal and the complex form of minor neurological dysfunction), cognitive development (intelligence quotient and specific domains), behaviour (parental and teacher's questionnaires), blood pressure and anthropometrics. Neurodevelopmental outcome of PGS children did not differ from that of controls; the neurological optimality scores (mean values [(95% CI]: PGS children 51.5 [49.3; 53.7], control children 53.1 [50.5; 55.7]) were not significantly different. The prevalences of adverse neurological outcome (in all but one child implying the presence of the complex form of minor neurological dysfunction) did not differ between the groups (PGS group 17/43 [40%], control group 19/56 [34%]), although the prevalence of complex minor neurological dysfunction in both groups was rather high. Also intelligence quotient scores of the two groups were not significantly different (PGS group 114 [108; 120]); control group 117 [109; 125]), and the behaviour, blood pressure and anthropometrics of both groups did not differ. Mean blood pressures of both groups were above the 60th percentile. The power analysis of the study was not based on the number of children needed for the follow-up study, but on the number of women who were needed to detect an increase in ongoing pregnancy rates after PGS. In addition, our study evaluated embryo biopsy in the form of PGS at cleavage stage (Day-3 embryo biopsy), while currently PGS at blastocyst stage (Day-5 embryo biopsy) is recommended and increasingly being used. Our findings indicate that PGS in cleavage stage embryos is not associated with adverse effects on neurological, cognitive and behavioural development, blood pressure and anthropometrics of offspring at 9 years. This is a reassuring finding as embryo biopsy in the forms of PGS and PGD is increasingly applied. However, both groups of IVF offspring showed high prevalences of the clinically relevant form of minor neurological dysfunction, which is a point of concern for the IVF community. In addition, our study confirms findings of others that IVF offspring may be at risk of an unfavourable cardiovascular outcome. These findings are alarming and highlight the importance of research on the underlying mechanisms of unfavourable neurodevelopmental and cardiovascular outcomes in IVF offspring. The randomized controlled trial was financially supported by the Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw), The Netherlands (Grant number 945-03-013). The follow-up was financially supported by the University Medical Center Groningen (Grant number: 754510), the Cornelia Foundation, and the graduate schools BCN and Share, Groningen, The Netherlands. The sponsors of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or writing of the report. There are no conflicts of interest. ISRCTN76355836.