Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T08:49:29.070Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Self-reported physical health status of donor sperm-conceived adults

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 August 2020

Damian H. Adams Open the ORCID record for Damian H. Adams [Opens in a new window] ,
Adam Gerace ,
Michael J. Davies  and
Sheryl de Lacey
Damian H. Adams*
Affiliation:
Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia5042, Australia
Adam Gerace
Affiliation:
School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University, Wayville, South Australia, 5034, Australia College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia5042, Australia
Michael J. Davies
Affiliation:
The Robinson Institute, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia5001, Australia
Sheryl de Lacey
Affiliation:
College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia5042, Australia
*
Address for correspondence: Damian H. Adams, Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia5042, Australia. E-mail: adam0072@flinders.edu.au.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Donor-conceived neonates have poorer birth outcomes, including low birth weight and preterm delivery that are associated with poorer long-term health in adulthood through the developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD) theory. The aim of this study was to conduct the first investigation of the adult health outcomes of donor-conceived people. An online health survey was completed by 272 donor sperm-conceived adults and 877 spontaneously conceived adults from around the world. Donor and spontaneously conceived groups were matched for age, sex, height, smoking, alcohol consumption, exercise, own fertility and maternal smoking. Donor sperm-conceived adults had significantly higher reports of being diagnosed with type 1 diabetes (P = 0.031), thyroid disease (P = 0.031), acute bronchitis (P = 0.008), environmental allergies (P = 0.046), sleep apnoea (P = 0.037) and having ear tubes/grommets surgically implanted (P = 0.046). This is the first study to investigate the health outcomes of adult donor sperm-conceived people. Donor sperm-conceived adults self-reported elevated frequencies of various health conditions. The outcomes are consistent with birth defect data from donor sperm treatment and are consistent with the DOHaD linking perturbed early growth and chronic disease in adulthood.

Keywords

Donor conceptionhealth surveyonlineoutcomeself-reported
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , August 2021 , pp. 638 - 651
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with International Society for Developmental Origins of Health and Disease

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

Chen, L, Yang, T, Zheng, Z, Yu, H, Wang, H, Qin, J. Birth prevalence of congenital malformations in singleton pregnancies resulting from in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection worldwide: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018; 297, 1115–1130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giorgione, V, Parazzini, F, Fesslova, V, et al. Congenital heart defects in IVF/ICSI pregnancy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 51, 33–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Qin, JB, Sheng, XQ, Wu, D, et al. Worldwide prevalence of adverse pregnancy outcomes among singleton pregnancies after in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017; 295, 285–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marino, JL, Moore, VM, Willson, KJ, et al. Perinatal outcomes by mode of assisted conception and sub-fertility in an Australian data linkage cohort. PLoS One. 2014; 9, e80398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinborg, A, Wennerholm, UB, Romundstad, LB, et al. Why do singletons conceived after assisted reproduction technology have adverse perinatal outcome? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2013; 19, 87–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Pandey, S, Shetty, A, Hamilton, M, Bhattacharya, S, Maheshwari, A. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2012; 18, 485–503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, SD, Han, Z, Mulla, S, et al. 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, 138–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barker, DJP. The Fetal and Infant Origins of Adult Disease, 1992. BMJ Books, London, UK.Google Scholar
Simeoni, U, Armengaud, JB, Siddeek, B, Tolsa, JF. Perinatal Origins of Adult Disease. Neonatology. 2018; 113, 393–399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hong, YH, Chung, S. Small for gestational age and obesity related comorbidities. Ann Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2018; 23, 4–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bertagnolli, M, Luu, TM, Lewandowski, AJ, Leeson, P, Nuyt, AM. Preterm Birth and Hypertension: is There a Link? Curr Hypertens Rep. 2016; 18, 28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Calkins, K, Devaskar, SU. Fetal origins of adult disease. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care. 2011; 41, 158–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, M, Heilbronn, LK. The health outcomes of human offspring conceived by assisted reproductive technologies (ART). J Dev Orig Health Dis. 2017; 8, 388–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feuer, S, Rinaudo, P. from embryos to adults: a Dohad perspective on in vitro fertilization and other assisted reproductive technologies. Healthcare (Basel). 2016; 4, 51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Padhee, M, Zhang, S, Lie, S, et al. The periconceptional environment and cardiovascular disease: does in vitro embryo culture and transfer influence cardiovascular development and health? Nutrients. 2015; 7, 1378–1425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hart, R, Norman, RJ. The longer-term health outcomes for children born as a result of IVF treatment: Part I – general health outcomes. Hum Reprod Update. 2013; 19, 232–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wen, J, Jiang, J, Ding, C, et al. Birth defects in children conceived by in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2012; 97, 1331–1337.e1-4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moreno-Sepulveda, J, Checa, MA. Risk of adverse perinatal outcomes after oocyte donation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019; 36, 2017–2037.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mascarenhas, M, Sunkara, SK, Antonisamy, B, Kamath, MS. Higher risk of preterm birth and low birth weight following oocyte donation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017; 218, 60–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storgaard, M, Loft, A, Bergh, C, et al. Obstetric and neonatal complications in pregnancies conceived after oocyte donation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2017; 124, 561–572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jeve, YB, Potdar, N, Opoku, A, Khare, M. Donor oocyte conception and pregnancy complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2016; 123, 1471–1480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Adams, DH, Clark, RA, Davies, MJ, de Lacey, S. Update on: a meta-analysis of sperm donation offspring health outcomes – 2018 update. J Dev Orig Health Dis. 2018; 9, 561–562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lansac, J, Royere, D. Follow-up studies of children born after frozen sperm donation. Hum Reprod Update. 2001; 7, 33–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adams, DH, Clark, RA, Davies, MJ, de Lacey, S. A meta-analysis of sperm donation offspring health outcomes. J Dev Orig Health Dis. 2017; 8, 44–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amor, DJ, Lewis, S, Kennedy, J, et al. Health outcomes of school-aged children conceived using donor sperm. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017; 35, 445–452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tallandini, MA, Zanchettin, L, Gronchi, G, Morsan, V. Parental disclosure of assisted reproductive technology (ART) conception to their children: a systematic and meta-analytic review. Hum Reprod. 2016; 31, 1275–1287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lassalzede, T, Paci, M, Rouzier, J, et al. Sperm donor conception and disclosure to children: a 10-year retrospective follow-up study of parental attitudes in one French center for the study and preservation of eggs and sperm (CECOS). Fertil Steril. 2017; 108, 247–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, T, Zadeh, S, Smith, V, Golombok, S. Disclosure of sperm donation: a comparison between solo mother and two-parent families with identifiable donors. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016; 33, 592–600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bourne, K, Johnson, L, Anderson, C, Hunter, E. Donor applications to the Victorian Central Register. In The ART of Caring. Book of Abstracts. 2018; p. 63. Fertility Society of Australia, Australia.Google Scholar
Benjamini, Y, Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 1995; 57, 289–300.Google Scholar
Glickman, ME, Rao, SR, Schultz, MR. False discovery rate control is a recommended alternative to Bonferroni-type adjustments in health studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67, 850–857.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glueck, DH, Muller, KE, Karimpour-Fard, A, Hunter, L. Expected power for the false discovery rate with independence. Commun Stat Theory Methods. 2008; 37, 1855–1866.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adams, D, Fernandez, R, Moore, V, et al. Sperm donation perinatal outcomes in an Australian population cohort. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2017; 43, 1830–1839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, D, Song, S, Liao, A. Short-term safety evaluation of the offspring conceived by 7272 artificial insemination cycles with donor spermatozoon. Andrologia. 2016; 48, 817–823.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States: 1997 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril. 2000; 74, 641–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States: 1996 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril. 1999; 71, 798–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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
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
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
Rodriguez-Wallberg, KA, Berger, AS, Fagerberg, A, et al. Increased incidence of obstetric and perinatal complications in pregnancies achieved using donor oocytes and single embryo transfer in young and healthy women. A prospective hospital-based matched cohort study. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2019; 35, 314–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elenis, E, Svanberg, AS, Lampic, C, Skalkidou, A, Åkerud, H, Sydsjö, G. Adverse obstetric outcomes in pregnancies resulting from oocyte donation: a retrospective cohort case study in Sweden. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015; 15, 247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luke, B. Pregnancy and birth outcomes in couples with infertility with and without assisted reproductive technology: with an emphasis on US population-based studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 217, 270–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Okun, N, Sierra, S, Genetics Committee; Special Contributors. Pregnancy outcomes after assisted human reproduction. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2014; 36, 64–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammoud, AO, Gibson, M, Stanford, J, White, G, Carrell, DT, Peterson, M. In vitro fertilization availability and utilization in the United States: a study of demographic, social, and economic factors. Fertil Steril. 2009; 91, 1630–1635.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, L. Infertility and assisted reproduction in Denmark. Epidemiology and psychosocial consequences. Dan Med Bull. 2006; 53, 390–417.Google ScholarPubMed
Jain, T, Hornstein, MD. Disparities in access to infertility services in a state with mandated insurance coverage. Fertil Steril. 2005; 84, 221–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chehade, H, Simeoni, U, Guignard, JP, Boubred, F. Preterm birth: long term cardiovascular and renal consequences. Curr Pediatr Rev. 2018; 14, 219–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chu, A, De Beritto, T. The perinatal origins of cardiovascular disease. Pediatr Ann. 2015; 44, e254-e259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arima, Y, Nishiyama, K, Izumiya, Y, Kaikita, K, Hokimoto, S, Tsujita, K. Fetal origins of hypertension. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2018; 1012, 41–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eriksson, JG. Developmental origins of health and disease – from a small body size at birth to epigenetics. Ann Med. 2016; 48, 456–467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nightingale, CM, Rudnicka, AR, Owen, CG, et al. Birth weight and risk markers for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease in childhood: the Child Heart and Health Study in England (CHASE). Diabetologia. 2015; 58, 474–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, DJ, Reynolds, RM, Hardy, DB. Developmental origins of health and disease: current knowledge and potential mechanisms. Nutr Rev. 2017; 75, 951–970.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oken, E, Gillman, MW. Fetal origins of obesity. Obes Res. 2003; 11, 496–506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammoud, AO, Gibson, M, Stanford, J, White, G, Carrell, DT, Peterson, M. In vitro fertilization availability and utilization in the United States: a study of demographic, social, and economic factors. Fertil Steril. 2009; 91, 1630–1635.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blázquez, A, García, D, Rodríguez, A, Vassena, R, Figueras, F, Vernaeve, V. Is oocyte donation a risk factor for preeclampsia? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016; 33, 855–863.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tranquilli, AL, Biondini, V, Talebi Chahvar, S, Corradetti, A, Tranquilli, D, Giannubilo, S. Perinatal outcomes in oocyte donor pregnancies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013; 26, 1263–1267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klatsky, PC, Delaney, SS, Caughey, AB, Tran, ND, Schattman, GL, Rosenwaks, Z. The role of embryonic origin in preeclampsia: a comparison of autologous in vitro fertilization and ovum donor pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116, 1387–1392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
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
Bokslag, A, van Weissenbruch, M, Mol, BW, de Groot, CJ. Preeclampsia; short and long-term consequences for mother and neonate. Early Hum Dev. 2016; 102, 47–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz Martínez, LA, Díaz Pedraza Ndel, M, Serrano Díaz, NC, Colmenares Mejía, CC. The prognosis for children of mothers with preeclampsia. Part 2: long-term effects. Arch Argent Pediatr. 2011; 109, 519–524.Google ScholarPubMed
Wu, CS, Nohr, EA, Bech, BH, Vestergaard, M, Catov, JM, Olsen, J. 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
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
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
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
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
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
Zadmajid, V, Falahipour, E, Ghaderi, E, Sørensen, SR, Butts, IAE. Outcomes of in vitro fertilization with frozen-thawed sperm: an analysis of post-thaw recovery of sperm, embryogenesis, offspring morphology, and skeletogenesis for a cyprinid fish. Dev Dyn. 2019; 248, 449–464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aurich, C, Schreiner, B, Ille, N, Alvarenga, M, Scarlet, D. Cytosine methylation of sperm DNA in horse semen after cryopreservation. Theriogenology. 2016; 86, 1347–1352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Urrego, R, Rodriguez-Osorio, N, Niemann, H. Epigenetic disorders and altered gene expression after use of Assisted Reproductive Technologies in domestic cattle. Epigenetics. 2014; 9, 803–815.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van den Akker, OB, Crawshaw, MA, Blyth, ED, Frith, LJ. Expectations and experiences of gamete donors and donor-conceived adults searching for genetic relatives using DNA linking through a voluntary register. Hum Reprod. 2015; 30, 111–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodino, IS, Burton, PJ, Sanders, KA. Donor information considered important to donors, recipients and offspring: an Australian perspective. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011; 22, 303–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahlstedt, PP, LaBounty, K, Kennedy, WT. The views of adult offspring of sperm donation: essential feedback for the development of ethical guidelines within the practice of assisted reproductive technology in the United States. Fertil Steril. 2010; 93, 2236–2246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jadva, V, Freeman, T, Kramer, W, Golombok, S. Experiences of offspring searching for and contacting their donor siblings and donor. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010; 20, 523–532.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jadva, V, Freeman, T, Kramer, W, Golombok, S. The experiences of adolescents and adults conceived by sperm donation: comparisons by age of disclosure and family type. Hum Reprod. 2009; 24, 1909–1919.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, MK, Hertz, R, Kramer, W. Gamete donor anonymity and limits on numbers of offspring: the views of three stakeholders. J Law Biosci. 2015; 3, 39–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hertz, R, Nelson, MK, Kramer, W. Donor conceived offspring conceive of the donor: the relevance of age, awareness, and family form. Soc Sci Med. 2013; 86, 52–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beeson, DR, Jennings, PK, Kramer, W. Offspring searching for their sperm donors: how family type shapes the process. Hum Reprod. 2011; 26, 2415–2424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slutsky, J, Jadva, V, Freeman, T, et al. Integrating donor conception into identity development: adolescents in fatherless families. Fertil Steril. 2016; 106, 202–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohrnberger, J, Fichera, E, Sutton, M. The relationship between physical and mental health: a mediation analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2017; 195, 42–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zadeh, S, Ilioi, EC, Jadva, V, Golombok, S. The perspectives of adolescents conceived using surrogacy, egg or sperm donation. Hum Reprod. 2018; 33, 1099–1106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Persaud, S, Freeman, T, Jadva, V, et al. Adolescents conceived through donor insemination in mother-headed families: a qualitative study of motivations and experiences of contacting and meeting same-donor offspring. Child Soc. 2017; 31, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Adams et al. supplementary material

Tables S1-S18

Download Adams et al. supplementary material(File)
File 77.5 KB