# News: Fertility drugs may lead to greater occurence of embryo abnormalities



## urbangirl (Jul 28, 2010)

Or something like that- It actually reads; Down's warning to older IVF mothers- Fertility drugs may lead to embryo problems.

It basically says that a study led by the director of The london Bridge Fertility, Gynaecology & Genetics centre suggests that use of fertility drugs may trigger more abnormal chromosomes in the eggs and embryos produced than would be otherwise expected, even taking into account the age of the mothers.

Yes, I know this is 'news', but not everyone knows about the news section and this is just for the over-40's really, anyway... Read it at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2010912/Downs-warning-older-IVF-mothers-Fertility-drugs-lead-embryo-problems.html

Don't worry too much though, as not everyone agrees, and you can always take a lower dose...
There will probably be a lot more 'fertility news' this week because there's an international conference in Stockholm this week, if you're wondering where your consultant has disappeared to!!

/links


----------



## Cornflower (Jun 5, 2011)

It's interesting isn't it? It does make me think that natural/mild could be the way to go.


----------



## Mish3434 (Dec 14, 2004)

Personally I would take anything the Daily Wail says with a pinch of salt, I don't think I have ever read anything positive about IVF in that paper

Note: That is my personal opinion and not one necessarily shared with Fertility Friends

Shelley xx


----------



## purple72 (Jul 25, 2008)

It was on the news yesterday but it's all to do with higher doses and the reality is, if you are a poor responder therefore requiring higher doses it's likely due to the fact that you have a diminished ovarian reserve (sometimes due to age but not always) But as well as needing more drugs it also means that you probably do not have as many 'good' eggs left so from a research point of view it would be impossible to say if any embryo with abnomalities was down to the drugs or the poor ovarian reserve!


----------



## urbangirl (Jul 28, 2010)

hmmm .., but they do say in the article that the numbers were greater than would be expected even taking the age of the women into account i.e. there was a greater no. of abnormalities among women taking the drugs than women of that age group getting pregnant without, who you would also expect to have a low ovarian reserve.


----------



## purple72 (Jul 25, 2008)

Yes but with IVF you are forcing the production of eggs that may otherwise not have been available if you get what I mean. There are also alot of people with a good ovarian reserve in the fourties, and lots of us with poor ovarian reserve in our 30's. I think they only highlight what they feel is newsworthy to their readers in the Mail and they are never pro IVF! They are also notorious at cherry picking info from Research Papers that is skewed to make a point they want to sensationalise!

X


----------



## urbangirl (Jul 28, 2010)

I don't think it was skewed because the study comes from a reputable source and they did include an opposing point of view- a quote from an IVF consultant at Hammersmith Hospital saying they weren't in agreement with the results, so the article was balanced.  I think it is important to have all information, good and bad out there.  The fact that in ivf we use eggs that we wouldn't normally was the whole point- that is one suggested explanation for the findings of the study.  The Daily Mail does have a lot of IVF stories, which is one reason I read it, but it's not true to say they are notoriously anti-ivf.  Editorially they are generally (but not always) against single women having families but that is not the same as being anti-ivf.  Most of the ivf stories are positive, success stories about women getting pregnant agasint the odds.  I say just take the information and ignore the editorial!


----------



## purple72 (Jul 25, 2008)

Actually I thought they were blaming the high dose of IVF meds that were causing the abnormalities, when what I'm saying is it's more likely down to poor ovarian reserve irrespective of amount of stims used. Also I think there is a difference between showing an opposing point of view and actually taking one part of research and running with that without thinking what statistical significant the one point they chose to highlight has. But I guess on this point and how we feel the daily mail treats IVF, you and I will just have to agree to disagree.   

Thankfully FF is a place where we can all have our opinions and share them in a safe environment.

Sx


----------



## Mish3434 (Dec 14, 2004)

Something to bear in mind too is that the risk of having a baby with Downs Syndrome is a lot higher aswell in your forties.  Who can say that IVF makes this even more likely?? 

Shelley x


----------



## urbangirl (Jul 28, 2010)

Lots of consultants like to say low ovarian reserve and poor egg quality go together, but so far it's just a theory (as far as I know).  It may be right but as an over 40 with low amh I like to think it's wrong!


----------



## purple72 (Jul 25, 2008)

But thankfully it only takes that one egg urbangirl and fingers crossed you get it. I never had my AMH measured as there was no point! My FSH was normal but I responded crap to the drugs and was given a less than 5% chance of success with IVF with my own Eggs and advised DE only option, and that was after the first 2 cycles. But miracles do happen and my little boy is just perfect!

Good luck with the DHEA and the low stim approach, I think that may be part of the key for some people, but as you say so little is proven in this world of infertility! Good luck xx


----------

