In Vitro Fertilization: Four Decades of Reflections and Promises
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Georgeanna Seegar Jones (1912-2005) [1]
Published on The Embryo Project Encyclopedia (https://embryo.asu.edu) Georgeanna Seegar Jones (1912-2005) [1] By: Ruffenach, Stephen C. Keywords: Biography [2] Fertilization [3] Reproductive assistance [4] Medicine [5] Georgeanna Seegar Jones [6] was a reproductive endocrinologist who created one of America’s most successfuli nfertility [7] clinics and eventually, along with her husband Howard W. Jones, MD, performed the first in vitro [8] fertilization [9] in America, leading to the birth of Elizabeth Jordan Carr. Jones was born in Baltimore, Maryland, on 6 July 1912. Her father, Dr. John King Beck Emory Seegar [10], was a practicing physician at the time working in the field of obstetrics. Early in her childhood Jones had a broken bone that eventually became infected and caused a great deal of pain, inspiring her to go into the field of medicine. Jones’ education began at Goucher College [11] in Baltimore where she received her bachelor’s degree in chemistry in 1932. After graduating, she traveled to Johns Hopkins Medical School and obtained her MD in 1936. Jones then continued research in the field of reproductive physiology at Johns Hopkins University [12] until she applied for and received a fellowship at the National Institute of Health, where she was able to continue her work until 1939. It was at this point that Jones took a position working at Johns Hopkins Medical School, serving in a number of different positions including the director of the reproductive physiology lab as well as the head gynecologist of the Gynecological Endocrine Clinic at Johns Hopkins. Jones continued working in both positions, eventually becoming a full-time professor of gynecology and obstetrics until her retirement in 1978. -
Why the Medical Research Council Refused Robert Edwards and Patrick Steptoe Support for Research on Downloaded from Human Conception in 1971
Hum. Reprod. Advance Access published July 24, 2010 Human Reproduction, Vol.0, No.0 pp. 1–18, 2010 doi:10.1093/humrep/deq155 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Historical contribution Why the Medical Research Council refused Robert Edwards and Patrick Steptoe support for research on Downloaded from human conception in 1971 1,* 2 2 Martin H. Johnson , Sarah B. Franklin , Matthew Cottingham , http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org and Nick Hopwood 3 1Anatomy School and Trophoblast Research Centre, Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, Anatomy School, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DY, UK 2Department of Sociology & BIOS Centre, The London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK 3Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, Cambridge CB2 3RH, UK *Correspondence address. E-mail: [email protected] Submitted on March 30, 2010; accepted on May 26, 2010 background: In 1971, Cambridge physiologist Robert Edwards and Oldham gynaecologist Patrick Steptoe applied to the UK Medical at British Library of Political and Economic Science on July 27, 2010 Research Council (MRC) for long-term support for a programme of scientific and clinical ‘Studies on Human Reproduction’. The MRC, then the major British funder of medical research, declined support on ethical grounds and maintained this policy throughout the 1970s. The work continued with private money, leading to the birth of Louise Brown in 1978 and transforming research in obstetrics, gynaecology and human embryology. methods: The MRC decision has been criticized, but the processes by which it was reached have yet to be explored. Here, we present an archive-based analysis of the MRC decision. -
20. Riesgos Y Complicaciones En FIV-ICSI
01 serono 1-6 OK:Maquetación 1 8/3/07 12:14 Página 223 20. Riesgos y complicaciones en FIV-ICSI RIESGOS DERIVADOS DEL TRATAMIENTO HORMONAL Estimulación ovárica y riesgo de cáncer La medicación para estimular la ovulación se utiliza desde hace unos cuarenta años para tratar la infertilidad. En los últimos veinte años, diferentes estudios empiezan a cuestio- nar la seguridad de estos fármacos y su relación con distintos tipos de cáncer. Ayhan y cols. en una revisión en el año 2004, concluyen que se necesitan estudios prospectivos, multicéntricos y durante largos periodos de tiempo para determinar la relación entre el uso de los fármacos para estimular la ovulación y el riesgo de cáncer(1). En el año 2000, Klip et al. realizan una revisión desde 1966 a 1999 donde se analiza la relación entre el uso de fármacos de estimulación ovárica y el riesgo de cáncer de ova- rio, mama, endometrio, tiroides y melanoma. Aunque se sugiere una relación entre el uso de los fármacos y el riesgo de cáncer, no existen estudios epidemiológicos que lo demues- tren(2). Más tarde, Kashyap et al. 2004, en su metaanálisis, demuestran una tendencia hacia un efecto beneficioso de las técnicas de reproducción asistida, ya que suelen fina- lizar en embarazo, que es un factor protector contra el cáncer de ovario(3). Sin embargo, Ness et al., 2002, publicaron un metaanálisis(4), en el que encontraban un ligero aumento de riesgo de neoplasia borderline en pacientes que habían sido expues- tas a tratamientos de infertilidad, cuando se comparaba con la población normal, pero Mosgaard demostró que ello es debido en parte a la propia infertilidad(5). -
Tuesday, 21 April 2020 HFEA Teleconference Meeting • Members
Tuesday, 21 April 2020 HFEA Teleconference Meeting Panel members Richard Sydee (Chair) Director of Finance and Resources Kathleen Sarsfield Watson Communications Manager Niamh Marren Regulatory Policy Manager Members of the Executive Bernice Ash Secretary External adviser Observers Catherine Burwood Licensing Manager • Members of the panel declared that they had no conflicts of interest in relation to this item. • 9th edition of the HFEA Code of Practice. • Standard licensing and approvals pack for committee members. The panel considered the papers, which included a completed application form, inspection report and licensing minutes for the last three years. The panel noted that Bourn Hall Clinic Wickford has been licensed by the HFEA since July 2018, for the standard period of two years for new licences. The centre provides a full range of fertility services. Other licensed activities of the centre include storage of gametes and embryos. The panel noted that Bourn Hall Clinic Wickford is part of a group that incorporates three other HFEA licensed centres: Bourn Hall Clinic (centre 0100), Bourn Hall Clinic Colchester (centre 0188), Bourn Hall Clinic Norwich (centre 0325). All clinics are centrally managed and have common practices and procedures, in particular their quality management system (QMS). The panel noted that the centre was last inspected in May 2019, shortly after the inspection of sister clinic, centre 0188, during which a number of anomalies in consent to legal parenthood were identified. This is discussed in detail in the renewal inspection report for centre 0188. As a result, the executive held a management review meeting, in accordance with the HFEA’s Compliance and Enforcement Policy. -
The Impact of Withdrawing Funding for Ivf
THE IMPACT OF WITHDRAWING FUNDING FOR IVF Feedback to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough CCG regarding the impact of withdrawing NHS funding for IVF and a proposal from Bourn Hall to improve fertility service provision in the region. APRIL 2019 CONTENTS Executive summary ............................................................................................ 2 Results of the survey .......................................................................................... 3 FOI data/Bourn Hall data ................................................................................... 5 Recommendations ............................................................................................. 7 Appendix A: The Bourn Hall integrated fertility pathway ................................... 8 Appendix B: Survey results analysis .................................................................... 9 Appendix C: Impact of infertility on mental health ........................................... 11 Appendix D: Survey participants’ detailed feedback How has infertility affected you, your relationships and your health (or those of someone you care about)?............................................... 13 Appendix E: Survey participants’ advice What advice would you give your younger self regarding fertility treatment? .................. 26 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background In August 2017 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Clinical Commissioning Group (C&PCCG) made the decision to remove funding for its Specialist Fertility Services, which includes IVF, -
Fertility Network UK Magazine – Autumn 2016
INUK Autumn 2016.e$S_Layout 1 11/10/2016 10:21 Page 1 No.51 Autumn 2016 The national charity, here for anyone who has ever experienced fertility problems NHS Funding Fundin g for NHS fertility treatmen the country, with access entir your postcode. t var ely dependies across ent on Information aby, you can find If you are trying to have a b rmation about fertility problems, treatment info upport here. options, funding and emotional s News News art parents icles f or those trying to become Support Our support network is here to offer those affected by fertility issues the support and understanding they need, when they need it. Events We have details of events which are free to attend and we will also list details of open days and free patient events for clinics who are members of our clinic outreach scheme. Our new website will be launched at The Fertility Show in November: www.fertilitynetworkuk.org INUK Autumn 2016.e$S_Layout 1 11/10/2016 10:23 Page 2 Fertility Network UK Susan Seenan Staff Gallery Chief Executive [email protected] Tel: 01294 230730 Mobile: 07762 137786 Sheena Andrew Coutts Catherine Hill Gillian Young Business Media McLaughlin Head of Development Relations Volunteer Business Manager Officer Co-ordinator Development [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Mobile: 07710 764162 Mobile: 07794 372351 Mobile: 07469 660845 Mobile: 07909 686874 Head Office Claire Heritage Alison Hannah Head Office Onash Tramaseur Manager Administrator -
In Vitro Fertilization for Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome
CLINICAL OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY Volume 64, Number 1, 39–47 Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. In Vitro Fertilization for Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome JESSICA R. ZOLTON, DO,* and SAIOA TORREALDAY, MD† *Program in Reproductive Endocrinology and Gynecology, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health; and †Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland Abstract: In vitro fertilization is indicated for infertile treatment for infertility. Guidelines indi- women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) after cate that IVF should be offered after failed unsuccessful treatment with ovulation induction agents or in women deemed high-risk of multiple gestations ovulation induction with oral agents or 1 who are ideal candidates for single embryo transfers. gonadotropin treatment. However, due to PCOS patients are at increased risk of ovarian hyper- the risk of twins and higher order multi- stimulation syndrome; therefore, attention should be ples, which is more commonly seen when made in the choice of in vitro fertilization treatment gonadotropin medications are utilized, protocol, dose of gonadotropin utilized, and regimen to achieve final oocyte maturation. Adopting these strat- IVF may be considered after failed ovula- egies in addition to close monitoring may significantly tion induction with clomiphene citrate or reduce the ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome risk. letrozole.2 In addition, PCOS patients are Future developments may improve pregnancy out- ideal candidates for consideration of elec- comes and decrease complications in PCOS women tive single embryo transfer to mitigate the undergoing fertility treatment. Key words: infertility, in vitro fertilization, polycystic risk of multiple pregnancies while under- ovarian syndrome, ovarian hyperstimulation syn- going IVF. -
The ART of Assisted Reproductive Technology
Infertility • THEME The ART of assisted reproductive technology BACKGROUND One in six Australian couples of The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's reproductive age experience difficulties in National Perinatal Statistical Unit's annual report Jeffrey Persson, conceiving a child. Once a couple has been Assisted reproductive technology in Australia and New MD, FRANZCOG, CREI, is Clinical appropriately assessed, assisted reproductive Zealand 2002, shows that babies born in 2002 using Director (City), technology (ART) techniques can be used to assisted reproductive technology (ART) had longer IVFAustralia. overcome problems with ovulation, tubal patency, gestational ages, higher birth weights and fewer peri- [email protected] male fertility or unexplained infertility. natal deaths than their counterparts of 2 years OBJECTIVE This article discusses the range of previously.1 ART techniques available to subfertile couples. This is the first year national data have been avail- able on the age of women (and their partners) using DISCUSSION Intracytoplasmic sperm injection is now the most common form of ART used in ART. The average age of women undergoing treat- Australia, being used in almost half of all fresh ment in 2002 was 35.2 years, and the average cycles, with in vitro fertilisation being used in age of partners was 37.6 years.1 Age remains the approximately one-third of all fresh cycles. most significant issue affecting a couple's chance of conceiving and carrying a pregnancy to full term. Women need to understand the impact age has on their chance of becoming pregnant. Once a couple has been assessed and investigations suggest subfer- tility, the treatment options depend on the underlying cause (Table 1). -
First Unaffected Pregnancy Using Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis for Sickle Cell Anemia
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION First Unaffected Pregnancy Using Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis for Sickle Cell Anemia Kangpu Xu, PhD Context Sickle cell anemia is a common autosomal recessive disorder. However, pre- Zhong Ming Shi, MD implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) for this severe genetic disorder previously has not been successful. Lucinda L. Veeck, MLT, DSc Objective To achieve pregnancy with an unaffected embryo using in vitro fertiliza- Mark R. Hughes, MD, PhD tion (IVF) and PGD. Zev Rosenwaks, MD Design Laboratory analysis of DNA from single cells obtained by biopsy from em- ICKLE CELL ANEMIA IS ONE OF THE bryos in 2 IVF attempts, 1 in 1996 and 1 in 1997, to determine the genetic status of each embryo before intrauterine transfer. most common human autoso- mal recessive disorders. It is Setting University hospital in a large metropolitan area. caused by a mutation substitut- Patients A couple, both carriers of the recessive mutation for sickle cell disease. Sing thymine for adenine in the sixth Interventions Standard IVF treatment, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, embryo bi- codon (GAG to GTG) of the gene for the opsy, single-cell polymerase chain reaction and DNA analyses, embryo transfer to uterus, b-globin chain on chromosome 11p, pregnancy confirmation, and prenatal diagnosis by amniocentesis at 16.5 weeks’ ges- thereby encoding valine instead of glu- tation. tamic acid in the sixth position of the Main Outcome Measure DNA analysis of single blastomeres indicating whether globin chain. The frequency of sickle cell embryos carried the sickle cell mutation, allowing only unaffected or carrier embryos trait (carrier status) among the African to be transferred. -
Optimizing Product Lifecycle Management with Real World
1/17/2019 Optimizing Product Lifecycle Management With Real-World Evidence :: Medtech Insight This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183 Printed By Optimizing Product Lifecycle Management With Real- World Evidence 27 Dec 2018 SPONSORED Executive Summary Thought Leadership In Association With IQVIA An increasingly data-rich healthcare sector presents both opportunities and challenges for the MedTech industry, just as it does for the health systems and patients served by MedTech products. Used intelligently and appropriately, the vast quantities of real-world data emanating from multiple healthcare sources, such as electronic medical records (EMRs), claims databases, products and disease registries, provide the raw material for real-world evidence (RWE) that can inform strategy and decision- making throughout the MedTech-product lifecycle. An increasingly data-rich healthcare sector presents both opportunities and challenges for the MedTech industry, just as it does for the health systems and patients served by MedTech products. Used intelligently and appropriately, the vast quantities of real-world data emanating from multiple healthcare sources, such as electronic medical records (EMRs), claims databases, products and disease registries, provide the raw material for real-world evidence (RWE) that can inform strategy and decision-making throughout the MedTech-product lifecycle. “What we’re seeing in the industry -
Why the Medical Research Council Refused Robert Edwards and Patrick Steptoe Support for Research on Human Conception in 1971
Hum. Reprod. Advance Access published July 24, 2010 Human Reproduction, Vol.0, No.0 pp. 1–18, 2010 doi:10.1093/humrep/deq155 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Historical contribution Why the Medical Research Council refused Robert Edwards and Patrick Steptoe support for research on human conception in 1971 Martin H. Johnson 1,*, Sarah B. Franklin 2, Matthew Cottingham 2, and Nick Hopwood 3 Downloaded from 1Anatomy School and Trophoblast Research Centre, Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, Anatomy School, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DY, UK 2Department of Sociology & BIOS Centre, The London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK 3Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, Cambridge CB2 3RH, UK *Correspondence address. E-mail: [email protected] Submitted on March 30, 2010; accepted on May 26, 2010 http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org background: In 1971, Cambridge physiologist Robert Edwards and Oldham gynaecologist Patrick Steptoe applied to the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) for long-term support for a programme of scientific and clinical ‘Studies on Human Reproduction’. The MRC, then the major British funder of medical research, declined support on ethical grounds and maintained this policy throughout the 1970s. The work continued with private money, leading to the birth of Louise Brown in 1978 and transforming research in obstetrics, gynaecology and human embryology. methods: The MRC decision has been criticized, but the processes by which it was reached have yet to be explored. Here, we present an archive-based analysis of the MRC decision. results: We find evidence of initial support for Edwards and Steptoe, including from within the MRC, which invited the applicants to join its new directly funded Clinical Research Centre at Northwick Park Hospital. -
Genealogical Sketch Of
Genealogy and Historical Notes of Spamer and Smith Families of Maryland Appendix 2. SSeelleecctteedd CCoollllaatteerraall GGeenneeaallooggiieess ffoorr SSttrroonnggllyy CCrroossss--ccoonnnneecctteedd aanndd HHiissttoorriiccaall FFaammiillyy GGrroouuppss WWiitthhiinn tthhee EExxtteennddeedd SSmmiitthh FFaammiillyy Bayard Bache Cadwalader Carroll Chew Coursey Dallas Darnall Emory Foulke Franklin Hodge Hollyday Lloyd McCall Patrick Powel Tilghman Wright NEW EDITION Containing Additions & Corrections to June 2011 and with Illustrations Earle E. Spamer 2008 / 2011 Selected Strongly Cross-connected Collateral Genealogies of the Smith Family Note The “New Edition” includes hyperlinks embedded in boxes throughout the main genealogy. They will, when clicked in the computer’s web-browser environment, automatically redirect the user to the pertinent additions, emendations and corrections that are compiled in the separate “Additions and Corrections” section. Boxed alerts look like this: Also see Additions & Corrections [In the event that the PDF hyperlink has become inoperative or misdirects, refer to the appropriate page number as listed in the Additions and Corrections section.] The “Additions and Corrections” document is appended to the end of the main text herein and is separately paginated using Roman numerals. With a web browser on the user’s computer the hyperlinks are “live”; the user may switch back and forth between the main text and pertinent additions, corrections, or emendations. Each part of the genealogy (Parts I and II, and Appendices 1 and 2) has its own “Additions and Corrections” section. The main text of the New Edition is exactly identical to the original edition of 2008; content and pagination are not changed. The difference is the presence of the boxed “Additions and Corrections” alerts, which are superimposed on the page and do not affect text layout or pagination.