Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Multiple Birth Epidemic: Revisited

  • Review Article
  • Published:
The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The modern era of infertility treatment was heralded over half a century ago with the introduction of new hormonal drugs that could effectively induce ovarian ovulation. However, it was quickly recognized that the birth of these new “miracle drugs” was associated with a remarkable increase in the incidence of high-order multiple births. Despite the fantastic improvement in our ability to monitor ovarian response during ovulation induction, and our power to control the number of embryos introduced into the womb through IVF, multiple births remain a leading cause of long-term child morbidity among infertility patients. Efforts to prevent what was coined in the 1960s as the “multiple birth epidemic” remain an urgent concern. A new body of research clearly points at our capacity to reduce the risk of multiple births and their associated long term morbidity without diminishing current high success rates of infertility treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lunenfeld B. Historical perspectives in gonadotropin therapy. Hum Reprod. 2004;10:453–67.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Beall SA, Decherney A. History and challenges surrounding ovarian stimulation in the treatment of infertility. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:795–801.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Janvier A, Spelke B, Barrington KJ. The epidemic of multiple gestations and neonatal intensive care unit use: the cost of irresponsibility. J Pediatr. 2011;159:409–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK. Three decades of twin births in the United States, 1980–2009. NCHS data brief, no 80. Hyattsville: National Center for Health Statistics; 2012.

  5. Blondel B, Kaminski M. Trends in the occurrence, determinants, and consequences of multiple births. Semin Perinatol. 2002;26:239–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ooki S. Estimation of the contribution of assisted and non-assisted reproductive technology fertility treatments to multiple births during the past 30 years in Japan: 1979–2008. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2011;14:476–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Allen VM, Wilson RD, Cheung A. Pregnancy outcomes after assisted reproductive technology. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2006;28:220–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Herbert DL, Lucke JC, Dobson AJ. Birth outcomes after spontaneous or assisted conception among infertile Australian women aged 28 to 36 years: a prospective, population-based study. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:630–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. McDonald SD, Han Z, Mulla S, et al. Preterm birth and low birth weight among in vitro fertilization twins: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;148:105–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Roca-de Bes M, Gutierrez-Maldonado J, Gris-Martinez JM. Comparative study of the psychological risks associated with families with multiple births resulting from assisted reproductive technology (ART) and without ART. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:170–4.

  11. Connolly MP, Hoorens S, Chambers GM, ESHRE Reproduction and Society Task Force. The costs and consequences of assisted reproductive technology: an economic perspective. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16:603–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bromer JG, Ata B, Seli M, et al. Preterm deliveries that result from multiple pregnancies associated with assisted reproductive technologies in the USA: a cost analysis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2011;23:168–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sentilhes L, Audibert F, Dommerques M, et al. Multifetal pregnancy reduction: indications, technical aspects and psychological impact. Presse Med. 2008;37:295–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tadin I, Roje D, Banovic I, et al. Fetal reduction in multifetal pregnancy—ethical dilemmas. Yonsei Med J. 2002;43:252–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies and Practice committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Elective single-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:835–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Thurin A, Hausken J, Hillensjo T, et al. Elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2392–402.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Grady R, Alavi N, Vale R, et al. Elective single embryo transfer and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:324–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kato K, Takehara Y, Seqawa T, et al. Minimal ovarian stimulation combined with elective single embryo transfer policy: age-specific results of large, single-centre, Japanese cohort. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2012;10:35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. McClamrock HD, Jones HW Jr, Adashi EY. Ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination at the quarter centennial: implications for the multiple births epidemic. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:802–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jones CA, Christensen AL, Salihu H, et al. Prediction of individual probabilities of live birth and multiple birth events following in vitro fertilization (IVF): a new outcomes counseling tool for IVF providers and patients using HFEA metrics. J Exp Clin Assist Reprod. 2011;8:3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wright VC, Schieve LA, Reynolds MA, et al. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance—United States, 2002. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2005;54:1–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Reynolds MA, Schieve LA. Trends in embryo transfer practices and multiple gestation for IVF procedures in the USA, 1996–2002. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:694–700.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. The ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Multiple gestation pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:1856–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Min JK, Claman P, Hughes E, et al. Guidelines for the number of embryos to transfer following in vitro fertilization No. 182, September 2006. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008;102:203–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Min JK, Hughes E, Young D, et al. Elective single embryo transfer following in vitro fertilization. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2010;32:363–77.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Practice committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies. Guidelines on number of embryos transferred. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1518–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Maheshwari A, Griffiths S, Bhattacharya S. Global variations in the uptake of single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:107–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ata B, Seli E. Economics of assisted reproductive technologies. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2010;22:183–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Veleva Z, Karinen P, Tomas C, et al. Elective single embryo transfer with cryopreservation improves the outcome and diminishes the costs of IVF/ICSI. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:1632–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bensdorp AJ, Slappendel E, Koks C, et al. The INeS study: prevention of multiple pregnancies: a randomised controlled trial comparing IUI COH versus IVF e SET versus MNC IVF in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility. BMC Womens Health. 2009;9:35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. McKelvey A, David AL, Shenfield F, et al. The impact of cross-border reproductive care or “fertility tourism” on NHS maternity service. BJOG. 2009;116:1520–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Culley L, Hudson N, Rapport F, et al. Crossing borders for fertility treatment: motivations, destinations and outcomes of UK fertility travelers. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2373–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Storrow RF. The pluralism problem in cross-border reproductive care. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:2939–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Hopkins L, Labonte R, Runnels V, et al. Medical tourism today: what is the state of existing knowledge? J Public Health Policy. 2010;31:185–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Jones HW Jr, Cooke I, Kempers R, et al. International Federation of Fertility Societies Surveillance 2010: preface. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:491.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Chaim Sheba Medical Center, The Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Sarit Avraham & Daniel S. Seidman (Associate Professor)

Authors
  1. Sarit Avraham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel S. Seidman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel S. Seidman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Avraham, S., Seidman, D.S. The Multiple Birth Epidemic: Revisited. J Obstet Gynecol India 62, 386–390 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-012-0309-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-012-0309-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation