Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Ivm Of Oocytes Study
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Ivm Of Oocytes Study

441
views

Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
441
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. In vitro maturation of oocytes as a promising treatment option for infertile couples: a transdisciplinary study Beum Soo An, Junling Chen Xi-Kuan Chen, Jack Huang Se-Hyung Park, Qiuying Yang
  • 2. Background
    • In-vitro maturation (IVM)
    • Immature eggs are retrieved from ovary and mature in laboratory.
    • Once eggs are matured, in vitro fertilization (IVF) is then performed.
  • 3. Background
    • In vitro maturation (IVM) of oocytes vs. conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF)
    • Proposed advantages of IVM:
      • Simplify treatment and reduces cost
      • Avoids potential side effects-weight gain, bloating, breast tenderness, nausea, mood swings, and OHSS
      • Fear of potential risk of malignancy associated with repeated cycles of ovarian stimulation.
  • 4. Overall Objective
    • To assess biological, clinical, psychological and economical impact of in vitro maturation (IVM) of eggs
  • 5. 3 Pillars IVM Pillar 1: Biology Pillar 2: Clinical, psychological, economical Pillar 3: Population
  • 6. Pillar I: Biological assessment of IVM
  • 7. Biological approach for IVM group
    • Objectives
      • To compare life cycles and occurrences of disease from IVF and IVM treated offspring
      • To compare gene profile in maternal placenta of IVM and IVF derived embryos
  • 8. Hypotheses
    • IVM or IVF offspring have no difference in life cycles and occurrences of diseases.
    • Maternal placentas from IVM or IVF embryos do not have different gene profile.
  • 9. Research design
    • Using animal models (mouse or rat), we will compare life cycles and occurrences of diseases after IVF or IVM
    • We will analyze gene profile in the maternal placenta using microarray after IVF or IVM embryo injection, and confirm this by real time PCR and western blot in the different gestational stages
  • 10. Pillar II: Clinical, psychological, economical impact of IVM
  • 11. Objectives
    • To evaluate:
    • Efficacy of IVM-pregnancy and live birth rates.
    • Safety of IVM-complication rates
    • Cost of health service
    • Psychological impact on infertile couples
  • 12. Hypotheses
    • IVM treatment will result in comparable clinical efficacy as standard IVF (i.e. pregnancy and live birth).
    • IVM decreases the risk of maternal complications and does not increase the risk of fetal, neonatal and long term complications.
    • IVM is more cost effective than IVF
    • IVM reduces psychological stress of infertile couples
  • 13. Research Design
    • Multicenter prospective randomized control trial comparing IVM to IVF
    • Cohort study-follow up babies from IVM vs. IVF and spontaneous pregnancy -1 year
    • Health economic analysis
    • Psychological assessment using validated structured questionnaire
    • Focus group discussion-clinicians, nurses, clients
  • 14. Outcomes
    • Efficacy of IVM vs. IVF:
      • Fertilization
      • Implantation
      • Pregnancy
      • Live birth
    • Safety of IVM vs. IVF:
      • Maternal complications (i.e. OHSS, miscarriage)
      • Fetal complications (i.e. congenital anomalies)
      • Newborn (Gestational age, birth weight, APGAR)
      • Follow up of IVM vs. IVF vs. spontaneous pregnancy babies as a cohort
    • Cost-effectiveness of IVM vs. IVF
    • Impact of IVM and IVF treatment on psychological well being of infertile couples.
  • 15. Pillar III: IVF and pregnancy complication and birth outcomes: a population based study
  • 16. Objective
    • To assess the effects of IVF and IVM on pregnancy complications and perinatal outcomes
  • 17. Methods-subjects
    • A population-based retrospective cohort
    • 2004-2008 Niday Perinatal Database, Ontario
    • 120 000 births in Ontario every year
    • 900-1000 births with assistant reproduction technology
  • 18. Methods-exposure and control
    • Exposure: IVF and IVM
    • Control: spontaneous pregnancy
    • Frequency matched by:
      • Year of birth
      • Postal code of residence
      • Plurality
      • Parity
      • Maternal age
  • 19. Outcome
    • Pregnancy complications:
      • Gestational hypertension
      • Preeclampsia
      • Eclampsia
      • Gestational diabetes
    • Obstetric complications
      • Placenta previa
      • Placenta abruption
  • 20. Methods-outcomes
    • Birth outcomes:
      • Birth defects
      • Apgar score
      • Gestational age: Preterm birth
      • Birth weight: LBW, SGA
    • Mortality
      • Fetal death ( ≥20 gestational weeks)
      • Early neonatal death
      • Late neonatal death
  • 21. Methods-confounders
    • Aboriginal status
    • First language of mother
    • Maternal age
    • Parity
    • Initiation time of prenatal care
    • Maternal smoking
    • Reproductive history
    • Induction during labor
    • C-section
  • 22. Timetable and Budget
    • Timetable
      • Preparation and coordination (6 months)
      • Implementation (4 years)
      • Report writing (6 months)
    • Budget
  • 23. Research Team
    • Biologists
    • Clinicians
    • Psychologists
    • Ethicists
    • Epidemiologists
    • Lawyers
  • 24. Interaction and integration IVM Pillar 1: Biology Pillar 2: Clinical, psychological, economical Pillar 3: Population Health Policy makers
  • 25.
    • STIRRHS
    • Mentors
      • Dr. Raymond Lambert
      • Dr. Marcel Melancon
      • Dr. Roger Pierson
      • Dr. Peter Leung (UBC)
      • Dr. Seang Lin Tan (McGill)
      • Dr. Mark Walker (U Ottawa)
      • Dr. Shi Wu Wen (U Ottawa)
    Acknowledgement