Parental Subfertility, Fertility Treatment, and the Risk of Congenital Anorectal Malformations

Background: Fertility treatment seems to play a role in the etiology of congenital anorectal malformations, but it is unclear whether the underlying parental subfertility, ovulation induction, or the treatment itself is involved. Therefore, we investigated the odds of anorectal malformations among children of subfertile parents who conceived with or without treatment compared with fertile parents. Methods: We performed a case-control study among 380 cases with anorectal malformations treated at 3 departments of pediatric surgery in The Netherlands and 1973 population-based controls born between August 1988 and August 2012. Parental questionnaires were used to obtain information on fertility-related issues and potential confounders. Results: In singletons, increased risks of anorectal malformations were observed for parents who underwent intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) or in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment compared with fertile parents (odds ratio = 2.4 [95% confidence interval = 1.0-5.9] and 4.2 [1.9-8.9], respectively). For subfertile parents who conceived after IVF treatment, an elevated risk was also found when they were compared with subfertile parents who conceived without treatment (3.2 [1.4-7.2]). Among children of the latter category of parents, only the risk of anorectal malformations with other major congenital malformations was increased compared with fertile parents (2.0 [1.3-3.3]). No associations were found with intrauterine insemination or use of hormones for ovulation induction. Conclusions: We found evidence of a role of ICSI and IVF treatments in the etiology of anorectal malformations. However, subfertility without treatment increased only the risk of anorectal malformations with additional congenital malformations

Parental Subfertility, Fertility Treatment, and the Risk of Congenital Anorectal Malformations

Background: Fertility treatment seems to play a role in the etiology of congenital anorectal malformations, but it is unclear whether the underlying parental subfertility, ovulation induction, or the treatment itself is involved. Therefore, we investigated the odds of anorectal malformations among children of subfertile parents who conceived with or without treatment compared with fertile parents.Methods: We performed a case-control study among 380 cases with anorectal malformations treated at 3 departments of pediatric surgery in The Netherlands and 1973 population-based controls born between August 1988 and August 2012. Parental questionnaires were used to obtain information on fertility-related issues and potential confounders.Results: In singletons, increased risks of anorectal malformations were observed for parents who underwent intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) or in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment compared with fertile parents (odds ratio = 2.4 [95% confidence interval = 1.0-5.9] and 4.2 [1.9-8.9], respectively). For subfertile parents who conceived after IVF treatment, an elevated risk was also found when they were compared with subfertile parents who conceived without treatment (3.2 [1.4-7.2]). Among children of the latter category of parents, only the risk of anorectal malformations with other major congenital malformations was increased compared with fertile parents (2.0 [1.3-3.3]). No associations were found with intrauterine insemination or use of hormones for ovulation induction.Conclusions: We found evidence of a role of ICSI and IVF treatments in the etiology of anorectal malformations. However, subfertility without treatment increased only the risk of anorectal malformations with additional congenital malformations.</p

Effects of once-weekly exenatide on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular effects of adding once-weekly treatment with exenatide to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes, with or without previous cardiovascular disease, to receive subcutaneous injections of extended-release exenatide at a dose of 2 mg or matching placebo once weekly. The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The coprimary hypotheses were that exenatide, administered once weekly, would be noninferior to placebo with respect to safety and superior to placebo with respect to efficacy. RESULTS: In all, 14,752 patients (of whom 10,782 [73.1%] had previous cardiovascular disease) were followed for a median of 3.2 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.4). A primary composite outcome event occurred in 839 of 7356 patients (11.4%; 3.7 events per 100 person-years) in the exenatide group and in 905 of 7396 patients (12.2%; 4.0 events per 100 person-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.00), with the intention-to-treat analysis indicating that exenatide, administered once weekly, was noninferior to placebo with respect to safety (P<0.001 for noninferiority) but was not superior to placebo with respect to efficacy (P=0.06 for superiority). The rates of death from cardiovascular causes, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, and the incidence of acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, medullary thyroid carcinoma, and serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes with or without previous cardiovascular disease, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between patients who received exenatide and those who received placebo