CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT04048486Updated Oct 12, 2020

Children Born From IVM-CAPA vs IVF or Natural Conception

An observational study in IVM and IVF, sponsored by Mỹ Đức Hospital. Completed at 1 site in Vietnam. Open to participants aged 1 Month to 66 Months. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2020-10-12.

Sponsored by Mỹ Đức Hospital · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
66
Ages
1 Month to 66 Months
Sex
All
01

Study summary

CAPA-IVM is a new promising IVM technique involving the use of a new compound to facilitate the oocyte and embryo competence. CAPA-IVM preserved the maintenance of trans-zonal projections and significantly improved maturation rate and blastocyst yield. NGS analysis of 20 good quality CAPA-IVM blastocysts did not reveal increased aneuploidy compared to age-matched routine ICSI patients. The first CAPA-IVM baby was born in 2017 at My Duc Hospital, Vietnam and up to now, there are 33 babies born from this technique. There is no study to investigate the development of babies born from CAPA-IVM.

Read the detailed description

Assisted reproductive technologies (ART), such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and in vitro maturation (IVM), are widely used to solve human infertility, and have provided great benefits for millions of couples who have struggled with infertility disorders. The use of ART has been growing persistently and more than 8 million babies worldwide have been born via ART since the first IVF conceived child was born in 1978 (ESHRE monitoring).

During the last two decades, many studies have shown that children born following assisted reproductive techniques (ART) have an increased risk of adverse obstetric, perinatal and short-term follow-up outcomes when compared to naturally conceived (NC) infants (Jackson RA 2004, Helmerhorst et al., 2004; Pinborg et al., 2013; Adams et al., 2015). The etiologies of this association are mainly related to higher proportion of multiple pregnancies due to double embryo transfer option and greater rate of unfavorable comorbidities of infertile women (older age, high BMI, diabetes...). But with the trend toward single embryo transfer in current IVF practice, there are existing evidences supporting that the perinatal risks of singleton gestations following IVF treatment are still higher than those that result from a spontaneous conception (McDonald et al., 2009; Pandey et al., 2012).

Long-term development of children born by ART is also a concerned issue. It is evident that children born as a result of IVF treatment have an excess rate of congenital abnormalities, higher risk of developing metabolic, cardiovascular disorders and subclinical hyperthyroidism in later life (Roger Hart and Robert J. Norman, 2013, part I). Regarding mental health and development outcomes, cerebral palsy and slight neurodevelopmental delay are potential long-term associations with ART (Roger Hart and Robert J. Norman, 2013, part II). However, these adverse outcomes can be explained by obstetric factors (higher rate of prematurity and intrauterine growth restriction) rather than IVF. This leads to the concern about research biases in studies of long-term development of children born by ART where multiple gestations, prematurity, neonatal hospitalization and growth restriction were not well-controlled. Another concern about long-term follow-up studies of IVF children is the limitation of literatures and high-quality clinical trials that investigate the general health outcomes of children born by ART. The majority of valuable data only exist on the short-term outcome of infants born as a result of IVF treatment (Kalra and Barnhart, 2011) even though it is possible that some suspected disorders might only be identifiable beyond the first year of life (Oliver et al., 2012).

When studying about the long-term development of children following ART, a very important factor need to be considered is the medium of culture. There have been existing theories that proposed the mechanism of how epigenetic environment can up or down-regulate a set of genes which then results in the changes in embryonic growth or even the long-term development of children in later stage of life. Different ART methods may cause possible changes in DNA methylation patterns which in turn affect development of the placenta and fetus. This is the "developmental origins of health and disease hypothesis" (DOHaD) explaning why exposure to an adverse environment (possibly the culture medium) may result in unfavorable development and illnesses profiles in the ART offspring (Barker, 2007).

CAPA-IVM is a new promising IVM technique involving the use of a new compound to facilitate the oocyte and embryo competence. CAPA-IVM preserved the maintenance of trans-zonal projections and significantly improved maturation rate and blastocyst yield. NGS analysis of 20 good quality CAPA-IVM blastocysts did not reveal increased aneuploidy compared to age matched routine ICSI patients. The first CAPA-IVM baby was born in 2017 at My Duc Hospital, Vietnam and up to now, there are 33 babies born from this technique. There is no study to investigate the development of babies born from CAPA-IVM.

The investigators therefore conduct this study to investigate the physical and mental development of babies born from CAPA-IVM, IVF or natural conception.

02

Conditions studied

  • IVM
  • IVF
03

In context

Lead sponsor

Mỹ Đức Hospital is the lead sponsor of 55 studies on the registry; 20 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
1 Month to 66 Months
Sexes eligible
All
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

Live babies born from CAPA-IVM, IVF or natural conception

Inclusion criteria

  • Live babies born from CAPA-IVM
  • Live babies born from IVF
  • Live babies born from natural conception
  • Parents agree to participate

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Babies born from oocyte donation cycles
  • Babies born from sperm donation cycles
  • Babies born from PGT cycles
05

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
66 participants (actual)
Patient registry
No

Groups and cohorts

  • CAPA-IVM

    Live babies born from CAPA-IVM

    Other: Developmental score according to The Ages & Stages Questionnaires®, Third Edition - ASQ®-3 · Other: Physical development and General Health · Other: Developmental Red flags

  • IVF/ICSI

    Live babies born from IVF/ICSI

  • Natural conception

    Live babies born from natural conception

    Other: Developmental score according to The Ages & Stages Questionnaires®, Third Edition - ASQ®-3 · Other: Physical development and General Health · Other: Developmental Red flags

Interventions

  • OtherDevelopmental score according to The Ages & Stages Questionnaires®, Third Edition - ASQ®-3

    Ages \& Stages Questionnaires®, Third Edition (ASQ®-3) is a developmental screening tool designed for use by early educators and health care professionals. It relies on parents as experts, is easy-to-use, family-friendly and creates the snapshot needed to catch delays and celebrate milestones.

  • OtherPhysical development and General Health

    Physical development and General health examination

  • OtherDevelopmental Red flags

    Developmental Red flags Questionnaires

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. The average total ASQ-3 score

    * ASQ-3 (Ages and Stages Questionares®) has 5 aspects: Communication, Gross motor, Fine motor, Problem solving and Personal-Social * Each aspesct has 6 questions, if the answer is Yes, score = 10, Sometimes = 5 and Not yet = 0. * ASQ-3 average = average score of 5 aspects.

    Time frame: Up to 66 months after birth

Secondary outcomes

  1. Score of Communication

    * 6 questions, if the answer is Yes, score = 10, Sometimes = 5 and Not yet = 0. * Total score will be used: minimum = 0 and maximum = 60. * Each aspects in each stages has alternative threshold

    Time frame: Up to 66 months after birth

  2. Score of Gross motor

    * 6 questions, if the answer is Yes, score = 10, Sometimes = 5 and Not yet = 0. * Total score will be used: minimum = 0 and maximum = 60. * Each aspects in each stages has alternative threshold

    Time frame: Up to 66 months after birth

  3. Score of Fine motor

    * 6 questions, if the answer is Yes, score = 10, Sometimes = 5 and Not yet = 0. * Total score will be used: minimum = 0 and maximum = 60. * Each aspects in each stages has alternative threshold

    Time frame: Up to 66 months after birth

  4. Score of Problem solving

    * 6 questions, if the answer is Yes, score = 10, Sometimes = 5 and Not yet = 0. * Total score will be used: minimum = 0 and maximum = 60. * Each aspects in each stages has alternative threshold

    Time frame: Up to 66 months after birth

  5. Score of Personal-Social

    * 6 questions, if the answer is Yes, score = 10, Sometimes = 5 and Not yet = 0. * Total score will be used: minimum = 0 and maximum = 60. * Each aspects in each stages has alternative threshold

    Time frame: Up to 66 months after birth

  6. The presence of red flag signs by age

    1. For children less than 4 months * Rolling prior to 3 months * Persistent fisting at 3 months * Failure to alert to environmental stimuli 2. For children from 4 to 6 months * Poor head control * Failure to reach for objects by 5 months * Absent smile 3. For children from 6 to 12 months * Absent babbling by 6 months * W-sitting at 7 months * Inability to localize sound by 10 months * Persistent mouthing of objects at 12 months * Lack of consonant production by 15 months 4. For children from 12 to 24 months * Lack of imitation by 16 months * Lack of protodeclarative pointing by 18 months * Hand dominance prior to 18 months * Inability to walk up and down stairs at 24 months * Advanced non-communicative speech (meaningless communication repertoires) * Delayed Language Development milestone (50 single words at 24 months)

    Time frame: Up to 24 months after birth

  7. Duration of breast-feeding

    Duration of breast-feeding

    Time frame: Up to 24 months after birth

  8. Infant age at which weaning starts

    Infant age at which weaning starts

    Time frame: Up to 24 months after birth

  9. Diseases that lead to hospital admission

    Diseases that lead to hospital admission

    Time frame: Up to 24 months after birth

  10. Number of hospital admission

    Number of hospital admission

    Time frame: Up to 24 months after birth

  11. Weight

    Weight at 3, 6, 12, 18, 24 months and on the examination date

    Time frame: At 3, 6, 12, 18, 24 months and on the examination date

  12. Height

    Height at 3, 6, 12, 18, 24 months and on the examination date

    Time frame: At 3, 6, 12, 18, 24 months and on the examination date

Other outcomes

  1. Gestational age at delivery

    Gestational age at delivery

    Time frame: At birth

  2. Mode of delivery

    Vaginal birth or C-section

    Time frame: At birth

  3. Birth weight

    Weight of baby born

    Time frame: At birth

  4. Length circumference

    Length circumference after birth

    Time frame: At birth

  5. Head circumference

    Head circumference after birth

    Time frame: At birth

  6. Rate of congenital anomalies

    Any congenital anomalies detected in baby born

    Time frame: At birth

  7. 5-min Apgar score

    The Apgar score is determined by evaluating the newborn baby on five simple criteria on a scale from zero to two, then summing up the five values thus obtained. The resulting Apgar score ranges from zero to 10. The five criteria are summarized using words chosen to form a backronym (Appearance, Pulse, Grimace, Activity, Respiration).

    Time frame: At 5 minute after birth

  8. Rate of 5-min Apgar score <7

    Rate of Apgar score at 5 minute after birth \<7

    Time frame: At 5 minute after birth

  9. Rate of Admission to neonatal intensive care unit

    Admission to neonatal intensive care unit of baby

    Time frame: Within 7 days after birth

  10. Length of NICU admission

    Number of admission days to NICU

    Time frame: Up to 28 days after birth

  11. Rate of Respiratory distress syndrome

    Respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), diagnosed as the presence of tachypnoea \>60/minute, sternal recession and expiratory grunting, need for supplemental oxygen, and a radiological picture of diffuse reticulogranular shadowing with an air bronchogram.

    Time frame: Up to 28 days after birth

  12. Rate of Periventricular haemorrhage

    Periventricular haemorrhage II B or worse, will be diagnosed by repeated neonatal cranial ultrasound by the neonatologist according to the guidelines on neuro-imaging described by de Vries et al.

    Time frame: Up to 28 days after birth

  13. Rate of Necrotizing enterocolitis

    Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) will be diagnosed according to Bell.

    Time frame: Up to 28 days after birth

  14. Rate of Proven sepsis

    Proven sepsis, will be diagnosed on the combination of clinical signs and positive blood cultures.

    Time frame: Up to 28 days after birth

  15. Rate of Composite of poor perinatal outcomes

    Composite of poor perinatal outcomes, defined as intraventricular haemorrhage, respiratory distress syndrome, necrotizing enterocolitis or neonatal sepsis.

    Time frame: Up to 28 days after birth

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Mỹ Đức Hospital
    Ho Chi Minh City, Tan Binh, Vietnam
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Stephens SM, Arnett DM, Meacham RB. The use of in vitro fertilization in the management of male infertility: what the urologist needs to know. Rev Urol. 2013;15(4):154-60. PubMed 24659912 ↗
  • Helmerhorst FM, Perquin DA, Donker D, Keirse MJ. Perinatal outcome of singletons and twins after assisted conception: a systematic review of controlled studies. BMJ. 2004 Jan 31;328(7434):261. doi: 10.1136/bmj.37957.560278.EE. Epub 2004 Jan 23. PubMed 14742347 ↗
  • Pinborg A, Wennerholm UB, Romundstad LB, Loft A, Aittomaki K, Soderstrom-Anttila V, Nygren KG, Hazekamp J, Bergh C. Why do singletons conceived after assisted reproduction technology have adverse perinatal outcome? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2013 Mar-Apr;19(2):87-104. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dms044. Epub 2012 Nov 14. PubMed 23154145 ↗
  • McDonald SD, Han Z, Mulla S, Murphy KE, Beyene J, Ohlsson A; Knowledge Synthesis Group. Preterm birth and low birth weight among in vitro fertilization singletons: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009 Oct;146(2):138-48. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.05.035. Epub 2009 Jul 4. PubMed 19577836 ↗
  • Pandey S, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S, Maheshwari A. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2012 Sep-Oct;18(5):485-503. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dms018. Epub 2012 May 19. PubMed 22611174 ↗
  • Hart R, Norman RJ. The longer-term health outcomes for children born as a result of IVF treatment: Part I--General health outcomes. Hum Reprod Update. 2013 May-Jun;19(3):232-43. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dms062. Epub 2013 Feb 28. PubMed 23449642 ↗
  • Hart R, Norman RJ. The longer-term health outcomes for children born as a result of IVF treatment. Part II--Mental health and development outcomes. Hum Reprod Update. 2013 May-Jun;19(3):244-50. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmt002. Epub 2013 Feb 28. PubMed 23449643 ↗
  • Kalra SK, Barnhart KT. In vitro fertilization and adverse childhood outcomes: what we know, where we are going, and how we will get there. A glimpse into what lies behind and beckons ahead. Fertil Steril. 2011 May;95(6):1887-9. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.02.044. Epub 2011 Mar 16. PubMed 21411083 ↗
  • Oliver VF, Miles HL, Cutfield WS, Hofman PL, Ludgate JL, Morison IM. Defects in imprinting and genome-wide DNA methylation are not common in the in vitro fertilization population. Fertil Steril. 2012 Jan;97(1):147-53.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.10.027. Epub 2011 Nov 23. PubMed 22112648 ↗
  • Barker DJ. The origins of the developmental origins theory. J Intern Med. 2007 May;261(5):412-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2007.01809.x. PubMed 17444880 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Oct 12, 2020, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04048486
Lead sponsor
Mỹ Đức Hospital
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Aug 7, 2019
Start date
Aug 7, 2019
Primary completion
Sep 30, 2019
Completion
Dec 15, 2019
Last update
Oct 12, 2020

Study contacts

Lan N Vuong, MD, PhD
principal investigator · Mỹ Đức Hospital

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Oct 2020. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion