IVF add-ons lack evidence of effectiveness, study finds
Consensus Summary
A landmark study published in *The Lancet Obstetrics, Gynaecology & Women’s Health* found that most IVF add-ons—such as acupuncture, corticosteroids, and platelet-rich plasma treatments—lack reliable evidence of improving fertility outcomes. Researchers analyzed 85 high-quality trials and concluded that seven of ten add-ons showed no benefit or had inconclusive results, while only three (EmbryoGlue, endometrial scratching, and PICSI) had weak evidence of potential advantages. The study, led by Dr. Sarah Lensen of the University of Melbourne, highlights widespread use of these add-ons in countries like Australia, the UK, and New Zealand, with over 70% of patients paying for them despite limited proof of effectiveness. Experts warn that unproven add-ons create false hope, financial strain, and unnecessary medical procedures for already vulnerable patients. While some clinicians argue that certain add-ons may help specific cases, the consensus is that better-informed discussions between doctors and patients are needed to address the commercial and emotional pressures driving their use.
✓ Verified by 2+ sources
Key details reported by multiple sources:
- A study published in *The Lancet Obstetrics, Gynaecology & Women’s Health* found that 7 of 10 common IVF add-ons showed no effect on fertility or had inconclusive results due to limited/low-quality data.
- The study reviewed 85 medical trials (out of 157 initially considered) after excluding 72 for trustworthiness issues.
- The 10 IVF add-ons assessed included acupuncture, corticosteroids, endometrial receptivity testing, intralipid infusion, intraovarian/inrauterine platelet-rich plasma injections, pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, EmbryoGlue, endometrial scratching, and PICSI.
- More than 70% of IVF patients in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand pay for one or more add-on during treatment.
- Australia performs over 100,000 assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles annually, with about 20,000 babies born via IVF each year (roughly 1 in 18 children).
- The study’s lead author, Dr. Sarah Lensen (University of Melbourne), stated that unproven add-ons lead to false hope, financial strain, and unnecessary procedures for patients.
- The review found weak evidence of possible benefit for three add-ons: EmbryoGlue (may increase pregnancy/live birth probability), endometrial scratching (may increase pregnancy/live birth), and PICSI (may lower miscarriage risk).
- IVF success rates in Australia remain modest at 30–40%, despite the high use of add-ons.
Points of Difference
Details reported by only one source:
- The study was described as the 'world’s most comprehensive review' of IVF add-ons.
- Dr. Lensen noted that 'in many countries, infertility care is largely provided by private clinics where IVF is highly commercialized, and some add-ons are extremely expensive.'
- The article highlighted mounting concern about 'suspect or untrustworthy randomized controlled trials' in reproductive medicine.
- The Guardian quoted Lensen: 'Our review finds a lack of evidence that most of the IVF add-ons we assessed provide any benefit to patients.'
- The article mentioned that 'private clinic websites and patient forums on social media' often overstate benefits and omit costs/risks of add-ons.
- Deanna Carr, an IVF patient, shared her experience of spending about $60,000 on IVF treatments and add-ons over four years, including four egg collections and seven embryo transfers.
- Dr. Devini Ameratunga (Brisbane reproductive endocrinologist) stated that while evidence for add-ons is low, some may offer 'small benefit for individual clients with specific needs,' such as PICSI for male fertility issues.
- Dr. Kath Whitton (Sydney fertility specialist) noted that IVF add-ons have been a 'hot topic' at fertility conferences and that current studies are underway to investigate efficacy, but robust evidence is lacking.
- The ABC article emphasized that patient demand (often driven by social media) and commercial pressure contribute to the widespread offering of add-ons, even when evidence is weak.
- Dr. Ameratunga said IVF add-ons are offered in about 75% of Australian clinics, including hers, and that some (like EmbryoGlue) are offered routinely due to perceived benefit.
Contradictions
Conflicting information between sources:
- The Guardian states that 70% of IVF patients in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand use add-ons, while the ABC specifies that at least 75% of IVF patients in Australia use them (no direct contradiction but a slight numerical difference).
- The Guardian implies that most IVF clinics are private and highly commercialized, while the ABC suggests that while commercial pressure exists, some doctors offer add-ons due to patient demand rather than pure profit motives.
Source Articles
Most IVF ‘add-on’ treatments have no effect on fertility or remain unproven, study says
Review shows majority of procedures offered alongside standard IVF not backed by reliable evidence Most IVF “add-on” treatments sold to people hoping to boost their chances of having children are not backed by reliable evidence, fail to boost fertility and may be a complete waste of money, the largest study of its kind has concluded. There has been a surge in extra procedures, medicines or techniques offered to patients in addition to standard IVF with bold claims they will increase the probabil
IVF add-ons are common in Australia, but there's no proof most work
Experts urge clinics and specialists to "carefully consider" offering IVF add-on treatments as they can be seen as "implicit endorsement of benefit" when there's little evidence most work.