Most “add-on” treatments marketed to IVF patients lack reliable evidence of efficacy, according to a comprehensive meta-analysis published in The Lancet Obstetrics, Gynaecology & Women’s Health. Researchers found that of 85 high-quality trials, the majority of common supplemental procedures—including acupuncture and genetic screening—either show no benefit to fertility or remain inconclusive. These findings suggest that patients are frequently paying for extra services that provide no proven advantage, potentially leading to financial strain and false hope.
Why are unproven IVF add-ons so common?
Infertility care is frequently provided by private clinics where IVF is a highly commercialized service, according to Dr. Sarah Lensen of the University of Melbourne. Because these clinics operate as businesses, the availability of add-ons is often perceived by patients as an implicit endorsement of their effectiveness. Data indicates that over 70% of patients in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand pay for at least one extra treatment during their IVF cycles. This widespread uptake persists despite a lack of robust clinical data, fueled by misinformation on social media forums and private clinic websites that often omit the associated risks and costs.
Which common IVF add-ons lack evidence?
The meta-analysis evaluated 10 common add-ons and found that seven of them demonstrated either no effect on fertility or yielded inconclusive results due to low-quality data. According to the study, the following treatments currently lack verified clinical support:
- Acupuncture: The practice of inserting needles into specific body points.
- Corticosteroids: Medications used to suppress immune activity and reduce inflammation.
- Endometrial receptivity testing: Biopsies taken to analyze gene expression in the uterine lining.
- Intralipid infusion: Fat-based liquids administered intravenously.
- Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections: Both intraovarian and intrauterine applications of PRP.
- Pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: Screening embryos for chromosomal counts.
Are any add-ons actually effective?
The review identified only three procedures with weak evidence suggesting a potential benefit. However, researchers caution that these results should be interpreted carefully. EmbryoGlue, a transfer medium containing hyaluronic acid, showed potential for increasing pregnancy rates, though its impact on live birth rates remains unproven. Similarly, endometrial scratching—a procedure to disturb the uterine lining—and Physiological intracytoplasmic sperm injection (PICSI) showed weak evidence for improving pregnancy and reducing miscarriage risks, respectively. These results are significantly less definitive than the marketing claims often seen in clinical brochures.
Pro Tip: How to evaluate fertility treatments
Before agreeing to an add-on, ask your fertility specialist for the specific success rate increase associated with that treatment, and request the peer-reviewed study that supports that figure. If a clinic cannot provide high-quality, randomized controlled trial data, be skeptical of the necessity of the procedure.
Frequently Asked Questions
Should I pay for IVF add-ons?
According to the Lancet study, most add-ons are not backed by reliable evidence. Patients should discuss the lack of verified benefit with their clinicians to avoid unnecessary expenses and medical procedures.
Why do clinics offer treatments that don’t work?
The study suggests that the commercial nature of private fertility clinics drives the offering of these services. The perception of an “implicit endorsement” of these add-ons often outweighs the actual clinical evidence.
Is genetic testing for embryos worth it?
The meta-analysis categorized pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy among the treatments with inconclusive or no-effect findings regarding improved fertility outcomes.
Are you currently navigating the fertility treatment process? Share your experiences with us in the comments below or subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates on evidence-based reproductive health.
