Monash IVF agrees payout over embryo testing method

An Australian IVF provider has agreed to pay AU$56 million (£29 million) in compensation to over 700 patients whose embryos may have been wrongly discarded.

Monash IVF Group is the largest provider of IVF in the Australian state of Victoria. A lawsuit was brought against them by patients who discarded embryos based on the results of a test that was later revealed to be less accurate than portrayed (see BioNews 1079). The trial had been due to begin in the Victorian Supreme Court in October.

'The impacts of Monash IVF's actions have not been resolved through this settlement. Class members have had hopes, dreams and ambitions that have been shattered,' said Michelle Pedersen, one of the affected patients. 'Our goal was to hold Monash IVF to account and give the 700+ class members a sense of justice, we hope we have achieved this.'

The claims relate to a non-invasive genetic screening test for embryos that Monash IVF offered from May 2019 to October 2020. Instead of removing a cell from the embryo for testing, the non-invasive method involved collecting a sample from the surrounding liquid. Patients were told that the results were identical to invasive tests in 95 percent of cases.

Around 1300 patients used the test, about half of whom were told that some or all of their embryos were abnormal. It was later found that the test had a high rate of false positives, meaning that over one-third of embryos labelled as abnormal were, in fact, viable. As a result of the test, many patients chose not to keep those embryos for use in treatment.

Monash IVF subsequently admitted that the non-invasive test results were the same as invasive tests in only 75-85 percent of cases.

'Tragically, many patients had their embryos wrongly classified as abnormal and unsuitable for transfer as a result of this flawed Monash IVF testing and lost their chance to ever have children,' Michel Margalit, the lead lawyer for the class action told News.com.au.

In a statement, Monash IVF asserted that the settlement is not an admission of liability: 'While we have defended the claim, we believe it is in the best interests of our patients and people to resolve the matter rather than go to trial.'

The next step is for the Victorian Supreme Court to approve the settlement.