PET PET
  • My Account
  • Subscribe
Become a Friend Donate
  • About Us
    • People
    • Press Office
    • Our History
  • Get Involved
    • Become a Friend of PET
    • Volunteer
    • Campaigns
    • Writing Scheme
    • Partnership and Sponsorship
    • Advertise with Us
  • Donate
    • Become a Friend of PET
  • BioNews
    • News
    • Comment
    • Reviews
    • Elsewhere
    • Topics
    • Glossary
    • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
    • Previous Events
  • Engagement
    • Policy and Projects
      • Resources
    • Education
  • Jobs & Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
    • People
    • Press Office
    • Our History
  • Get Involved
    • Become a Friend of PET
    • Volunteer
    • Campaigns
    • Writing Scheme
    • Partnership and Sponsorship
    • Advertise with Us
  • Donate
    • Become a Friend of PET
  • BioNews
    • News
    • Comment
    • Reviews
    • Elsewhere
    • Topics
    • Glossary
    • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
    • Previous Events
  • Engagement
    • Policy and Projects
      • Resources
    • Education
  • Jobs & Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • My Account
  • Subscribe
  • Privacy Statement
  • Advertising Policy
  • Thanks and Acknowledgements
PETBioNewsCommentThe HFEA statement on add-ons in IVF can turn hope into reality

BioNews

The HFEA statement on add-ons in IVF can turn hope into reality

Published 4 February 2019 posted in Comment and appears in BioNews 985

Authors

Dr Kamal Ahuja

Professor Nick Macklon

Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.
CC0 1.0
Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.

Recently, the HFEA released a statement on adjunct treatments in IVF. The regulator had provided clear notice of its publication and both its stated intentions and content were as anticipated...

Recently, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) released a statement on adjunct treatments in IVF (see BioNews 983). The regulator had provided clear notice of its publication and both its stated intentions and content were as anticipated. Indeed, from the moment that a BMJ report in 2016 (commissioned by the BBC) claimed there was little evidence of benefit in most of the 27 'add-ons' studied, the HFEA recognised the need to act.

In the press, beneath headlines of 'IVF rip off clinics', the fertility patient was depicted as having been abandoned by a toothless regulator to the shenanigans of a rapacious IVF mafia. The chair of the HFEA announced soon after at a public meeting organised at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists by the Progress Educational Trust (which publishes BioNews), that adjuvant treatments were high on its agenda and a new website would include a traffic-light system to rate them all. And this has now been provided.

The HFEA has responded not just by insisting that all fertility treatments be 'offered ethically' but by seeking to create a culture change among fertility professionals in the UK that protects patients from potential exploitation while still encouraging innovation in clinical practice. The resulting document, endorsed by representatives of the major bodies representing the profession and patient groups, appears to have struck this balance (see BioNews 983).

For many clinics, it will sit comfortably with current practice as we have already taken steps to simplify the menu of treatments and to make pricing more inclusive and transparent. Procedures previously treated as add-ons, such as blastocyst culture, embryo freezing and time-lapse imaging are being increasingly adopted as standard practice, being included in the baseline cost of IVF treatment.

At the same time we perceive a shift away from 'shopping lists' of clinical adjuvant therapies being offered. This is in part being led by growing evidence from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that blind application of empirical treatments such as endometrial scratching (see BioNews 957) may harm as many as they may help, and a recognition that such adjuvants should be based on a diagnostic rationale.

Simplified approaches, clear costs and readily understood inclusive packages represent one step in the right direction. Reducing our reliance on empirical approaches is another. A third step would be to adopt a responsible but realistic approach to implementing new innovations.

One example of this might be the elective freezing of all embryos. Trials of this approach are ongoing but will be of limited practical value guiding daily practice, because the stimulation regimens employed are designed to protect safety in the event of a fresh transfer rather than generating an optimal number of embryos for freezing.

Given the well-known rationales for adopting this approach, some clinics, including our own, have decided to move ahead of the evidence base and to implement this into routine practice.

Our field enjoys a high rate of innovation and current models for validating their value are no longer fit for purpose. A properly powered RCT takes time to design, achieve regulatory approval and to execute. The more 'definitive' the trial, the more likely it is that the technologies employed are obsolete by the time of publication.

A salutary example can be found in a recently published trial of endometrial preparation methods for frozen thaw cycles. Carefully designed and well-powered, the findings were considered obsolete at publication because practice had moved in the meantime to vitrification rather than slow freezing. The field had moved on. And patients can move the goalposts too.

The pioneers of egg sharing considered it a pragmatic means of increasing access to IVF and to donor oocytes. Despite resistance from the HFEA, it became popular, and ten years later the evidence base eventually caught up to support it. However, in the meantime, our patients' wishes had changed. The transformative impact of oocyte vitrification made donor egg banks a reality, and this source of donor eggs is increasingly perceived as more attractive compared with shared eggs. So now a new evidence base is required, and we will again be playing catch up.

We applaud the HFEA's statement on adjuvant therapies, because it reflects the way our patients and the profession want to go. But it's salutary to see that none of the add-ons so far identified and assessed are sent on their way with a green light. The bottom line is that none of these add-ons have enough evidence yet to confirm their safety and effectiveness as routine treatments.

Relying on RCTs to be the primary arbiter of the colour of a traffic light risks limiting the growth of the evidence base we need. However, we take some encouragement from the acknowledgement made in the statement that considerations of individual patient wellbeing may justify the use of treatments that languish under the ignominy of the red light. With that clinical freedom comes responsibility, and we support the further statement that clinics should collect outcome data prospectively and share this with researchers. The analysis of high quality and big data offers a fruitful way forward and the HFEA is in a strong position to support this.

Related Articles

PET BioNews
Comment
10 May 2021 • 2 minutes read

FILM: Sarah Norcross in conversation with Sally Cheshire

by BioNews

An in-depth conversation between Sarah Norcross (director of the Progress Educational Trust) and Sally Cheshire (outgoing chair of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority)...

PET BioNews
Comment
22 January 2021 • 2 minutes read

FILM: An All-Consuming Problem? How to Protect Patients in the Fertility Market

by BioNews

This film documents a Progress Educational Trust event about consumer protection for fertility patients...

Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.
CC0 1.0
Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.
News
8 July 2020 • 2 minutes read

Endometrial scratch has no effect on live birth rate for first time IVF patients

by Catherine Hill

Endometrial scratch, an IVF add-on treatment, has no effect on live birth rate for women undergoing a first IVF or ICSI cycle, study shows...

Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.
CC0 1.0
Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.
News
14 February 2020 • 2 minutes read

New consumer law guidelines for IVF sector

by Dr Eleanor Taylor

The UK Competition and Markets Authority will create consumer protection guidelines for the UK fertility sector, to ensure that IVF clinics practice in accordance with current consumer law...

Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.
CC0 1.0
Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.
Comment
16 December 2019 • 4 minutes read

What Is a Fertility Doctor's Duty?

by Sophia McCully

The subject of this year's Progress Educational Trust annual conference was 'a realistic look at assisted reproduction'...

Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.
CC0 1.0
Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.
Comment
21 January 2019 • 4 minutes read

What is an 'add-on' and why does it matter?

by Dr Jane Stewart

The British Fertility Society along with a number of other professional associations and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority published a joint document on the subject of IVF 'add-ons' last week...

Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.
CC0 1.0
Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.
News
18 January 2019 • 2 minutes read

HFEA: patients should not pay for unproven IVF 'add-ons'

by Rikita Patel

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has published a final consensus statement advising that IVF clinics should not charge patients for add-on treatments that are not proven effective by clinical trials...

Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.
CC0 1.0
Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.
News
16 November 2018 • 1 minute read

HFEA calls for 'culture change' on IVF add-ons

by Rikita Patel

The Human Fertilisation Embryology Authority has signed a consensus statement calling for private IVF clinics to stop charging patients costly optional add-on treatments that are not proven to work...

Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.
CC0 1.0
Image by Alan Handyside via the Wellcome Collection. Depicts a human egg soon after fertilisation, with the two parental pronuclei clearly visible.
Comment
10 September 2018 • 5 minutes read

Battle-worn: Setting up a multi-centre, randomised, controlled trial in the UK

by Professor Roy Homburg and 1 others

Why has clinical evidence on IVF 'add-ons' not been forthcoming?...

PET BioNews
Comment
2 May 2017 • 6 minutes read

IVF practices challenged: a response

by Professor Adam Balen

Professor Adam Balen argues that the recent Panorama investigation into the use of add-ons in fertility clinics is a misrepresentation of these clinics and a misunderstanding of the data...

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

« Carrot not stick: reforming surrogacy law

Data-Label The UK's Leading Supplier Of Medical Labels & Asset Labels

RetiringDentist.co.uk The UK's Leading M&A Company.

Find out how you can advertise here
easyfundraising
amazon

This month in BioNews

  • Popular
  • Recent
8 August 2022 • 2 minutes read

FILM: 200 Years of Mendel – From Peas to Personalised Medicine

1 August 2022 • 4 minutes read

Women's Health Strategy plans reflect rising needs of same-sex female couples

25 July 2022 • 4 minutes read

Was the Women's Health Strategy worth the wait?

25 July 2022 • 4 minutes read

Why the UK should extend the 14-day rule to 28 days

25 July 2022 • 5 minutes read

200 Years of Mendel: From Peas to Personalised Medicine

15 August 2022 • 5 minutes read

Same-sex parent should not have been forced to adopt child

15 August 2022 • 2 minutes read

FILM: Editing the Human Genome – Where Are We Now? What Happens Next?

8 August 2022 • 4 minutes read

Citizenship and same-sex parents – about time, Sweden!

8 August 2022 • 2 minutes read

FILM: 200 Years of Mendel – From Peas to Personalised Medicine

1 August 2022 • 4 minutes read

Women's Health Strategy plans reflect rising needs of same-sex female couples

Subscribe to BioNews and other PET updates for free.

Subscribe
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS
Wellcome
Website redevelopment supported by Wellcome.

Website by Impact Media Impact Media

  • Privacy Statement
  • Advertising Policy
  • Thanks and Acknowledgements

© 1992 - 2022 Progress Educational Trust. All rights reserved.

Limited company registered in England and Wales no 07405980 • Registered charity no 1139856

Subscribe to BioNews and other PET updates for free.

Subscribe
PET PET

PET is an independent charity that improves choices for people affected by infertility and genetic conditions.

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS
Wellcome
Website redevelopment supported by Wellcome.

Navigation

  • About Us
  • Get Involved
  • Donate
  • BioNews
  • Events
  • Engagement
  • Jobs & Opportunities
  • Contact Us

BioNews

  • News
  • Comment
  • Reviews
  • Elsewhere
  • Topics
  • Glossary
  • Newsletters

Other

  • My Account
  • Subscribe

Website by Impact Media Impact Media

  • Privacy Statement
  • Advertising Policy
  • Thanks and Acknowledgements

© 1992 - 2022 Progress Educational Trust. All rights reserved.

Limited company registered in England and Wales no 07405980 • Registered charity no 1139856