Page URL:

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

21 January 2019
Appeared in BioNews 983

The British Fertility Society along with a number of other professional associations and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) published a joint document on the subject of IVF 'add-ons' last week (see this week's news story). This was a heavily-debated document for a number of reasons, not least the perceived benefits to clinics and/or patients of so-called add-ons.

The HFEA has provided patient information for a list of IVF add-ons which are commonly offered in clinics as a way to try to enhance success. The listed items do not have proven benefit and have been given either amber (limited evidence of benefit) or red (no evidence of benefit) in their traffic-light style grading system. This is not a comprehensive list, and in common with many medical processes, the answer is never clear-cut.

Whilst it is laudable to aim for high-quality evidence to support clinical practice, whether it be a test, a treatment, procedure or use of a piece of equipment, across the field of health care there are very many areas of practice where good evidence is lacking and indeed may be impossible to attain. 

Good clinical reasoning based on scientific theory and a pragmatic approach may be appropriate for some individualised decision making – an example in our field would be a decision to remove a sizeable fibroid in a woman with subfertility and early pregnancy losses. Whilst it is almost impossible to undertake a trial of such treatment in a meaningful way, it is possible that for this woman such a reasoned approach may be helpful. Observational data collection over time may provide some weight to the hypothesis that surgical removal may be beneficial nevertheless.

In rare cases there may never be the numbers of patients available to undertake a properly-powered trial, while if the inclusion criteria are widened it may make the trial meaningless in clinical terms and weaken the potential to show benefit even if subgroup analysis is undertaken. On that basis, with a sound understanding of the medication or procedure, and what the practitioner is aiming to achieve, a trial of n=1 may be acceptable.

Indeed, as is often cited, lack of evidence of benefit does not equate to evidence of no benefit. We must be careful not to stifle innovative thinking and genuine medical development by the rigidity of considering the randomised controlled trial to be the only valid research tool.

Why then are we in such difficulties with IVF add-ons?  For two major reasons:

Firstly, in a fast-moving specialty, we are quick to introduce new technologies without proper trials even when they could have been undertaken. There are good examples (eg preimplantation genetic screening) where the ultimate reality has been very far from the hoped-for outcomes – we are now on a second round of debating the benefits of this technology which are not yet clear despite its wholesale adoption in some centres. Secondly, the costs of empirical treatments and technologies are mostly passed directly to patients.

It is difficult in this situation to separate the aim to help by the introduction of a new 'treatment' from the perception that early adoption has as much to do with commercial competition and profit-making from a vulnerable population of patients. It is often said that a clinic must offer add-ons not to lose patients to a competitor offering the same.

Our patients are vulnerable in that they are often desperate to start or complete their family for which they may have waited some considerable time and for whom treatment is complex and without guarantee of 'cure'. 

Moreover, abandoned by NHS commissioners they are often footing large treatment bills which are rarely, if ever, covered by workplace or private insurance. They may become toughened by the amount of legwork, research and effort they need to put in to get what they want but may be oblivious to the fact that doing something 'different' or paying for something extra, may reap little genuine reward. 

They are hence balancing their lay (albeit often very sophisticated) understanding of reproductive physiology, ART technology and clinic blurb and prices against what they most desire – a baby at the earliest opportunity. The role of the expert clinician is to cut through that determination and desperation not simply to accede to patient pressure and certainly not to commercial pressure.

There is no doubt that professionals in our specialty have their patients' interests at heart and many feel the conflict of offering non-proven treatments in the face of the kind of criticisms described. There may indeed be situations where empirical treatment may be offered in the patient's best interests for their psychological wellbeing rather than measurable success rate benefits. Such decision to treat would almost always be on an individual patient basis however.

Even if it is not what they want to hear, we are required to make sure that a treatment programme however complex is entirely in the best interests of the individual patient. It is incumbent upon us to act with integrity in our attempts to achieve that aim:  to be realistic about what we can and can't do, honest about our treatments and the evidence behind them and to help to manage- through careful, empathic counsel patients' expectations. If patients can learn to trust that integrity, then the clinic price list need not become a shopping list of apparent cumulative benefit as far as can be afforded.  

10 May 2021 - 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)...
25 January 2021 - by BioNews 
This film documents a Progress Educational Trust event about consumer protection for fertility patients...
16 December 2019 - by Sophia McCully 
The subject of this year's Progress Educational Trust annual conference was 'a realistic look at assisted reproduction'...
8 July 2019 - by Rikita Patel 
Wellness company Get A Drip has taken its 'fertility IV' drip off the market after the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) said there was no evidence its treatment could improve fertility...
4 February 2019 - by Dr Kamal Ahuja and Professor Nick Macklon 
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...
21 January 2019 - 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...
17 December 2018 - by Ewa Zotow 
Sixty-two percent of private IVF patients paid 'more than they expected' for treatment, according to the first national patient survey by the HFEA.
19 November 2018 - 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...
17 September 2018 - by Professor Roy Homburg and Dr Albert Opoku 
Why has clinical evidence on IVF 'add-ons' not been forthcoming?...
to add a Comment.

By posting a comment you agree to abide by the BioNews terms and conditions

Syndicate this story - click here to enquire about using this story.