Evidence-based medicine and infertility treatment

Accounting for complexity in healthcare innovation debates: Professional views on the use of new IVF treatments

Social scientists have long been interested in the forces and values driving healthcare innovation. The simultaneous rise of 20th century healthcare reforms, increased importance of evidence and upsurge in lay health activism have shaped modern medicine. On this backdrop, fertility care emerged in the 1970s. Recent developments reveal a contentious relationship between new fertility treatments and clinical evidence, with emerging technologies being used without conclusive evidence of effectiveness despite being sold to patients. Initial critiques of this phenomenon emphasise commercial interests as the culprit, suggesting that the problematic use of unproven treatments is mainly driven by the private sector. Here, we challenge this over-simplified view of IVF care. Drawing on a qualitative analysis of key documents and 43 in-depth professional interviews, this article identifies three main stakeholder approaches to new treatment adoption. We argue that viewpoints are anchored within three critical overarching 'modes of coordination' or core values in modern healthcare: efficiency, effectiveness and patient-centeredness. This analysis encourages a more contextualised overview of fertility care than previous literatures have afforded. The IVF case shows that an emphasis on private versus public clinic practices obscure similarities between the two along with the values motivating healthcare professionals' approaches to new treatments.

Patient and professional perspectives about using in vitro fertilisation add-ons in the UK and Australia: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) add-ons are additional procedures offered alongside an IVF cycle with the aim of improving live birth rates. They are controversial because of the paucity of evidence to support their efficacy and safety, alongside the additional financial cost they often pose to patients. Despite this, they are popular. However, there is limited qualitative research regarding their use. The aims of the VALUE Study were to understand the decision-making process surrounding using or recommending add-ons; report sources of information for add-ons; and explore concerns for safety and effectiveness when considering their use.

DESIGN

'VALUE' is a qualitative semistructured interview study using inductive thematic analysis of anonymised transcriptions.

SETTING

Participants were recruited from a broad geographical spread across the UK and Australia from public and private clinical settings.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients (n=25) and health professionals (embryologists (n=25) and clinicians (n=24)) were interviewed. A purposive sampling strategy was undertaken. The sampling framework included people having state-subsidised and private cycles, professionals working in public and private sectors, geographical location and professionals of all grades.

RESULTS

Patients often made decisions about add-ons based on hope, minimising considerations of safety, efficacy or cost, whereas professionals sought the best outcomes for their patients and wanted to avoid them wasting their money. The driving forces behind add-on use differed: for patients, a professional opinion was the most influential reason, whereas for professionals, it was seen as patient driven. For both groups, applying the available evidence to individual circumstances was very challenging, especially in the sphere of IVF medicine, where the stakes are high.

CONCLUSIONS

There is scope to build on the quality of the discourse between patients and professionals. Patients describe valuing their autonomy with add-ons, but for professionals, undertaking informed consent will be critical, no matter where they sit on the spectrum regarding add-ons.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

osf.io/vnyb9.

ESHRE certification of ART centres for good laboratory and clinical practice

STUDY QUESTION

Three years after the start of the ESHRE ART Centre Certification (ARTCC) programme, what is the current state of the system, in terms of the interest expressed in it and experiences during the assessment of ART services?

SUMMARY ANSWER

As of 1 December 2021, 25 European ART centres have been involved in the various stages of certification and the most common recommendations from inspectors were the need for documented training, verification of competencies for all staff members, verification of laboratory and clinical performance indicators, implementation of a quality management system and avoidance of overusing ICSI and add-ons.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

European Union (EU) legislation has included ART activities in the EU Tissue and Cells Directives (EUTCDs). Following inspections by national EUTCD authorities, many details regarding documentation, laboratory environment, handling of reproductive cells and tissues, traceability, coding and patient testing have become standardized. However, the EUTCDs do not cover all ART-specific aspects. For this reason, the ARTCC was established to focus on peculiar areas, including relevant staff qualifications, training, continuing professional development, workload, equipment suitability, (non)-evidence-based laboratory and clinical methods used, treatment approaches according to ESHRE guidelines, recommendations and laboratory and clinical key performance indicators.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

The article reviews the state-of-the-art of the ESHRE certification of ART centres for good clinical and laboratory practice over an initial 3-year period of operation, including the number of ART centres involved in the different stages of certification and the most common recommendations by inspectors.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

In 2016, the ARTCC working group began to establish a new ESHRE ARTCC programme. Since then, the working group has organized 4 preparatory courses and appointed 37 inspectors (19 clinicians, 17 embryologists and one paramedical). A tool to verify compliance with ESHRE recommendations for good laboratory and clinical practice was developed. The ARTCC has been open for applications since September 2018. In Step 1, the applicant enters basic information about the ART centre, staff and ART activities into the application platform. After review and approval, the applicant is given the opportunity to enter Step 2 and provide detailed online checklists on general, laboratory, clinical services and clinical outcomes. Two inspectors (one clinician and one embryologist) independently evaluate the submitted checklists. The condition to proceed to evaluation is a positive mean score (at least 66%) from each of the four checklists. In Step 3, a live site visit (or virtual owing to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic) is organized and the inspectors prepare a final report with appropriate recommendations. The application may be rejected at any time if the criteria required to advance to the next stage are not met. The ARTCC programme is currently available for European countries listed in ESHRE internal rules, available on the ESHRE website. The certificate is valid for 3 years, after which an application for renewal can be submitted.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Over a 3-year period (until 1 December 2021), 63 ART centres from 25 countries started applying through an online platform. So far, 38 applications did not progress owing to lack of completion of the initial application within a 1-year period or because applications came from non-European countries. Of the remaining 25 applications, 8 centres have been inspected and 7 centres have been certified. The most common recommendations given by inspectors to assessed centres were the need for documented training, verification of competencies, skills and continuing professional development for all staff members, verification of laboratory and clinical performance indicators and implementation of a quality management system. The inspectors identified some recurring areas of medically assisted reproduction that deviate from good practice: the overuse of ICSI, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies, freeze-all and other add-ons. They often reported that the clinical outcomes could not be objectively assessed because of non-inclusion of the started cycles or the frequent use of freeze-all cycles.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

No major modifications have been made to the application platform and checklists since the early stages of the certification programme. However, in this short time, quite a few changes in clinical practice have occurred, especially concerning the more frequent use of the 'freeze-all' strategy. As a result, problems arose in the evaluation of clinical outcomes. In addition, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, site visits were substituted by the implementation of virtual visits. While this enabled the certification programme to continue, it is possible that certain critical details that would have been noticed during a traditional site visit may have been overlooked.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Regular monitoring of the observations of ARTCC inspectors and analysis of their reports is certainly useful to harmonize inspectors' criteria in the assessment process and to identify chronic deficiencies in clinical and laboratory practice. Non-conformities can be addressed by ESHRE through guidelines and recommendations, as well as through discussion with EU institutions and competent authorities.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

The ARTCC programme was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the meetings. The Steering Committee members who are the authors of this article did not receive payments for the completion of this study. The inspectors were remunerated for their work with an honorarium. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Enacting evidence-based medicine in fertility care: Tensions between commercialisation and knowledge standardisation

In this article we explore the recent enactment of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in the field of fertility care. We aim to contribute to the medical sociology literature through an analysis of how evidence is produced, interpreted and institutionalised in a relatively new medical field such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF), characterised by high uncertainty due to limited knowledge and high levels of commercialisation. Drawing on extensive ethnographic research conducted in England, this article explores the challenges IVF professionals encounter in producing credible data on the effectiveness of additional treatments, offering novel insights on the tensions between commercialisation and standardisation in the enactment of EBM. Extant medical sociology and Science and Technology Studies literature has shown the hidden professional work required to enact randomised control trials in practice. Our analysis shows that this hidden work is not enough when there is a broader lack of standardisation in both clinical and research practices, as producing 'good quality' evidence requires high levels of standardisation of knowledge production.

A Baby at All Costs? Exploring the Use and Provision of Unproven Adjuvant Treatments in the Context of IVF

The year 2018 marked 40 years since the birth of Louise Brown, the first baby born as a result of pioneering in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. Since then, advances have seen a wide range of reproductive technologies emerge into clinical practice, including adjuvant treatments often referred to as IVF "add-ons." However, these "optional extras" have faced growing criticism, especially when they have often come at additional financial cost to the patient and have little evidence supporting their efficacy to improve pregnancy or birth rates. Despite this, according to the latest national patient survey by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, three quarters of patients who had fertility treatment in the United Kingdom in the past two years had at least one type of treatment add-on highlighting the growing demand for these interventions. This article uses a psychosocial perspective to consider the motivations behind patient and clinician behavior along with the wider societal and economic factors that may be impacting upon the increase in the use of adjuvant treatments in fertility clinics more widely. It suggests the reasons fertility patients use unproven "optional extras" are complex, with interpersonal, psychological, and social factors intertwining to generate an increase in the use of IVF add-ons.

The crafting of hope: Contextualising add-ons in the treatment trajectories of IVF patients

The proliferation and popularity of additional treatments in IVF, also known as add-ons, has generated widespread discussion and controversy in the UK, where concerns have addressed the lack of evidence to support the efficacy and safety of these treatments, their cost, and their connection to a wider context of privatisation of fertility treatment. Drawing on 42 interviews with IVF patients, this article explores the role of hope in the appeal of add-ons from the patient perspective. The analysis is presented in two parts: firstly, we investigate the role of hope in patients' decision-making on treatment, contextualising add-ons in the broader trajectory of their IVF experience; secondly, we examine how patients navigate the offer of add-ons, focusing on the role of hope in how they rationalise their decisions on whether to include them in their fertility treatment. Our analysis shows how patients craft their hope to navigate the increasing number of available options in their quest to find the treatment(s) that will "work" for them. We suggest that the imperative for patients to explore all options is intensified with the emergence of add-ons, which produces a novel context and version of a "hope technology".

Reproductive Outcomes of Different Sperm Selection Techniques for ICSI Patients with Abnormal Sperm DNA Fragmentation: a Randomized Controlled Trial

The aim of the study is to compare the reproductive outcomes of different sperm selection techniques: density gradient centrifugation (DGC), testicular sperm (Testi), physiological ICSI (PICSI), and magnetic-activated cell sorting (MACS) in abnormal sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) ICSI patients. A randomized controlled trial included 302 patients with abnormal SDF undergoing ICSI where they were randomized into 4 groups: a control group of DGC (n= 72), Testi (n=73), PICSI (n=78), and MACS (n=79). Results showed no significant differences in the male age, female age, or SDF between the four groups. Testi group had significantly lower cleavage and blastulation rates compared to PICSI, DGC, or MACS groups (p =0.001). For the high-quality blastocysts, DGC and MACS groups had significantly higher rate than the Testi group (p =0.014). The highest pregnancy rate was scored for the PICSI group (69.6%), while the lowest pregnancy rate was scored for the DGC group (51.4%) with (p =0.025). The PICSI group showed a significantly higher implantation rate compared to the other groups (p =0.003). Regarding the ongoing pregnancy rate, the significant difference was observed between the PICSI (62.8%) and MACS (62%) vs. DGC (45.8%). Besides, no significant differences were found in the miscarriage rates between the four groups. In conclusion, PICSI and MACS along with DGC showed significant improvement in embryological and clinical outcome over testicular sperm or sperm processed by DGC alone in patients with abnormal SDFRegistration number: NCT04482517.

Repeated implantation failure (RIF): an iatrogenic meaningless definition that generates unnecessary and costly use of add-on procedures

This opinion paper addresses the literature regarding repeated implantation failure (RIF) in IVF embryo transfer programmes. We provide several lines of discussion as to why such diagnosis might be wrong, why it should not be a call for action or a reason to change the course of treatment, and how RIF biases the quality of the publications and leads to the use of unnecessary and costly adjuvant procedures beyond basic IVF. We argue that these costly add-on procedures are being offered to patients in this highly privatized sector to prevent them from quitting the programme and as a by-product to increase the clinic income. The patients, on the other hand, often equate lucrative hi-tech procedures with possible success and request them despite the lack of proof of the efficacy of most of the procedures.

The prevalence, promotion and pricing of three IVF add-ons on fertility clinic websites

RESEARCH QUESTION

How are IVF clinic websites advertising three common IVF add-ons: assisted hatching, time-lapse embryo imaging and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A)?

DESIGN

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority 'Choose a fertility clinic' website service was used to identify IVF clinics and their websites. Assisted hatching, time-lapse embryo imaging and PGT-A were examined to determine which websites advertised them, what price they charged and what claims they made in relation to the add-ons.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven eligible clinics were identified, with 72 unique websites; 37 (43%) clinics were part of one of nine groups of IVF clinics, of sizes ranging from two to eight clinics in the UK. Time-lapse imaging (TLI) was the most frequently advertised of the three add-ons (67% of clinics), followed by PGT-A (47%) and assisted hatching (28%). Very few websites stated that the effectiveness of the add-on was in doubt or unclear (four, two and one websites for TLI, PGT-A and assisted hatching, respectively), and none raised the possibility that an add-on might have negative effects. Claims of efficacy were often based on upstream outcomes (e.g. implantation, pregnancy). Some claims that PGT-A and TLI improved live birth rates were found. There was substantial variation in pricing.

CONCLUSIONS

IVF clinic websites provide valuable information for patients seeking fertility treatment so it is key that the information is accurate and complete. There is a need for transparent information on interventions, including uncertainties and risks, to be made available by IVF clinics to support well-informed treatment decisions. The selected add-ons are widely advertised, and there is wide variation in pricing.

The trouble with IVF and randomised control trials: Professional legitimation narratives on time-lapse imaging and evidence-informed care

Focusing on the case of time-lapse imaging (TLI), this paper analyses how medical professionals negotiate the use of new 'add-on' fertility treatments in light of the limited evidence available. The data produced by TLI technologies is meant to help professionals identify the best embryo to be implanted. Embryo selection is essential in IVF practice for increasing pregnancy rates and reducing the negative effects of repeated failures. More than 5 years after the introduction of TLI in IVF labs, however, there has been no conclusive randomised control trial (RCT) evidence to show that the tools do indeed have a significant impact on pregnancy rates. Nonetheless, many public clinics in the UK have adopted such technologies. Consequently, our research asks: How is the use of TLI tools legitimised by professionals, in light of contradictory evidence? Focusing on 25 semi-structured staff interviews, we argue that professionals use several strategies to legitimise the use of TLI in the clinic without, however, challenging the tenets of evidence-based medicine (EBM) and the value it places on RCTs. Rather, professionals emphasise various advantages that TLI offers, including its use as a lab tool, its potential for knowledge production in embryology, and the role it plays in the management of patient expectations and course of treatment. This paper contributes to debates on the role of EBM in modern medicine and fertility care specifically - an area where this inter-relationship has been underexplored. We conclude by suggesting avenues towards a more nuanced understanding of EBM as it relates to IVF treatment and a rapidly changing biotechnology context.

Do à la carte menus serve infertility patients? The ethics and regulation of in vitro fertility add-ons

Add-on treatments are the new black. They are provided (most frequently, sold) to patients undergoing in vitro fertilization on the premise that they will improve the chances of having a baby. However, the regulation of add-ons is consistently minimal, meaning that they are introduced into routine practice before they have been shown to improve the live birth rate. Debate on the adequacy of this light-touch approach rages. Defenders argue that demands for a rigorous approval process are paternalistic, as this would delay access to promising treatments. Critics respond that promising treatments may turn out to have adverse effects on patients and their offspring, contradicting the clinician's responsibility to do no harm. Some add-ons, including earlier versions of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, might even reduce the live birth rate, raising the prospect of desperate patients paying more to worsen their chances. Informed consent represents a solution in principle, but in practice there is a clear tension between impartial information and direct-to-consumer advertising. Because the effects of a treatment cannot be known until it has been robustly evaluated, we argue that strong evidence should be required before add-ons are introduced to the clinic. In the meantime, there is an imperative to identify methods for communicating the associated risks and uncertainties of add-ons to prospective patients.

Towards a more pragmatic and wiser approach to infertility care

Infertility represents a very peculiar area of medicine. Contrary to other areas, where signs and symptoms lead to a diagnosis, which in turn leads to a specific treatment, in reproduction the lack of signs and symptoms for more than 12 months suggests the diagnosis of ‘unexplained subfertility’, and if this condition has lasted for some years, couples qualify for IVF. Diagnosis and treatments can extend over long periods of time (even years) and the accuracy of the diagnostic armamentarium is not optimal. Uncertainty about diagnosis and the need for significant perseverance is demanding on both couples and physicians, and actually constitute a very favourable situation for overdiagnosis (‘unexplained subfertility’) and overtreatment (IVF) on one hand, and, on the other, it may also affect compliance with treatments. To improve our capacity to properly handle this challenging situation, increased attention should be given to the duration of pregnancy seeking. Initiating treatments earlier in older women is unwise because this population has a lower fecundity and, therefore, duration of pregnancy seeking is even more important to achieve a reliable diagnosis of infertility. Moreover, if the infertility work-up is unremarkable, duration of pregnancy seeking should be extended up to more than 2 years prior to making a diagnosis of unexplained infertility regardless of age. An adequate period of pregnancy seeking is also required for couples who are diagnosed with conditions that can interfere with fertility to avoid overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Indeed, most causes of infertility will reduce but not impair natural conception. Within this sometimes long-term management, physicians should also pay attention to detrimental life habits in order to optimize the chances of both natural and assisted reproduction technology -mediated pregnancy. Even if interventional studies are not conclusive, it is advisable to address the problems of obesity and smoking. Focussing on frequency of sexual intercourse may be also beneficial for natural conception. Finally, there is the need for improving our capacity to handle compliance. Providing information on the importance of persevering at the start of treatment, promoting shared decision-making and tackling patient, clinic and treatment causes of drop-out can all improve the overall chances of parenthood. Thus, we plead for a wiser and more pragmatic approach to infertility, paying more attention to these neglected, but in our opinion essential, aspects of infertility care.