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

Atosiban interacts with growth hormones as adjuvants in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles

Objective

To investigate the interaction between atosiban and growth hormone (GH) as adjuvants in frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles.

Method

A total of 11627 patients who underwent FET at Xiamen University Affiliated Chenggong Hospital between January 2018 to December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 482 patients received atosiban and 275 patients received GH. The interactions were estimated by comparing the odds ratio (OR) for pregnancy comparing patients with or without atosiban adjuvant in cohorts stratified according to the presence of GH use in either the overall cohort or a propensity score (PS) matched cohort. An interaction term (atosiban × GH) was introduced to a multivariate model to calculate the ratio of OR (ORR) adjusted for confounders.

Results

For all patients receiving atosiban administration, no obvious effect on pregnancy was observed in comparison with either matched or unmatched controls. However, when the patients were stratified according to GH administration, atosiban showed a significant association with clinical pregnancy in comparison with either matched or unmatched controls among patients with GH treatment with rate ratios (RR) of 1.32 (95%CI: 1.05,1.67) and 1.35 (95%CI: 1,1.82), respectively. On the other hand, however, the association was absent among patients without GH treatment. The adjusted ORRs in both matched and unmatched cohorts were 2.44 (95%CI: 1.07,5.84) and 1.95 (95%CI: 1.05, 3.49) respectively.

Conclusion

The combination use of atosiban and GH in FET cycles is potentially beneficial to the pregnancy. However, indications for the use of atosiban and GH may need further assessment.

Moral justification for the use of 'add-ons' in assisted reproductive technology: experts' views and experiences

RESEARCH QUESTION

What factors do assisted reproductive terchnology (ART) providers take into account when they make decisions about offering 'add-ons'?

DESIGN

A qualitative analysis of interviews with 31 ART professionals, focusing on their views and experiences in relation to add-ons, including the factors that are considered when doctors make decisions about their use.

RESULTS

The participants reported that a range of considerations are taken into account when it comes to justifying the use of a particular add-on in a given circumstance, including the likelihood of benefit and harm, patients' perceived psychological needs and preferences, and organizational expectations. Importantly, patient preferences, psychological factors and low risk of harm appear to be stronger motivations than increasing the likelihood of a live birth or the desire to innovate.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that it cannot be taken for granted that add-ons and innovation are closely linked. One possible response to this would be regulatory reform; for example, only allowing 'unproven' add-ons to be used in the context of formal scientific evaluation. Alternatively, it could be made clear that add-ons that are not undergoing formal evaluation have more in common with other therapies lacking a clear evidence base, such as complementary and alternative medicines, than with conventional medical practice. Practices in relation to add-ons may also require a focus on the responsibilities of corporations, and the standards applying to purveyors of consumer goods and services.