The novel ratings system recently launched by the fertility regulator has brought to the fore that the “add-ons” in fertility treatment provided to patients in the UK might not necessarily boost their prospects of conceiving a child. This disclosure accompanies growing apprehensions that clinics have been promoting untested treatments which come with substantial financial outlays running into hundreds, if not thousands of pounds.
Specialists now emphasise the need for clinics to provide explicit information regarding treatment costs and success rates. Numerous support groups anticipate that these ratings will enhance the daunting procedure of availing private fertility treatment.
These add-ons signify supplementary, non-essential treatments that might be proposed in tandem with established fertility treatments, like IVF (in-vitro fertilisation) at private clinics.
Fertility Network UK, a group offering support has heralded the newly instituted HFEA ratings system. The system employs an array of five colours – transitioning from green to red – to denote the extent of proof supporting the effectiveness of an add-on in heightening the chances of conception.
The group was quick to highlight that none of the treatments that featured on the regulator’s website were rated green, and went on to advise patients to thoroughly examine all the proffered information before reaching any decisions.
Prof Tim Child, chair of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) Scientific and Clinical Advances Advisory Committee opined, “There are specific treatment add-ons that could be advantageous for certain patient groups. However, we also acknowledge that more rounds of proven treatment could potentially be more effective for the majority of patients.”
Dr Catherine Hill, head of policy at Fertility Network UK, commented on the torment afflicted on patients by these “emotionally and financially difficult decisions.” She remarked that these decisions usually revolve around whether to opt for expensive fertility treatment add-ons, and are most often made during a time when patients are feeling their most vulnerable, willing to try anything if it presents even a glimmer of hope in helping them become parents.
The HFEA maintains that patients should not be left in the dark, and add-ons lacking robust evidence of safety or efficacy should only be proposed as a part of research. Peter Thompson, the chief executive, asserted, “Clinics are under obligation to clearly explain to patients what each treatment add-on entails, its probability of enhancing their chances of a successful pregnancy, its cost, and provide a connection to the HFEA ratings system.”
