IVF ‘add-ons' are a toxic cherry on a cake iced with desperation and hope
Not all patients who seek fertility treatment are desperate like I was when I sought the help of an IVF specialist. But like anyone seeking medical intervention, IVF patients are vulnerable, often feel powerless and have dreams of starting or completing their family. Often they have also traversed varying forms of grief and loss. When this is combined with a profit-driven industry, you have a recipe for disaster.
The IVF process is horrendously expensive and incredibly invasive. Statistically, only one in four transferred embryos will result in a live birth. Of the people who don't get pregnant on their first try, only half will get to a third attempt. The most cited reason for abandoning treatment is 'psychological stress'. Put simply: no one would choose to have IVF for shits and giggles.
In the past two months, we've seen two cases of Monash IVF admitting to transferring the wrong embryos into patients, two other major clinics provide incorrect information to sperm donors, and a class action against a number of IVF companies for add-on genetic testing that may have incorrectly found embryos were 'abnormal', settle for $56 million.
Nowhere is the toxic combination of 'baby want' and profit-seeking more evident than IVF add-ons. These additional 'treatments' are offered to allegedly improve the likelihood of a live birth. Examples include endometrial scratching (scratching the uterine lining to improve the chance of implantation), assisted hatching (a small hole is made in the outer layer of the embryo to aid implantation), and embryo glue (believed to improve embryo attachment to the uterine wall).
The cost of these additional treatments can range into the thousands of dollars, but research published by the University of Melbourne in 2021 found that '77 per cent of the 40 Australian IVF clinic websites analysed make 'unsubstantiated claims of benefit about add-ons'.
Loading
Dr Karin Hammarberg, a senior research fellow at Monash University's School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine who has extensively researched IVF add-ons, says some add-ons have little to no evidence to support their use, and in some cases may have adverse effects.
Though none of these add-ons are mandatory, when you speak to a vulnerable person spending thousands of dollars on a treatment and suggest, even subliminally, that these extra treatment options might improve their chances of realising their family, of course they're going to pony up.
Speaking to this masthead last week after the latest bungle came to light, Professor Gab Kovacs, who spent decades in the Australian IVF sector, said that what happened 'is human error, and it will happen again,' adding, 'Probably, there are other mix-ups at other clinics that we don't know about.' It's chilling to consider.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
28 minutes ago
- The Age
COVID antivirals are heavily marketed. It's not clear how well they work
Observational studies of the drugs included in the analysis concluded that the drugs halve the risk of hospitalisation, but the researchers are concerned that the results might be biased by differing trial designs. Generally, scientists look to randomised controlled trials for gold-standard evidence. New Zealand stopped subsidising Lagevrio in 2024 due to concerns about its effectiveness. Australia's COVID-19 Evidence Taskforce recommends against using the drug, which costs $1102 a pack. Despite that, Australian doctors gave out 315,000 scripts last year, plus another 243,000 for Paxlovid. Lagevrio and Paxlovid were the fifth and ninth-most-expensive drugs to taxpayers in 2023-24. The taskforce only recommends Paxlovid for unvaccinated people. It offers a limited recommendation for those who have been vaccinated but are elderly and have multiple risk factors, while noting the evidence is 'unclear'. 'In our systematic review, there were no randomised controlled trials conducted in vaccinated people since 2022 that reported a benefit from COVID-19 antivirals against hospitalisation or death,' said Dr Laura Edwards, a researcher at the University of NSW who led the study. 'It is timely to re-evaluate whether the cost we are paying for these drugs is appropriate.' It is plausible that the drugs may be useful for a small cohort of extremely high-risk people, who are elderly and have multiple risk factors, says Cheng. But this group is rarely enrolled in medical trials, making it difficult to work out the true efficacy. Loading 'I'm not entirely sure there's much benefit in that group. But there probably isn't any harm done by it.' Dr Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, a senior fellow at the University of Wollongong, has published an analysis of Paxlovid's cost-benefit. He said there was evidence of a small reduction in hospitalisation risk, making the drug still worth subsidising. 'I think that Australia has a very reasonable, pragmatic approach, prioritising high-risk individuals who will benefit and not paying for low-risk people who probably won't.' In a statement, Pfizer pointed to the first study of Paxlovid, which demonstrated an 86 per cent reduction in the risk of hospitalisation or death: 'Real-world data collected during the Omicron period among high-risk populations who have received COVID-19 vaccinations reinforce the effectiveness of Paxlovid in preventing hospitalisations and deaths.' MSD, which sells molnupiravir, said it stood behind the drug. The Department of Health said both antivirals were under review by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, with results expected mid-2026. Lagevrio and Paxlovid work by stopping the virus that causes COVID-19 from multiplying in our cells, theoretically giving the immune system a leg up against it. The first studies by the drug companies found the two pills cut the risk of hospitalisation or death by about 50 per cent and 89 per cent respectively in unvaccinated people. Loading But Lagevrio's 50 per cent effectiveness was only seen in a study that stopped halfway. When the full trial was analysed, whether it offered any benefit at all became debatable. A large independent study in 2022 also found it was likely no better than a placebo. A study published by Pfizer last year concluded Paxlovid's protective effect in vaccinated patients, including those at high risk, was so small as to not be statistically significant. That study began in 2021 but was only published in 2024. Research conducted by the Grattan Institute late last year found that wealthier Australians were far more likely to be prescribed COVID antivirals than those at the bottom of the income ladder, despite people living in disadvantage typically having much greater risk factors for severe disease. 'Essentially, like so many things in our healthcare system, the treatments and services weren't going to the people who need them most,' said Peter Breadon, the Institute's health program director. Nearly all Australians have either been vaccinated or survived a COVID-19 infection, meaning there is less benefit from antivirals. And the Omicron variant is less likely to hospitalise or kill a patient than the preceding Delta variant. 'COVID is a different disease to what it was,' said Cheng, who is now director of infectious diseases at Monash Health. '[Patients] don't get pneumonia and lung white-out, generally. It's almost like we're doing a study in a different disease, which is making it difficult to work out how relevant … what we found out early on [is] to what we know now.' This stark difference shows up in Pfizer's studies of Paxlovid. In Pfizer's first study, involving unvaccinated people, 7 per cent of patients given a placebo ended up in hospital and 13 died. In the second study, which involved vaccinated people, just 1.6 per cent of the placebo group were hospitalised. 'For young, fit and healthy people, antivirals are not going to do much. You're at pretty low risk,' said Cheng. 'For older people – those over 65 or 70 – or people who have other medical issues, that's one they should go and see their GP.'
Sydney Morning Herald
28 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
COVID antivirals are heavily marketed. It's not clear how well they work
Observational studies of the drugs included in the analysis concluded that the drugs halve the risk of hospitalisation, but the researchers are concerned that the results might be biased by differing trial designs. Generally, scientists look to randomised controlled trials for gold-standard evidence. New Zealand stopped subsidising Lagevrio in 2024 due to concerns about its effectiveness. Australia's COVID-19 Evidence Taskforce recommends against using the drug, which costs $1102 a pack. Despite that, Australian doctors gave out 315,000 scripts last year, plus another 243,000 for Paxlovid. Lagevrio and Paxlovid were the fifth and ninth-most-expensive drugs to taxpayers in 2023-24. The taskforce only recommends Paxlovid for unvaccinated people. It offers a limited recommendation for those who have been vaccinated but are elderly and have multiple risk factors, while noting the evidence is 'unclear'. 'In our systematic review, there were no randomised controlled trials conducted in vaccinated people since 2022 that reported a benefit from COVID-19 antivirals against hospitalisation or death,' said Dr Laura Edwards, a researcher at the University of NSW who led the study. 'It is timely to re-evaluate whether the cost we are paying for these drugs is appropriate.' It is plausible that the drugs may be useful for a small cohort of extremely high-risk people, who are elderly and have multiple risk factors, says Cheng. But this group is rarely enrolled in medical trials, making it difficult to work out the true efficacy. Loading 'I'm not entirely sure there's much benefit in that group. But there probably isn't any harm done by it.' Dr Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, a senior fellow at the University of Wollongong, has published an analysis of Paxlovid's cost-benefit. He said there was evidence of a small reduction in hospitalisation risk, making the drug still worth subsidising. 'I think that Australia has a very reasonable, pragmatic approach, prioritising high-risk individuals who will benefit and not paying for low-risk people who probably won't.' In a statement, Pfizer pointed to the first study of Paxlovid, which demonstrated an 86 per cent reduction in the risk of hospitalisation or death: 'Real-world data collected during the Omicron period among high-risk populations who have received COVID-19 vaccinations reinforce the effectiveness of Paxlovid in preventing hospitalisations and deaths.' MSD, which sells molnupiravir, said it stood behind the drug. The Department of Health said both antivirals were under review by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, with results expected mid-2026. Lagevrio and Paxlovid work by stopping the virus that causes COVID-19 from multiplying in our cells, theoretically giving the immune system a leg up against it. The first studies by the drug companies found the two pills cut the risk of hospitalisation or death by about 50 per cent and 89 per cent respectively in unvaccinated people. Loading But Lagevrio's 50 per cent effectiveness was only seen in a study that stopped halfway. When the full trial was analysed, whether it offered any benefit at all became debatable. A large independent study in 2022 also found it was likely no better than a placebo. A study published by Pfizer last year concluded Paxlovid's protective effect in vaccinated patients, including those at high risk, was so small as to not be statistically significant. That study began in 2021 but was only published in 2024. Research conducted by the Grattan Institute late last year found that wealthier Australians were far more likely to be prescribed COVID antivirals than those at the bottom of the income ladder, despite people living in disadvantage typically having much greater risk factors for severe disease. 'Essentially, like so many things in our healthcare system, the treatments and services weren't going to the people who need them most,' said Peter Breadon, the Institute's health program director. Nearly all Australians have either been vaccinated or survived a COVID-19 infection, meaning there is less benefit from antivirals. And the Omicron variant is less likely to hospitalise or kill a patient than the preceding Delta variant. 'COVID is a different disease to what it was,' said Cheng, who is now director of infectious diseases at Monash Health. '[Patients] don't get pneumonia and lung white-out, generally. It's almost like we're doing a study in a different disease, which is making it difficult to work out how relevant … what we found out early on [is] to what we know now.' This stark difference shows up in Pfizer's studies of Paxlovid. In Pfizer's first study, involving unvaccinated people, 7 per cent of patients given a placebo ended up in hospital and 13 died. In the second study, which involved vaccinated people, just 1.6 per cent of the placebo group were hospitalised. 'For young, fit and healthy people, antivirals are not going to do much. You're at pretty low risk,' said Cheng. 'For older people – those over 65 or 70 – or people who have other medical issues, that's one they should go and see their GP.'
ABC News
44 minutes ago
- ABC News
The maternity care that took Tara's BMI out of the equation
Early in her pregnancy, Tara Sawyer was told the local hospital would not be able to accommodate her. "Because of my higher BMI, you automatically have to go to Box Hill rather than Angliss Hospital," says the 29-year-old from Emerald/land of the Bunurong and Wurundjeri peoples in Victoria. "Initially I was quite upset about that because I'm a teacher, I work full-time, and it meant all my appointments had to be an hour away, so I had to take a whole day off work to have an appointment. "It led to stress in my job, which was not ideal." Tara says she also felt ashamed to tell people why she had to travel to a different hospital. "My husband and I talk about weight all the time, but even just to tell him I can't go to this hospital because I'm overweight, was quite embarrassing." Recent research from Monash University has found reducing women's experiences of weight stigma should lead to better care and better pregnancy outcomes for larger-bodied women. It shows larger-bodied women are sometimes automatically treated as high-risk, which the authors write is "problematic because it focuses on body size rather than health". BMI is a method used to sort patients by weight into four categories from underweight to obese. Its appropriateness as a measure of healthy weight for individuals has long been contested. For Tara, the redirection to a hospital further away ended up being a "blessing in disguise", thanks to a program dedicated to maternity care for women with a high BMI. "It meant that I could opt to not be weighed at each appointment, not be told about my weight, or be told only if I wanted," Tara says. We spoke to Tara about her pregnancy journey, and how, for the first time, her weight meant she received more care, rather than less. These are her words. I had been on a health journey for about 10 years prior to being pregnant, with what I assumed was an autoimmune disease. I really struggled to get care early on. The default response from most doctors about my symptoms was to exercise more and lose weight. I was aware of my weight, but struggled to lose any, and suspected whatever else condition I had was contributing to that. I also have anxiety, and at one point I was having some internal bleeding investigated. When they didn't find a cause, I had a specialist gastroenterologist tell me what it was probably just anxiety causing those symptoms. After about three years of fighting to have my voice heard, I was finally referred to a rheumatologist who has taken my condition seriously. I also found a fantastic GP who has listened to my fear of being dismissed because of my weight, and made sure unless my bloods indicated it was a problem, or I came in concerned about my weight, it would not be factored into my care and treatment. I actually fall into the catchment of Angliss Hospital, but due to having a suspected autoimmune condition, borderline high hypertension, and a high BMI, I was told I had to present to Box Hill and receive care there. I was quite frustrated and embarrassed I had to do that. But it did work out for the best. I was told about the PEARL (Pregnancy Elevated BMI Antenatal Risk reduction and Lifestyle) program. It's run by this beautiful midwife Maddy (Madeline Hawke). She was concerned about weight stigma with pregnancy and how many women deal with a lot of weight conversations in pregnancy that are not necessarily important to that pregnancy. I saw Maddy and the same obstetrician throughout my pregnancy. We didn't really discuss weight. At one point I raised concerns about how much I was putting on, but I was assured it was in the normal range for women with my BMI. There was also an honest conversation about why it's sometimes recommended women with high BMI be induced, but it was presented to me as research and fact, rather than pressure or opinion to sway me one way or the other. I kind of got the "royal treatment". I met another woman in the program and she said to me, "It's like the first time that being overweight has been a positive in my life". I felt the same way. Despite the great care, I had such an awful pregnancy with pain and pre-natal depression. It was a really hard time. But I would give birth every day of the week. I loved it. It was such a positive experience. The midwives and team were amazing. I put that down to all the research I did. Familiarising myself with hospital policies on what I could and couldn't push back on. Having a thorough birth plan. I learnt that I was always entitled to ask for a second opinion, and ask for a second doctor if I wasn't happy with my care. It's your right to ask for that. And I know it's really hard; as women we are seen as being rude and up-front when advocating for ourselves. But pregnancy is one of the most vulnerable times in your life, you want to make sure the people in the room have your best interests at heart, and don't look down on you because of your weight.
