"Add-Ons" for Assisted Reproductive Technology: Do Patients Get Honest Information from Fertility Clinics' Websites?

"Add-on" procedures are actively promoted on some fertility clinic websites as proven means to improve IVF success rates, especially for couples with repeated implantation/IVF failures. However, the actual contribution of these interventions to live birth rates remains inconclusive. At present, little is known about the type and quality of the information provided on the IVF clinics' websites regarding the merits of "add-ons." A systematic evaluation of the quality of information on "add-on" procedures in fertility clinic websites was performed using 10-criteria structured questionnaire. We included English language websites that presented in the Google.com search engine after typing the following key-words:"endometrial scratching"(ES), "intralipid infusions"(ILI), "assisted hatching"(AHA), "PGT-A," or "PGS". In total, 254 websites were evaluated. In most cases, an accurate description of the "add-on" procedures was provided (78.8%). However, only a minority (12%) reported their undetermined effectiveness. The use of PGT-A was more often encouraged (52.8%) than ES (23.6%) and AHA (16%). The cost was infrequently presented (6.9%). Scientific references were only rarely provided for ILI, versus 12.7% for ES, 4.0% for AHA, and 5.6% for PGT-A. The information entry date was often missing. None of the websites reported the clinic's pregnancy-rate following the "add-on" procedures. Information on "add-ons" available to patients from IVF clinic websites is often inaccurate. This could perpetuate false myths among infertile patients about these procedures and raises concern regarding possible commercial bias. It is imperative that IVF clinic websites will better communicate the associated risks and uncertainties of "add-ons" to prospective patients.

Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology advertising guidelines: How are member clinics doing?

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) member in vitro fertilization (IVF) centers adhere to the Society's new advertising policy, updated in January 2018, and evaluate other services advertised by region, insurance mandate and university affiliation status. Historically, a large percentage of IVF clinics have not adhered to SART guidelines for IVF clinic website advertising and have had variability in how financial incentives and other noncore fertility services are advertised. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): None. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Adherence of SART participating websites to objective criteria from the 2018 SART advertising guidelines. RESULT(S): All 361 SART participating clinic websites were evaluated. Approximately one third of clinics reported success rate statistics directly on their websites, but only 52.6% of those clinics reported current statistics. Similarly, only 67.5% of SART member clinics included the required disclaimer statement regarding their outcome statistics. Only 10.5% of websites were wholly compliant with SART guidelines regarding presentation of supplemental data. There were no significant differences between academic and nonacademic centers, programs in mandated versus nonmandated states, or East versus West Coast clinics in any of these areas. CONCLUSION(S): Many of the SART member websites failed to adhere to core guidelines surrounding reporting IVF clinic success rates. Consideration for additional education and streamlining as well as simplifying success rate advertising guidelines is recommended.

Aneuploid embryo transfer: clinical policies and provider opinions at United States fertility clinics.

OBJECTIVE: To describe institutional clinical policies and individual provider opinions regarding aneuploid embryo transfer (aET). DESIGN: A survey about clinical policies was electronically sent to Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) member laboratory directors, and a separate survey about personal opinions was electronically sent to all SART members. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENTS: Patients pursuing preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Current clinical policies about aET were described. Individual provider opinions about aET in the context of specific aneuploidies and mosaicism were also described. RESULTS: A total of 48 laboratory directors and 212 individual providers responded to their respective surveys. Twelve (25%) clinics report that they do not have a policy regarding aET, but clinics performing PGT-A in >100 cycles per year were more likely to have a policy. Half of the individual providers agree that an embryo with trisomy 21 should be available for aET, but most disagreed with aET of embryos with other aneuploidies and most were either unsure about or unwilling to transfer embryos with mosaicism. Those who worked in primarily patient-facing roles held more agreeable opinions regarding aET. CONCLUSION: There is no consensus regarding ideal clinical policies for aET. The wide range of current clinical practices and individual provider opinions regarding under what circumstances, if any, aET should be available to patients indicates that this is a divisive issue among ART providers, and there is a clear need for specific professional guidelines to address this issue.