Is cheap really the whole story? This piece focuses on a novel infertility or subfertility treatment that is still an active subject of active research in the biomedical research community. It provides little data and little balanced expert comment. Also, there is NO evidence that anyone has data that directly compares IVF and IVM, let alone understands cost per cycle, conception, or healthy pregnancy.
The story does note that IVM (in vitro maturation) treatments are not widely available and this method is not as successful or widely accepted in the medical community as IVF (in vitro fertilization) treatments, and that Dr. Batzofin is one of the first doctors in Manhattan to offer the treatments while simultaneously conducting a clinical trial on IVM. Dr. Batzofin discusses his own “number needed to treat” in order to consider IVM a success (20 to one pregnancy), however, this seems arbitrary. There is no sense of valid expected outcomes from data. Doing this story when even the outcomes of the first three transfers is unknown is showmanship not reporting.
The story makes a simple comparison of IVF v. IVM for the lay reader, but does not discuss risks for women with and without polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOs). Other methods to increase fertility are not discussed. The story does compare average costs of one course of IVF treatments with one course of IVM treatments. But given the lack of proven success with IVM, multiple rounds of treatments may be necessary to conceive. This is not specifically stated and the focus of the story, a promotion of IVM (and Dr. Batzofin’s clinic) as a more cost-effective method of fertility treatments is misplaced.
The story mentions that IVM has been studied in some clinical trials in Denmark and Canada; results have been mixed and mostly included younger women, who would have an easier time conceiving. We are not told if these are randomized clinical trials. There are no data presented from these trials.
Lastly, the story does not do a good job finding unbiased sources to speak to the difference between IVF and IVM treatments–only one person is cited. An additional researcher or fertility expert could provide a balanced review of the current evidence (both benefits and harms of IVM for PCO and non-PCO women) and discuss less dramatic first-line treatments to enhance fertility. The story does interview women who serve mainly to promote Dr. Batzofin’s clinic.
The story does compare average costs of one course of IVF treatments with one course of IVM treatments. Given the lack of proven success with IVM, multiple rounds of treatments may be necessary to conceive. This is not specifically stated and the focus of the story is promoting IVM as a more cost-effective method of fertility treatments. This emphasis is misplaced.
There NO evidence that anyone has data that directly compares IVF and IVM, let alone understands cost per cycle, conception, or healthy pregnancy.
Kathie, confused here and not sure if we should ding given that they did list the cost of each treatment?
Dr. Batzofin discusses his own "numbr needed to treat" in order to consider IVM a success (20 to one pregnancy), however, this seems arbitrary. The story should include the typical success rate of IVM compared with IVF and with other fertility treatment methods. There is no sense of valid expected outcomes from data. Doing this story when even the outcomes of the first three transfers is unknown is showmanship not reporting.
The story does not adequately list the harms of this treatment for women with and without polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCO). Instead the story focuses on the potential downsides of IVF and the risks of hormones for some women.
The target group, that is, women with subfertility, can enhance their likelihood of conceiving with modest weight loss and conventional medications as needed, but who might be lured into this "tennis shoe" treatment out of fear that they won’t conceive rather than doing the harder thing of diet, activity, and physical activity. This is not dicussed. However, IVM requires egg retrieval and embryo transfer, the same as IVF, and these risks should be mentioned– the former with small risks of bleeding and infection and the latter with small risk of infection and poorer reproductive outcomes.
The story mentions that IVM has been studied in some clinical trials in Denmark and Canada and that results have been mixed and mostly included younger women, who would have an easier time conceiving . There are no data presented from these trials. In a Pubmed search for these and other studies on the topic of IVM, it appears there are still no RCTs comparing IVM v. IVF, and information is inadequate to understand differences.
The story does note that the treatment is new and Dr. Batzofin is conducting his own clinical trial. We are not told of the design of this trial nor who is funding.
The story inappropriately describes women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCO) as those "who don’t produce mature eggs and can get sick on fertility drugs." As a sweeping statement it is way off the mark and given the focus in the scientific literature about IVM is on this subfertile group, it is an exagerration.
In a British study that is a good example of reproductive epidemiology (Clayton RN, Clin Endocrin 1992) that systematically screened 353 women with ultrasound for PCO they found: Proven prior fertility was the same in PCO (56%) and non-PCO (64%) women and an equal proportion in each group had not yet tested their fertility. Of those women with previously proven fertility, self-perceived difficulty in conception occurred in similar proportions of women with and without PCO. Unresolved primary or secondary infertility (2.5-4%) was similar in both groups.
The prevalence of PCO in the general population and in infertility treatment populations don’t match – it is a biased sample that are referred – and the outcomes are not comparable. A number of trials have shown metformin and clomiphene citrate (both pills) to enhance conception in women with PCO and metabolic syndrome. These drugs do not cause ovarian hyperstimulation and thus would be general gynecology treatments used far before IVF (or IVM with IVF).
The story does not do a good job finding unbiased sources to speak to the difference between IVF and IVM treatments–only one person is cited. An additional researcher or fertility expert could provide a balanced review of the evidence (both benefits and harms) of these and additional fertility treatments, which might also be appropriate for women who cannot take hormones typical of IVF regimens. The story does interview women who serve mainly to promote Dr. Batzofin’s clinic.
The story focuses on a comparison of IVF v. IVM. Other methods to increase fertility are not discussed. Women with subfertility and PCO may try less dramatic means to enhance their likelihood of conceiving with modest weight loss and conventional medications as needed.
The story notes that IVM (in vitro maturation) treatments are not widely available and this method is not as successful or widely accepted in the medical community as IVF (in vitro fertization) treatments. The story notes that Dr. Batzofin is one of the first doctors in Manhattan to offer the treatments and is conducting a clincal trial on IVM.
The focus of the story is IVM as a newer method of fertility treatment. The story is clear that there have not been many births from this method.
We can’t be sure if this story is based on information from a press release.
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like