Study Shows: Additional Treatments During IVF Offer No Benefit

According to a new review of the evidence, hormone therapy—which is often offered to IVF patients to improve their chances of pregnancy—is a complete waste of time. Injecting the hormone human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) into a woman’s uterus before embryo transfer does not increase either the pregnancy or live birth rates, researchers recently reported in the journal Human Reproduction Update. “For patients and doctors, the message is clear: this additional measure does not improve the outcomes of fertility treatment,” said lead researcher Rui Wang, a senior research fellow at the University of Sydney in Australia, in a press release. According to Wang, this hormone should not be routinely offered as part of IVF treatment.

Hormone Treatment Did not Increase Pregnancy and Live Birth Rates

This hormone treatment is used worldwide, including in the U.S., Europe, Australia, and parts of Asia, the researchers noted in background information. The procedure became popular in the early to mid-2010s to improve implantation in IVF, based on studies that reported positive results, the researchers noted. However, when they analyzed the raw data behind these studies, they found that earlier claims about the positive effects of hormone therapy were unfounded.

For the new review, the researchers synthesized data from seven previous studies on this treatment involving 2,244 IVF patients. The team examined the outcomes for the patients themselves rather than the results published for each individual clinical trial. The findings showed that the hormone regimen did not increase either pregnancy or live birth rates, regardless of patient type. “There was no evidence of a benefit in any of the groups we analyzed, whether for fresh or frozen embryo transfers, at different embryonic stages, or with different dosages,” said Wang. “When we limited the analysis to studies where the raw data could be checked and verified, the effect disappeared completely,” he added. The procedure is relatively inexpensive compared to the total cost of IVF, but even if it is inexpensive, patients should not be offered a therapy that does not work, according to Wang.

“Any procedure offered to patients should be supported by reliable evidence,” he explained. “When patients are already undergoing multiple IVF cycles, adding procedures with no proven benefit places an unnecessary burden on people who are already on a difficult journey.” Many patients opt for these additional measures if their chances improve even slightly, as they are often under significant emotional pressure. These findings may be just the tip of the iceberg, Wang noted. Other adjunctive treatments in reproductive medicine may have been adopted into clinical practice based on unreliable evidence. “Many IVF adjunctive treatments look promising on paper because early studies report benefits,” Wang said. “But if these studies are flawed or the data cannot be verified, patients may be making decisions based on evidence that isn’t sound. “

False Hopes Among IVF Patients

There are several scientific reasons why this hormone treatment does not work, primarily related to incorrect assumptions about the effects of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) and methodological problems in earlier studies. It was originally assumed that the direct administration of hCG into the uterus could improve embryo implantation. The reasoning behind this: hCG is a hormone naturally produced in early pregnancy and plays a key role in maintaining the pregnancy. Therefore, it was hypothesized that an additional dose at the right time could make the uterine lining “more receptive” and thus increase the chances of success for in vitro fertilization. In reality, however, this mechanism does not appear to work that way. Implantation is an extremely complex biological process in which many signals must be precisely coordinated. Administering a single additional hormone is apparently not enough to measurably improve this finely tuned process.

Another key reason lies in the quality of the original studies on which the method is based. Earlier studies had shown some positive effects, but these results were apparently distorted. In the new review, researchers not only examined published results but also reanalyzed the underlying raw data. This revealed that the supposed benefits disappeared as soon as the data were carefully scrutinized. This suggests that earlier studies may have had methodological weaknesses—such as small sample sizes, selective evaluation, or statistical biases.

Furthermore, the treatment showed no demonstrable benefit in any patient group—regardless of whether fresh or frozen embryos were used, the embryo’s developmental stage, or the dosage administered. This strongly suggests that it is not merely a matter of proper application; rather, the underlying mechanism of action does not appear to produce the desired effect. Especially with a stressful treatment like IVF, many patients place great hope in additional measures, even if the potential benefit seems minimal. However, if such an adjunctive therapy demonstrably fails to improve outcomes, it unnecessarily prolongs the process and can raise false expectations.