Since readership of newspapers continues to perilously decline every day, and most IF bloggers that I have found do not live in Massachusetts, it is safe to assume that this article will not reach as many people as it should. In the hope that posting it will make it available to interested readers, I do so below. Though the scientific observations that are central to the article are equally important, it is the analogy of the amount of psychological stress caused by IF and by cancer that needs to be circulated as widely as possible....
I welcome any and all comments on any and all facets of this article! I know that there is lots to talk about. Since my husband and I are not yet at the IVF stage, I really welcome your thoughts.
Boston Globe
IVF patients ignore data, keep hoping for twins
By Catherine Elton, Globe Correspondent March 26, 2007
It's long been the Catch-22 of in-vitro fertilization: The chances of a successful pregnancy increase with the number of embryos implanted, but so does the likelihood of multiple pregnancies, which are riskier for both mother and offspring.
Now a new study and a growing body of research suggest that, ultimately, implanting only one embryo is just as likely to lead to pregnancy.
More and more doctors are lauding and promoting the practice of these so-called single-embryo transfers. At Massachusetts General Hospital, Dr. Thomas Toth, director of reproductive endocrinology, said it's been his "personal passion" in recent years. In 2006, he said, fully 25 percent of the 500 IVF cycles Mass. General performed were single-embryo transfers.
But other local doctors say that most of their infertility patients simply aren't interested.
That's because with single-embryo transfers it takes more tries -- and therefore more time -- to get pregnant. And when it comes to infertile patients, time is crucial.
"If you were a cancer patient and I told you you'd know if you were cured in two or 12 months, which would you pick?" said Dr. Michael Alper, medical director of Boston IVF, where about 4.5 percent of IVF cycles in 2005 involved an elective single-embryo transfer. "Studies show the stress of infertility is felt to the same degree as the stress associated with cancer."
Dr. Elizabeth Ginsburg, the medical director for Brigham and Women's IVF center, said that until the science exists to help doctors identify which embryos will result in a pregnancy, single-embryo transfers will force many women to wait too long to get pregnant. And the longer they wait, the older they get and the lower their chances of success will be.
"It's a fine line between helping someone get pregnant and not helping them," she said. About 10 percent of the 1,800 IVF cycles performed at Brigham and Women's last year were single-embryo transfers.
IVF science has greatly improved in recent years, increasing pregnancy success rates. That, combined with increasing medical concerns about multiple births, has convinced some infertility doctors that it is time to work on reducing high twin pregnancy rates. Multiple-birth babies are more often born prematurely and more likely to have low birth weight, putting them at risk for health problems later in life.
But according to Dr. Samuel Pang, medical director of Reproductive Science Center in Lexington, this risk doesn't deter patients from wanting multiple embryo transfers.
"Those who have been on the long journey of infertility are quite desperate and are willing to accept the risk of multiples," he said, adding that he's a "strong proponent" of single-embryo transfers and wishes he could bring up his clinic's rate of 11.4 percent in 2005.
In fact, doctors say, research reveals that most patients actually want twins because they see it as a way to assure themselves of two children.
In Massachusetts, where insurance must cover the costs of IVF -- which otherwise would cost about $12,000 per cycle -- the single-embryo transfer rates are generally much higher than in states where IVF is not routinely covered. In 2005, according to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, just over 2 percent of IVF cycles performed by its member clinics across the nation involved single-embryo transfers.
In Europe, however, the practice of single-embryo transfers has taken hold in many countries.
Several local IVF doctors said they hope a new study from the Netherlands will help persuade more patients in the United States to try implanting just one embryo. The study, published earlier this month in the British medical journal The Lancet, compared a group of women under 38 years of age who underwent a milder ovarian stimulation and the transfer of a single embryo -- a process known as Mild IVF -- with a group of women who underwent standard stimulation and multiple embryo transfers.
After one and two IVF cycles, success rates are greater for standard treatment. But the study revealed that if success was measured over the course of a year, the rates of live births were the same in both groups.
"The traditional approach has been to stimulate the ovaries as hard as possible, generate as many eggs as possible and transfer many embryos. The public and the physicians focus on maximizing outcomes in a given cycle," said the study's lead author, Dr. Bart Fauser of the University Medical Center of Utrecht in the Netherlands.
Part of the reason why there is so much focus on maximizing outcomes each cycle in the United States, doctors say, is because the federal government requires clinics to report pregnancy success rates per cycle.
"Patients look for the per-cycle success rate when choosing a clinic," says Dr. Kelly Pagidas, associate chief of reproductive endocrinology at Tufts-New England Medical Center. "They ignore the column lower down that says 40 percent twin rate."
And in Massachusetts, doctors say insurance companies also pay attention to these figures when including clinics in their coverage. It is for these reasons, some specialists say, that doctors themselves may likely be resisting single-embryo transfers for fear of losing business and standing. That's why Fauser said the main message of his study is a broad one: The entire IVF industry needs to change the way it defines success.
"Pregnancy itself is not good enough," Fauser said. "Couples don't come for pregnancy, they come for a healthy child."
The Ever-Illusive Peace
Trying to choose a positive reality
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sharing the Space....
- Blurb This
- Certifiably Infertile
- Crazy? or Pregnant
- Dead Baby Jokes
- Disenchanted with the Reality that is My Life
- Egg Drop Soup
- Fertility Challenged in Florida
- Fortune Cookie Follies
- Henry Street
- Infertility and Hope
- Infertility Just Sucks
- Life from Here: Musings from the Edge
- Life In a Pitri Dish
- Looking for two lines
- Losing the Baby Wait
- Mission Impossible or Adventures in Infertility
- My Journey to Mommyhood
- My Prayers His Promises
- One Hardy Swimmer
- One Miracle Needed
- Our Journey to Parenthood
- Outlandish Notions
- Reproductive Jeans
- Searching for Hope
- Stirrup Queens and Sperm Palace Jesters
- The Island
- The Making of Baby V
- The Mama Wannabe
- The Maybe Baby
- The Secret Garden
- The Sweet Life
- The Trials of Trace in Adoption La-La Land
- Un-Simple Procreation
- Wishing Bee
- Wizard of Ovulation

11 comments:
This was a good article - and I somehow missed it.
We're doing a single-embyro transfer, mostly due to my uterine anomoly. I was shocked to see that, for my age group, I'm one of only 5% that opts for a single-embryo transfer.
Maybe I'm being conservative, but another BFN at this point seems far easier than losing an actual baby because of early term labor due to a multiples pregnancy.
But then again, I already have an increased risk of early term labor with a singleton, so I suppose I'm not the most of objective women on the subject. :)
That is an interesting article. I did a single embryo transfer because I only had one embryo.
If I wasn't paying for a cycle, I wouldn't have a problem with doing single transfers and having to theoretically do more cycles. But I think paying out of pocket makes it a little more difficult to make that decision.
Interesting article, thanks for posting it.
My clinic only transfers one for the first few cycles and only if there's been no success then do they start transferring two. I always thought if I ever got to IVF I'd def. transfer two, but now that I'm here its gonna be one.
My doctor basically told me that so many twins are born very pre-mature and have a greater chance of mc. I know when I finally have my baby I want to be able to take it home straight away and not have to leave it in hospital for 8-12 weeks. So I start with one... For now.
Also, the govt. covers most of the IVF costs in Aus, so I'm happy to do one at a time, but before I was a resident here and I'd have had to pay $9000 per cycle, I think I'd have gone for two then definitely.
Thanks for sharing this article. I can go either way on this. If we do have sperm to do find sperm through TESE I will likely transfer 2 at a time to increase our chances. Probably if we were just dealing with regular MF and not azoospermia I would consider transfering one. I just feel like we're too much of a risky case and the cost of adding TESE is so much more we should do with as many as possible to avoid too many surgeries for my husband.
I really hope Louisiana docs don't push for single embryo transfer if I end up needing IVF. I have zero insurance coverage. I would never be able to go for 12 rounds of IVF, at least not consecutively.
I think many doctors don't understand the urgency of couples who have been waiting for years to be parents. As difficult as twins are, they give you an excuse to never have to go through treatment again. I am not hoping for twins, but I can see why people who take the risk.
Thanks for sharing that article.
It will help me when and if the time comes for IVF. Thanks Again!
I think the payment thing is critical here (well, for those of us who don't live in MA). If success rates are higher for 1-2 IVF rounds with 2 embryos, and I have to pay out of pocket, then of course I would (hypothetically, still) want 2 transferred. But if I didn't have to worry about the money, then I would be much more willing to transfer only 1. I think, anyway. We're not at the IVF stage yet and I'm very aware that there's no telling what I would want to do until I was faced with the choice.
We are not at the IVF stage yet, either. But I do think that many of you are right that cost is a key consideration here. How can it not be given how expensive IVF is?
We're not at IVF yet, but costs are a huge concern. We have to reaffirm with my doc every cycle that we are okay with the possibility of twins or triplets since I ovulate multiple eggs on clomid, so I can't see how I would step back from that if we have to do IVF.
YMMV, but I think IVF is simply too expensive to do a single-embryo transfer without insurance coverage unless there is a predetermined medical risk (like uterine abnormalities) that prevent it.
thank you for posting that article
Having just been through a failed IVF cycle and having to pay for it out of my own pocket ($10,000+) and having been an emotional wreck since the BFN, I am one who would opt for 2 embryos tranfered over 1.
Post a Comment