A major new study has raised concerns about the effectiveness of a range of additional treatments commonly marketed by fertility clinics to improve the chances of success during in vitro fertilisation (IVF), finding that most lack strong scientific evidence to support their use.

Published in the medical journal The Lancet, the research reviewed 85 clinical trials examining IVF “add-ons” — extra procedures, tests and medications offered alongside standard fertility treatment. Researchers concluded that many of these treatments provide little or no proven benefit, despite often carrying significant costs for patients.

The study was led by researchers from the University of Melbourne, who assessed evidence for 10 widely used add-ons. Seven of those treatments either showed no measurable improvement in fertility outcomes or were supported only by low-quality evidence.

Among the treatments questioned by researchers were acupuncture, anti-inflammatory medications, endometrial receptivity testing through uterine lining biopsies, intravenous infusions containing soybean oil and egg yolk, platelet-rich plasma treatments for the ovaries or uterus, and pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A), which is used to screen embryos for chromosomal abnormalities before transfer.

Sarah Lensen, a researcher at the University of Melbourne and one of the study’s authors, said patients are often exposed to misleading information regarding the benefits of such treatments.

“There is widespread misinformation about IVF add-ons, with private clinic websites and patient forums on social media often overstating the benefits and failing to explain the potential risks and costs,” Lensen said.

The review found limited evidence suggesting potential benefits from only three treatments. EmbryoGlue, a transfer medium containing hyaluronic acid designed to assist embryo implantation, appeared to improve pregnancy outcomes, though evidence regarding live birth rates remained uncertain.

Researchers also identified possible benefits from endometrial scratching, a procedure that intentionally disrupts the uterine lining before embryo transfer. The technique was linked to increased pregnancy and live birth rates in some studies.

Physiological intracytoplasmic sperm injection (PICSI), a sperm-selection method intended to identify mature sperm cells, showed weak evidence of reducing miscarriage risk.

Despite questions surrounding their effectiveness, IVF add-ons remain widely used. According to the study, more than 70 percent of IVF patients in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom report using at least one additional treatment during their fertility journey.

The researchers warned that offering unproven treatments can create false expectations and place additional financial pressure on patients already facing emotional and physical challenges.

To help address the issue, the team has launched the Evidence-Based IVF website, which provides independent information about fertility treatments and their scientific support. Researchers said the platform has already improved patients’ understanding of treatment options and increased satisfaction with the information available to them.

The authors hope the resource will be adopted by fertility specialists and clinics worldwide as part of efforts to improve transparency and help patients make informed decisions about their care.

European leaders on Friday urged stronger coordination between the European Commission, EU member states, and relevant agencies to tackle a fast-expanding illicit drugs market estimated to be worth €31 billion, warning that organised crime networks are increasingly operating across borders and exploiting gaps in enforcement.

The issue was discussed at the level of EU heads of state for the first time, reflecting growing concern over the scale and complexity of drug trafficking across the continent. Officials said the booming market is being driven by the rising availability of new psychoactive substances, evolving smuggling routes, and the use of encrypted communication platforms and online marketplaces that make detection more difficult.

Speaking after the meeting in Brussels, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever said Europe’s major port hubs have become key entry points for illegal shipments, underscoring the cross-border nature of the threat.

“As the home of one of the biggest ports in Europe, my country has gained a simple but central knowledge: organised crime knows no boundaries,” De Wever told reporters. “Therefore, our answer to this threat must not end at the borders.”

EU leaders stressed that tackling the drug trade requires a coordinated, wide-ranging response that goes beyond law enforcement alone. According to the conclusions adopted at the summit, member states must adopt a “whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach” based on evidence, involving action at local, regional, national, European and international levels.

The statement called for improved preparedness, stronger public health protections, enhanced security measures, and expanded efforts to reduce drug-related harm. Leaders also emphasised the importance of deepening cooperation between EU countries and international partners, including initiatives such as the European Coalition Against Drugs and increased collaboration with third countries.

The conclusions further highlighted the need for stronger law enforcement coordination to disrupt trafficking networks and address the growing sophistication of criminal operations. Officials noted that criminal groups are increasingly relying on fragmented supply chains and digital tools, making traditional policing methods less effective without greater cross-border intelligence sharing.

Earlier this month, EU home affairs ministers agreed on implementation steps for the bloc’s drugs strategy covering the period from 2026 to 2030, setting the framework for future policy coordination.

The latest summit marks a shift in approach, with European leaders signalling that the drugs trade is no longer just a criminal justice issue, but also a public health, security, and governance challenge requiring sustained cooperation across the bloc.

EU health ministers remain divided over a proposal to extend market protection for certain innovative medicines, as Brussels seeks to balance industrial competitiveness with patient access and healthcare affordability.

The proposal, part of the wider Biotech Act package, would grant an additional year of exclusivity under Supplementary Protection Certificates for selected treatments. These would apply to medicines containing new active substances, those with different mechanisms of action compared with existing therapies, products tested in more than two EU member states, and drugs with at least one manufacturing step carried out within the bloc.

The European Commission argues the measure is necessary to attract biotech investment, strengthen domestic manufacturing, and prevent pharmaceutical innovation from shifting to other global markets. EU Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi defended the proposal, saying that without stronger incentives, many new treatments would not reach Europe until after patent expiry elsewhere.

He also rejected concerns over cost implications, suggesting that greater investment in preventive healthcare could offset long-term spending pressures on national health systems.

However, several member states raised strong objections, warning that longer exclusivity periods could delay the entry of cheaper biosimilar alternatives and increase strain on public healthcare budgets. Critics also questioned whether the proposal sufficiently considers unequal access to medicines across the EU.

Malta highlighted stark disparities in availability, noting that it had access to only 17 innovative medicines approved between 2020 and 2023, compared with more than 150 in Germany and over 140 in Italy. Officials warned that extending monopoly rights could deepen such inequalities.

Estonia echoed these concerns, stressing the need for a balanced approach that considers affordability, accessibility, and the long-term sustainability of national health systems.

Other delegations, including Poland and France, questioned whether the Commission had provided enough evidence to justify the policy shift. Some ministers pointed out that the proposal was not accompanied by a standalone impact assessment and relied instead on broader pharmaceutical sector analysis.

Despite disagreements, there was broad agreement on the need to simplify clinical trial procedures, reduce administrative burdens, and avoid regulatory overlap. Many countries also emphasised the importance of strengthening biosimilar markets, which are seen as critical to lowering drug costs and improving patient access across the EU.

France and several other member states argued that biosimilars play a key role in ensuring system resilience and affordability, particularly for smaller healthcare systems.

The debate reflects a broader fault line in EU industrial policy: how to encourage innovation without undermining access and cost control.

As negotiations continue, attention is shifting to Ireland, which will assume the Council of the EU presidency next. Irish Health Minister Jennifer Carroll MacNeill urged member states to accelerate discussions, citing increasing global competition in biotechnology.

She said the external environment makes rapid progress essential and confirmed that Ireland will prioritise clinical trial reform and measures to strengthen Europe’s biomanufacturing capacity.

MacNeill added that Europe must streamline regulatory frameworks to remain competitive, warning that delays could allow other regions to pull further ahead in biotech innovation.