IVF News

The global burden of infertility among women aged 35 to 49 is expected to increase substantially over the next decade. A new analysis published in The Lancet Obstetrics, Gynaecology, & Women’s Health projects that approximately 79.6 million women in this age group could be living with infertility by 2036, compared with an estimated 53.6 million in 2023.

This represents an increase of approximately 48.6% in just 13 years. The associated burden measured in disability-adjusted life-years, or DALYs, is also projected to rise by nearly 50%.

The findings position infertility at advanced reproductive ages as an increasingly important global health issue. They also illustrate how reproductive biology, population ageing, later childbearing and unequal access to fertility care are interacting across very different social and economic settings.

The analysis used data from the Global Burden of Disease 2023 study, covering 204 countries and territories between 1990 and 2023. Researchers assessed the prevalence of infertility and associated DALYs among women aged 35 to 49. They examined trends at global, regional and national levels, evaluated health inequalities and used a Bayesian age-period-cohort model to project the burden through 2036.

In 2023, the estimated age-standardised prevalence rate was 6,907 cases per 100,000 women aged 35 to 49, although the uncertainty interval around that figure was wide. Across the period from 1990 to 2023, age-standardised prevalence increased by an average of approximately 0.45% per year. Infertility-related DALYs rose by around 0.47% annually.

The projected increase in the absolute number of affected women is therefore not simply a reflection of one factor. It combines changes in population size and age structure with a continuing rise in the estimated age-standardised burden. The largest numerical increase is expected among women aged 35 to 39.

Age remains central to the clinical picture. Ovarian reserve and oocyte competence decline as reproductive ageing progresses. This reduces natural fecundity, increases the probability of miscarriage and lowers the likelihood that an assisted reproductive technology cycle will result in a live birth. These biological processes are well established, but the population exposed to them is changing.

In many countries, first births are occurring later. Longer periods in education, delayed partnership formation, housing costs, employment insecurity, limited childcare and the difficulty of reconciling work with parenthood all influence reproductive timing. Greater awareness of infertility and increased use of diagnostic services may also contribute to the number of cases identified.

These factors should not be interpreted as evidence that later parenthood is simply an individual lifestyle decision. Reproductive timing is shaped by economic conditions, workplace policies, family support, access to health care and the wider social environment. Expanding IVF services can address part of the clinical need, but it cannot by itself resolve the structural conditions that lead many people to postpone attempts to conceive.

The geographical pattern is also changing. Asia currently has the greatest absolute need for fertility care, reflecting its large population, while Australasia has the lowest. At the same time, the study found that the burden has progressively shifted towards countries with a higher Socio-demographic Index, a composite measure incorporating income, education and fertility.

Higher-income settings tend to have older maternal ages and greater access to fertility investigation, diagnosis and treatment. This can increase both the underlying need for care and the visibility of infertility within health statistics. In lower-resource settings, infertility may remain underdiagnosed even when its personal and social consequences are severe.

The relative disparity in infertility-related DALYs between low-SDI and high-SDI regions narrowed by 23.1% between 1990 and 2023. This apparent improvement in global equity requires careful interpretation. A narrowing gap does not necessarily mean that outcomes have improved everywhere. It can also occur because the measured burden is rising more quickly in high-SDI countries.

Substantial inequalities remain within and between countries. Fertility investigations, ovarian stimulation, laboratory procedures, embryo culture, cryopreservation and repeated treatment cycles can place considerable financial pressure on patients. Where treatment is primarily self-funded, access depends heavily on income and geography. Even in publicly supported systems, age restrictions, eligibility criteria and long waiting periods can limit care.

The new estimates therefore have practical implications for fertility services. A rise from 53.6 million to almost 80 million affected women would create additional demand for diagnostic testing, counselling, ovarian stimulation, IVF, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, cryopreservation and donor treatment. Laboratories may need to plan for greater cycle volumes while maintaining rigorous standards for traceability, quality control, culture conditions and staff competency.

Demand is unlikely to be distributed evenly. Health systems will need local forecasting that accounts for population age structure, reproductive intentions, treatment-seeking behaviour and existing service capacity. Greater demand also makes efficient referral pathways increasingly important. Patients may lose valuable reproductive time when assessment is delayed or when care is fragmented between primary care, gynaecology and specialist fertility services.

Earlier access to accurate fertility information could help people make informed reproductive choices. This should include a realistic explanation of age-related changes in fertility and the limitations of assisted reproduction. IVF can improve the probability of conception for many patients, but it does not fully compensate for the effect of increasing oocyte age. Fertility preservation may extend reproductive options for some women, although it also carries costs, medical burdens and no guarantee of a future live birth.

Education must be delivered carefully. The purpose is not to pressure women into earlier parenthood or transfer responsibility for systemic problems onto individual patients. Fertility awareness is most useful when accompanied by policies that make family formation more achievable, including secure employment, affordable housing, parental leave, childcare and protection from workplace disadvantage.

The study also supports integrating infertility more fully into national health strategies and primary care. Earlier recognition of risk factors, appropriate investigation and timely referral could reduce avoidable delays. Mobile health services and remote consultations may extend access to information and specialist support, particularly in regions where fertility clinics are concentrated in major cities.

Clinical expansion should be accompanied by measures that protect affordability and quality. Increasing capacity without addressing cost could widen existing disparities. Similarly, expanding treatment without appropriate laboratory infrastructure, trained personnel and monitoring could compromise patient safety and outcomes.

The estimates should be understood as modelled population-level findings rather than a direct count of every woman experiencing infertility. The Global Burden of Disease framework combines information from multiple sources and uses statistical modelling where data are incomplete. The broad uncertainty interval around the prevalence estimate reflects variation and limitations in the available evidence.

Definitions and reporting practices may also differ across settings. Infertility is generally defined as failure to achieve pregnancy after 12 months of regular unprotected intercourse, but this clinical definition does not capture every reproductive circumstance. Women who are not currently attempting pregnancy, do not have a partner or cannot access diagnostic services may not be represented in the same way as patients actively seeking treatment.

The analysis focuses specifically on female infertility among women aged 35 to 49. It should not be read as suggesting that infertility is exclusively or predominantly the responsibility of women. Male factors, combined factors and unexplained infertility represent substantial components of the overall burden and require appropriate investigation.

Despite these limitations, the projected direction of change is clear. More women are reaching later reproductive ages in populations where childbearing is increasingly postponed, while fertility care remains expensive or unavailable for many of those who need it. The result is likely to be a significant increase in demand for both clinical treatment and wider reproductive health support.

For IVF providers, policymakers and laboratory professionals, the study offers a planning horizon rather than simply a warning. Capacity, affordability, workforce development and equitable access will need to advance together. The challenge is not only to perform more treatment cycles, but to build fertility services that are timely, evidence-based and accessible across different economic and geographical settings.

Nearly 80 million affected women by 2036 would make infertility among those aged 35 to 49 an even more prominent part of global reproductive health. Preparing for that future will require better fertility education, earlier assessment, realistic communication about treatment, stronger laboratory capacity and policies that recognise the social as well as biological dimensions of reproductive ageing.

Sources

6 July 2026. The Lancet

• Epidemiological trends, disparities, and developmental correlates of infertility in women of advanced maternal age, 1990–2023: a comprehensive analysis within the GBD framework

7 July 2026. MedicalXpress

• Rates of infertility are rising among women over 35

10 July 2026. Firstpost

• Global infertility among women over 35 could rise by 50 percent in a decade, warns Lancet

7 July 2026. Euronews

• Infertility to affect 80 million women by 2036 with sharpest rise in over-35s, study finds

Training Batch Schedule August - October 2026

• Batch - VIII : 03rd to 17th August 2026
• Batch - IX : 01st to 16th September 2026
• Batch - X : 05th to 19th October 2026

The International School of Embryology a unit of Chennai Fertility Centre and Research Institute was established to offer training in Advanced Reproductive Techniques and Embryology for clinicians and embryologists. It will help them to know in-depth knowledge and have good hands-on training. The members of our teaching faculty aim to bring Clinician and Embryologists to the highest level of knowledge about Assisted Reproductive Technology and practical capability.

Our courses cover basics in Andrology, Embryology, ICSI & Cryosciences (Hands-on).

Limited Seats. For admission Contact  9003111598 / 8428278218 

This webinar examined how emerging technologies and scientific advances are transforming modern clinical embryology, bringing together internationally recognised experts to discuss innovations spanning chromosome segregation, laboratory traceability, and artificial intelligence.

Dr Eirini Bellou opened the session by presenting new approaches to preventing meiotic aneuploidy, exploring the biological mechanisms underlying chromosome segregation errors and discussing novel strategies aimed at improving oocyte quality and reducing aneuploid embryo formation.

Cynthia Hudson then focused on the critical role of witnessing and traceability within the IVF laboratory. Her presentation demonstrated how modern digital witnessing systems can strengthen patient safety, improve operational efficiency, and provide complete sample traceability throughout the assisted reproduction process.

The final presentation, delivered by Dr Matthew "Tex" VerMilyea together with Dr Tricia Adams, provided a practical roadmap for laboratories beginning their AI journey. The session explored the organisational, technical and cultural foundations required for successful AI implementation, highlighting the importance of data quality, workflow optimisation, staff engagement, and realistic expectations when introducing artificial intelligence into routine clinical practice.

The webinar concluded with an interactive panel discussion and live audience Q&A, during which the speakers addressed questions on implementing emerging technologies, maintaining laboratory quality and governance, and preparing IVF laboratories for the next generation of digital transformation.

Moderators:
Bill Venier & Dr Giovanni Coticchio

Presenters:
Dr Eirini Bellou, PhD: New Approaches to Prevent Meiotic Aneuploidy
Kindly sponsored by U-Ploid Biotechnologies

Cynthia Hudson: Total Recall
Kindly sponsored by Matcher & TMRW - proudly part of Reprotech

Dr Matthew “Tex” VerMilyea, PhD, HCLD/CC: 6 Clicks to Success: The Quick Start Guide to AI Readiness

with Dr Tricia Adams
Kindly sponsored by Alife Health

Q and A

The International IVF Initiative (I3) webinar  "New Rules", explored emerging approaches to decision-making in assisted reproduction, focusing on both genetic testing strategies and sperm selection technologies.

Dr. Nasser Al-Asmar Piñar examined the evolving role of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) within contemporary IVF practice. He discussed situations in which PGT may provide meaningful clinical value, while also highlighting circumstances where its use may be unnecessary or offer limited benefit. The presentation encouraged a more individualised and evidence-based approach to patient selection and clinical decision-making, challenging the notion that genetic testing should be routinely applied in all cases.

A/Prof Hassan Bakos presented an overview of next-generation sperm selection strategies, exploring how the field is moving beyond traditional assessments based primarily on motility. He reviewed emerging evidence surrounding sperm quality, functionality, and selection technologies designed to identify sperm with characteristics associated with improved reproductive potential. The presentation highlighted the growing recognition that sperm selection may require a broader assessment framework than conventional laboratory parameters alone.

The webinar concluded with a lively question-and-answer session, during which the speakers discussed the practical implementation of these technologies, the strength of the current evidence base, and the potential impact of these evolving approaches on future IVF laboratory and clinical practice.

For many years, one of the central trade-offs in IVF was the balance between success and safety. Transferring more than one embryo could increase the chance of pregnancy from a single transfer, but it also increased the risk of twins and higher-order multiple pregnancies. Those pregnancies carry greater risks for both mother and babies, including preterm birth, low birth weight and pregnancy complications.

A new study presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of ESHRE suggests that this trade-off has changed substantially in modern IVF practice. Researchers analysed outcomes from 18,396 women undergoing their first IVF cycle between January 2012 and December 2021 across seven Australian fertility clinics, with follow-up through December 2023. The study found that contemporary IVF practice achieved a 68.2 percent cumulative live birth rate over three treatment cycles using optimal per-protocol analysis, while single embryo transfer was used in 95.3 percent of embryo transfers. The multiple birth rate was just 2.9 percent.

These findings are important because they show that high cumulative success rates can be achieved without routinely transferring multiple embryos. Earlier IVF studies, carried out before the widespread use of several now-standard laboratory and clinical practices, reported three-cycle cumulative live birth rates of around 53 to 59 percent, often with multiple pregnancy rates above 20 percent. In contrast, this newer dataset reflects a period in which blastocyst culture, vitrification, freeze-all strategies and optimised frozen embryo transfer protocols had become much more widely embedded in clinical care.

The age-related pattern remained clear. Women under 35 had an optimal cumulative live birth rate of 84.5 percent over three treatment cycles. This fell to 74.4 percent for women aged 35 to 37, 57.7 percent for women aged 38 to 40 and 30.1 percent for women aged 41 to 42. This reinforces a familiar point in reproductive medicine: improvements in IVF laboratory performance can raise overall effectiveness, but they do not remove the biological effect of reproductive ageing.

The study also gives a useful view of how incremental changes in the laboratory may translate into clinical outcomes. Between 2012 to 2015 and 2017 to 2021, the proportion of fertilised eggs developing into usable blastocysts increased from 48.3 percent to 57.6 percent. Over the same period, single embryo transfer increased from 92.8 percent to 97.3 percent, while the multiple birth rate fell from 3.2 percent to 2.7 percent.

This is not a story of one single technology transforming IVF. It is more likely a story of cumulative refinement. Extended embryo culture to day 5 or 6, improved culture systems, lower oxygen environments, reduced embryo handling, more reliable vitrification and better frozen embryo transfer preparation have together changed what clinics can expect from one embryo at a time.

The findings also touch on the role of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, or PGT-A. In the study, PGT-A was used in one or more treatment cycles in 25 percent of women. However, the overall outcomes were achieved without routine genetic testing for all patients. This does not diminish the value of PGT-A in selected groups, such as patients of advanced maternal age or those with recurrent pregnancy loss, but it does suggest that strong cumulative outcomes are possible in modern IVF programmes without universal use of embryo genetic testing.

For embryologists and IVF laboratories, the message is practical as well as reassuring. The success of single embryo transfer depends on confidence in the full system: stimulation, embryo culture, cryopreservation, warming, endometrial preparation, embryo selection and clinical decision-making. When these elements are well controlled, single embryo transfer can support both high success rates and safer pregnancies.

The study also highlights why cumulative live birth rate is such a useful measure. Patients experience IVF over time, not just as one transfer or one cycle. A single embryo transfer strategy may not always maximise the chance of pregnancy from one isolated transfer, but it can preserve safety while maintaining strong overall chances across a complete treatment pathway.

Modern IVF is increasingly defined not only by whether it can achieve pregnancy, but by whether it can do so safely, consistently and with fewer avoidable complications. This large cohort study supports the view that, in well-developed IVF programmes, single embryo transfer is no longer a compromise. It is becoming a central part of effective, contemporary care.

Sources

8 July 2026. ESHRE

• Modern IVF achieves higher success rates with single embryo transfer, major study finds

A new study presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of ESHRE has added important clinical evidence to a long-standing question in reproductive medicine: when donor eggs are used, how much does the age of the uterus still matter?

For many years, reproductive ageing has been discussed largely in terms of oocyte quality. This is understandable. Oocyte aneuploidy, reduced developmental competence and declining ovarian reserve are major contributors to lower fertility with increasing maternal age. Donor-oocyte treatment is therefore often viewed as a way to bypass the biological effects of ovarian ageing.

The new study, led by researchers from the IVIRMA Global Research Alliance at IVI Roma, suggests that this picture is more complex. By analysing donor-oocyte cycles, where embryo potential is less directly tied to the recipient’s own oocyte age, the researchers were able to look more closely at the contribution of recipient age and the uterine environment.

The analysis included 2,760 single blastocyst transfers in 1,774 women undergoing donor-oocyte treatment between March 2021 and December 2024. Outcomes were compared across four recipient age groups: 35 to 40, 41 to 45, 46 to 49 and 49 years or older. The study assessed clinical pregnancy rates, live birth rates, miscarriage rates and endometrial features, while adjusting for embryo, maternal and paternal factors.

The most clinically relevant finding was the identification of 49 years as a threshold beyond which outcomes appeared to decline despite the use of donor eggs. Clinical pregnancy rates decreased from 54.0% in recipients aged 35 to 40 to 42.6% in those aged 49 and over. Live birth rates fell from 46.2% to 31.7% across the same age comparison. Miscarriage rates increased from 24.2% to 37.6%.

The study also reported a reduction in cumulative live birth rates when all available embryos were transferred. Among recipients aged 35 to 40, the cumulative live birth rate was 80.0%. In recipients aged 49 and over, it was 62.5%. These findings suggest that donor eggs can substantially improve reproductive potential in older patients, but may not completely remove the influence of recipient age.

A particularly interesting aspect of the study was its assessment of the endometrium. Endometrial thickness remained similar across age groups, but the proportion of women with a trilaminar endometrial pattern declined with age. This pattern, often associated with endometrial receptivity, was present in 94.7% of women aged 35 to 40 compared with 81.0% of women aged 49 and over.

This distinction is important. Endometrial thickness is widely measured in clinical practice, but thickness alone may not fully capture the functional state of the uterine environment. A uterus that appears adequate by thickness may still show age-related changes in vascular function, immune signalling, hormonal response, stromal behaviour or molecular receptivity.

The findings do not suggest that donor-oocyte IVF is ineffective in older recipients. On the contrary, pregnancy and live birth outcomes remained clinically meaningful even in women at advanced reproductive ages. However, the data support more nuanced counselling. Donor eggs can address the problem of oocyte ageing, but they may not fully reset reproductive ageing if the uterine environment has also changed.

For IVF clinics and laboratories, the study reinforces the importance of separating embryo-related and uterine-related contributors to treatment outcome. A high-quality donor-oocyte blastocyst may still implant and develop within a biological environment influenced by recipient age. This has implications for patient counselling, protocol selection and future research into endometrial assessment.

The next step will be to understand what “uterine biological age” really means in clinical terms. The study points toward the need for better biomarkers that go beyond age, endometrial thickness and visual pattern. Future work may help identify which patients have preserved uterine receptivity at older ages and which may have an increased risk of miscarriage or reduced live birth despite good embryo quality.

For now, this study offers a useful and balanced message. Donor-oocyte treatment remains a powerful option for patients affected by ovarian ageing. At the same time, reproductive ageing should not be viewed as exclusively ovarian. After 49, uterine and endometrial ageing may become increasingly relevant to the chance of live birth.

Sources

6 July 2026. ESHRE

• New study links uterine ageing to poorer pregnancy outcomes after 49 despite donor eggs

6 July 2026. Human Reproduction

• Advanced maternal age independently affects live birth and increases miscarriage risk in donor oocyte cycles

A new analysis published in The Lancet Obstetrics, Gynaecology & Women’s Health has brought renewed attention to one of the most persistent questions in fertility treatment: which IVF add-ons genuinely improve outcomes, and which are simply being offered ahead of the evidence?

IVF add-ons are additional procedures, medicines, tests or laboratory techniques offered alongside standard IVF with the aim of improving the chance of pregnancy or live birth. They have become increasingly visible over the past decade, particularly in private fertility care, where patients may be offered multiple optional extras during an already expensive and emotionally demanding treatment process.

The University of Melbourne-led review examined evidence for ten widely used IVF add-ons. These included preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, endometrial receptivity testing, corticosteroids, EmbryoGlue, endometrial scratching, physiological intracytoplasmic sperm injection, platelet-rich plasma injection into the ovary, platelet-rich plasma infusion into the uterus, acupuncture and intralipids.

The conclusion was careful but important. The review found weak evidence of possible benefit for three add-ons: EmbryoGlue, endometrial scratching and physiological ICSI. For the other seven, the evidence showed either no effect on fertility outcomes or remained inconclusive because of limited or low-quality data.

This distinction matters. The study did not suggest that every add-on is harmful or that every clinical use is inappropriate. Rather, it highlighted that availability is not the same as proven benefit. For patients, the presence of an add-on on a clinic menu can understandably feel like an endorsement. For clinicians and laboratories, the study is a reminder that treatment options should be explained with the same precision used in the laboratory: what is known, what is uncertain and what has not yet been demonstrated.

One of the strengths of the review was its attention to study trustworthiness. Of 157 potentially eligible trials, 72 were excluded because of trustworthiness concerns. The final analysis pooled data from 85 trials considered suitable for inclusion. This is an important point for reproductive medicine, where small studies, heterogeneous patient groups and variable outcome measures can make it difficult to draw reliable conclusions.

The add-ons with no clear evidence of benefit included several that are widely discussed by patients online, such as acupuncture, corticosteroids, intralipid infusion and platelet-rich plasma treatments. The review also placed endometrial receptivity testing and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in the group where benefit was not clearly demonstrated in the assessed evidence. That finding is likely to attract attention because some of these technologies are well known, technically sophisticated and commonly promoted.

For embryology and IVF laboratory teams, the findings are especially relevant because some add-ons sit close to routine lab practice. EmbryoGlue, for example, is a transfer medium containing hyaluronic acid. Physiological ICSI, or PICSI, selects sperm based on hyaluronic acid binding. These techniques are biologically plausible, and the review found weak evidence of possible benefit, but the language remains cautious. Weak evidence is not the same as strong proof, and possible benefit still requires careful discussion of patient selection, cost, expected effect size and uncertainty.

The second Lancet paper focused on patient information. Researchers evaluated an Evidence-based IVF website designed to provide balanced information about add-ons. The trial found that patients who used the evidence-based resource had a better understanding of benefits, risks and evidence quality compared with people exposed to typical online information. This is a useful finding in itself. In IVF, patients often make decisions under time pressure, emotional strain and financial pressure. Clearer information may not make those decisions easy, but it can make them more informed.

The broader message is not anti-innovation. IVF has always progressed through technical refinement, careful observation and clinical research. Many practices that are now routine began as experimental improvements. The issue is how quickly innovations move from possibility to paid intervention, and whether patients are told clearly when evidence is preliminary, absent or uncertain.

Good fertility care should leave room for innovation while protecting patients from overstatement. That means separating experimental use from established practice, avoiding implied promises, and ensuring that consent conversations include uncertainty, risks, costs and realistic expectations. It also means recognising that patients may feel they must try everything, particularly after failed cycles. In that setting, even small claims can carry significant emotional weight.

For clinics, this review may encourage a more disciplined approach to add-ons. Some may choose to stop offering add-ons with little supporting evidence. Others may continue to offer selected interventions in clearly defined circumstances, but with stronger consent language and better documentation. For researchers, the review points to the need for larger, rigorous, well-designed trials that measure outcomes patients actually care about, especially live birth.

For patients, the practical message is simple: ask what evidence supports the add-on, whether it has been shown to improve live birth rates, whether the evidence applies to your specific clinical situation, what the risks and costs are, and what would happen if you chose not to use it.

For the IVF field, this is a useful moment of recalibration. The science of assisted reproduction continues to advance, but progress depends on evidence, transparency and trust. Add-ons should earn their place in treatment through reliable data, not through hope alone.

Sources

23 June 2026. The Lancet Obstetrics, Gynaecology, and Women's Health

• IVF add-ons: evidence, trust, and what patients are told

23 June 2026. The Lancet Obstetrics, Gynaecology, and Women's Health

• Safety and effectiveness of ten common in-vitro fertilisation add-ons: a systematic review and meta-analysis

23 June 2026. The Lancet Obstetrics, Gynaecology, and Women's Health

• Evaluation of a codesigned resource about in-vitro fertilisation add-ons: an online, parallel-group, single-blinded, randomised trial

24 June 2026. University of Melbourne

• Common IVF extras lack strong evidence of improving fertility, research finds

23 June 2026. The Guardian

• Most IVF 'add-on' treatments have no effect on fertility or remain unproven, study says

23 June 2026. New York Times

• Services sold to boost IVF odds backed by little evidence, study finds

23 June 2026. ABC News Australia

• No evidence most IVF add-on treatments improve fertility

24 June 2026. The Economist

• Do high-tech 'add-ons' increase the chance that IVF will work?

The UK fertility sector has changed substantially over the past three decades. According to the latest data from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, around 53,000 patients underwent IVF in 2024, compared with around 19,000 in the early 1990s. IVF now accounts for around 1 in 31 UK births, which the HFEA describes as roughly one child in every classroom.

The figures show both the scale of modern fertility treatment and the ways in which practice has evolved. In 2024, around 64,000 patients underwent more than 100,000 treatment and freezing cycles at HFEA-licensed clinics. IVF remained the dominant activity, accounting for 76% of clinic activity. Frozen embryo transfers now make up almost half of all IVF cycles, rising from 24% in 2014 to 48% in 2024.

This shift reflects a broader clinical movement toward embryo freezing, single embryo transfer, and staged treatment pathways. Egg and embryo freezing cycles represented 17% of all cycles in 2024, with embryo freezing accounting for most of this activity. Embryo freezing cycles increased from around 1,900 in 2014 to 10,450 in 2024. Egg freezing has also grown markedly over the last decade, from around 700 patients in 2014 to 5,580 in 2024, although the HFEA notes that egg freezing did not increase year on year for the first time since 2020.

The birth data is equally striking. Around 21,400 babies were born from IVF in the UK in 2024, more than double the number recorded in 2004. IVF births have risen from under 1.4% of all UK births in 2004 to 3.2% in 2024. Most IVF births, 81%, followed treatment using a patient’s own eggs and partner sperm. A further 13% involved a patient’s own eggs and donor sperm, while 5% involved donor eggs and partner sperm.

Success rates have improved over time, but age remains one of the clearest determinants of outcome. The average IVF birth rate per embryo transferred was 30% in 2024. For patients aged 18 to 34, the birth rate per embryo transferred was 38%, compared with 8% for patients aged 43 to 44. The HFEA also reports that average birth rates have improved since 2014, when the rate per embryo transferred was 20%.

At the same time, the report highlights persistent disparities. Among patients aged 18 to 37, Asian and Black patients had average birth rates of 30% per embryo transferred, compared with 36% for White patients and 35% for patients from Mixed ethnic backgrounds. The HFEA notes that its data does not explain the reasons for these differences, which may relate to a range of medical, demographic, social, economic, and other factors.

One of the most positive long-term trends is the fall in multiple births. Multiple pregnancies carry increased risks for patients and babies, including preterm birth, pre-eclampsia, stillbirth, neonatal death, and maternal death. The UK multiple birth rate after IVF fell from 14.4% in 2014 to 3.2% in 2024, one of the lowest rates internationally. This decline has been closely linked to the high use of single embryo transfer, which reached 84% in 2024. Importantly, birth rates have continued to rise while multiple birth rates have fallen.

The data also shows changing patterns in who is using fertility treatment. Opposite-sex couples still accounted for most IVF patients in 2024, at around 47,000 patients. However, the number of female same-sex IVF patients increased from around 1,000 in 2014 to 2,800 in 2024, while single IVF patients more than tripled from 1,100 to 3,700. The Independent highlighted this trend in its coverage, reporting that solo women now represent around 7% of UK IVF patients, up from around 3% in 2014.

This trend appears to be connected with a shift away from donor insemination and toward IVF with donor sperm for some patients. The HFEA notes that single patients and female same-sex couples were historically more likely to try donor insemination first, but increasing numbers are now choosing IVF as a first treatment. Possible reasons include higher birth rates per cycle, shorter time to pregnancy, lower multiple birth rates, donor sperm cost considerations across multiple cycles, and the possibility of storing embryos for future treatment.

Funding remains a central issue. NHS-funded IVF cycles declined from 35% of all IVF cycles in 2019 to 28% in 2024 across the UK. The proportion was lowest in England, where NHS funding accounted for 25% of IVF cycles. This means more patients are self-funding treatment at a time when demand is increasing and the patient population is becoming broader.

For laboratories and clinics, the HFEA’s 2024 data tells a clear story. IVF is no longer a niche treatment pathway. It is a major part of reproductive healthcare, supporting a growing and increasingly diverse group of patients. Clinical practice has become safer, more refined, and more reliant on cryopreservation, while the sector continues to face important questions about access, equity, and long-term capacity.

For scientists, embryologists, and laboratory teams, these figures reinforce the importance of robust systems, consistent quality control, validated cryostorage, careful embryo handling, and high-quality patient data. As IVF activity continues to grow, the laboratory remains central to both clinical outcomes and patient trust.

Sources

16 June 2026. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

• Number of IVF patients triples in 30 years, says fertility regulator

16 June 2026. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

• Fertility treatment 2024: trends and figures

17 June 2026. The Independent

• Number of single women undergoing IVF has tripled over the past decade