Fertilitas Study

The Fertilitas Study is a common nickname for a 2025 study of 1,310 couples with infertility. The couples received treatment with NaProTECHNOLOGY at a single clinic, the Fertilitas center in Madrid, Spain. The nickname comes from that clinic. The researchers reviewed five years of patient records in a retrospective cohort study. The formal title is Natural procreative technology (NaProTechnology) for infertility: take-home baby rate and clinical outcomes in a 5-year single-center cohort of 1,310 couples. It appeared in Frontiers in Reproductive Health.¹

The main result was that 463 of the 1,310 couples took home a baby. This crude take-home baby rate is 35.3%. The team then adjusted for couples who left care early. With that adjustment, the estimated rate reached 50% at 24 months. It rose to 62.1% at 36 months or more. The median (typical) time in NaProTECHNOLOGY care was 10.9 months. Many of these couples faced difficult odds. Most (73.5%) had primary infertility, which means they had never conceived together. About 27.5% had already tried ART. The average age of the women was 35 years. Success was higher in younger women and lower in women over 40. The team also tested how different assumptions about dropouts would change the result. The 62.1% figure is an adjusted estimate, not a simple count of couples who completed care.¹

Most couples had more than one diagnosis. The average was 2.5 diagnoses per couple. Several factors predicted a take-home baby. One was the age of the woman. Another was recurrent pregnancy loss as the reason for the first visit. The duration of infertility also mattered. Certain diagnoses also predicted success. These were endometriosis, hormonal disorders, male factor (sperm problems in the male partner), and disorders of the uterine lining. This pattern fits the NaProTECHNOLOGY approach. That approach treats infertility as a sign of underlying conditions that require a diagnosis.²

The study matters because these couples would often go directly to ART. Instead, NaProTECHNOLOGY identified the underlying conditions and treated them. Nearly one-third of couples had surgery. The most common procedures were hysteroscopy, a camera examination of the uterus, and laparoscopy, a camera examination of the abdomen. The study did not include a side-by-side ART group. It reports NaProTECHNOLOGY outcomes in couples for whom ART had failed or was the expected next step. Cross-reference: IVF vs. RRM for the head-to-head comparison literature and NaProTECHNOLOGY for the clinical framework.¹