Fertilitas Study

By RRM Academy Reviewed by Dr. Naomi Whittaker, MD, Board-Certified OBGYN, MIGS, NFPMC, FCI Updated May 14, 2026

The Fertilitas Study is a 5-year retrospective cohort study of 1,310 infertile couples treated with NaProTECHNOLOGY at a specialized reproductive medicine clinic in Spain, published in 2025 in Frontiers in Reproductive Health. It is one of the largest single-center NaProTECHNOLOGY outcome datasets published to date and provides real-world effectiveness data across a population with multiple unfavorable prognostic factors.¹²

The headline finding: a crude take-home baby rate of 35.3% (463 of 1,310 couples) and an adjusted cumulative take-home baby rate of 62.1% over a median treatment duration of approximately 11 months. The study population was not a favorable one: 73.5% presented with primary infertility, prior ART attempts were recorded in 27.5% of couples, and mean age of female participants was 35 years. Adjusted cumulative rates varied by age, with higher rates in younger women and lower rates above 40. The methodology accounts for dropout through sensitivity analysis, making the 62.1% figure a conservative adjusted estimate rather than a raw completion rate.¹

On the diagnostic side, the mean number of diagnoses per couple was 2.5. Independent predictors of successful take-home baby included female age, recurrent pregnancy loss as the reason for consultation, duration of infertility, and the presence of endometriosis, hormonal dysfunction, male factor, and endometrial disorders. This multi-diagnosis profile is consistent with NaProTECHNOLOGY's systematic approach: NaProTECHNOLOGY treats infertility as a symptom requiring diagnosis, not a condition requiring bypass.²

The Fertilitas Study is clinically significant because it reports outcomes in a population that would conventionally be routed toward ART. Instead, NaProTECHNOLOGY identified and treated underlying conditions. A substantial portion of couples underwent surgery, most commonly hysteroscopy or laparoscopy, as part of the restorative care pathway. The study does not compare directly to a concurrent ART cohort, but it documents NaProTECHNOLOGY outcomes where ART had previously failed or was the presumed next step. Cross-reference: IVF vs. RRM for the head-to-head comparison literature and NaProTECHNOLOGY for the clinical framework.¹

This content is for educational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Consult an RRM clinician or healthcare provider for guidance specific to your situation.