Clomiphene citrate for unexplained subfertility in women

Fertility treatment for people with epilepsy

Fertility treatment, including assisted reproductive technology (ART), is increasingly used. Sex hormones influence seizure control as well as interacting with antiseizure medications, and so the hormonal manipulation involved in fertility treatments has direct implications for people with epilepsy. Here, we summarise the various fertility treatments and consider their important influences on epilepsy care. While early observations raised concerns about seizure exacerbation associated with ART, there are limited data to guide best practice in people with epilepsy, and further research is needed.

Comparison of Letrozole and Clomiphene Citrate in Pregnancy Outcomes in Patients with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Clomiphene citrate (CC) and letrozole are the predominant medical interventions for the management of infertility in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). To comprehensively summarize the evidence, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was carried out to assess the effect of letrozole and CC on pregnancy outcomes in PCOS patients. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to January 2023. We included RCTs conducted on PCOS women comparing letrozole to CC and assessing endometrial thickness, the number and size of follicles, and ovulation and pregnancy rates. The endpoints were summarized as risk ratio (RR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was examined using the I2 statistic. Fifty trials met our inclusion criteria. The mean endometrial thickness was significantly higher in the letrozole group compared to CC group (SMD: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.49, 1.28; I2=97.72%); however, the number of follicles was higher in the CC group (SMD: -0.56; 95% CI: -0.96, -0.17; I2=96.34%). Furthermore, letrozole intake induced higher ovulation rate (RR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.13, 1.26; I2=54.49%) and pregnancy rate (RR: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.28, 1.62; I2=65.58%) compared to CC. Compared to CC, letrozole has a positive effect on endometrial thickness, monofollicular development, and ovulation and pregnancy rates suggesting that letrozole may be a strong alternative to CC as a first-line medical intervention for chronic anovulation in PCOS women. Larger studies are warranted to further clarify these findings.

The optimal timing of frozen-thawed embryo transfer: delayed or not delayed? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The use of frozen embryo transfer (FET) has grown exponentially over the past few years. However, in clinical practice, there are no specific criteria as to whether a delay of at least one menstrual cycle is required for an FET after a failed fresh ET or a freeze-all cycle.

Objective

Through the effects on live birth rate (LBR), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and pregnancy loss rate (PLR), to determine whether FET requires a delay of at least one menstrual cycle after fresh ET failure or a freeze-all cycle.

Methods

The search was conducted through PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang databases for terms related to FET timing as of April 2023. There are no restrictions on the year of publication or follow-up time. Women aged 20 to 46 with any indication for in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET) treatment are eligible for inclusion. Oocyte donation studies are excluded. Except for the case report, study protocol, and abstract, all original studies are included.

Results

In 4,124 search results, 19 studies were included in the review. The meta-analysis includes studies on the adjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of reported live birth rate (LBR), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), and pregnancy loss rate (PLR), 17 studies were retrospective cohort study, and 2 studies were randomized controlled trial, a total of 6,917 immediate FET cycles and 16,105 delayed FET cycles were involved. In this meta-analysis, the combined OR of LBR was [OR = 1.09, 95% CI (0.93–1.28)], the combined OR of CPR was [OR = 1.05, 95% CI (0.92–1.20)], and the combined OR of PLR was (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.75–1.22). There was no statistical significance between the two groups.

Conclusion

Overall, delaying FET by at least one menstrual cycle has no advantage in LBR, CPR, or PLR. So, flexible scheduling of FETs is available to both doctors and patients.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42020161648.

In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility

BACKGROUND

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a treatment for unexplained subfertility but is invasive, expensive, and associated with risks.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IVF versus expectant management, unstimulated intrauterine insemination (IUI), and IUI with ovarian stimulation using gonadotropins, clomiphene citrate (CC), or letrozole in improving pregnancy outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched following databases from inception to November 2021, with no language restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL. We searched reference lists of articles and conference abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness of IVF for unexplained subfertility with expectant management, unstimulated IUI, and stimulated IUI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods.

MAIN RESULTS

IVF versus expectant management (two RCTs) We are uncertain whether IVF improves live birth rate (LBR) and clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) compared to expectant management (odds ratio (OR) 22.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.56 to 189.37; 1 RCT; 51 women; very low-quality evidence; OR 3.24, 95% CI 1.07 to 9.8; 2 RCTs; 86 women; I2 = 80%; very low-quality evidence). Adverse effects were not reported. Assuming 4% LBR and 12% CPR with expectant management, these would be 8.8% to 9% and 13% to 58% with IVF. IVF versus unstimulated IUI (two RCTs) IVF may improve LBR compared to unstimulated IUI (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.19 to 5.12; 2 RCTs; 156 women; I2 = 60%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether there is a difference between IVF and IUI for multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.04 to 27.29; 1 RCT; 43 women; very low-quality evidence) and miscarriage rate (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.14 to 21.25; 1 RCT; 43 women; very low-quality evidence). No study reported ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Assuming 16% LBR, 3% MPR, and 6% miscarriage rate with unstimulated IUI, these outcomes would be 18.5% to 49%, 0.1% to 46%, and 0.9% to 58% with IVF. IVF versus IUI + ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins (6 RCTs), CC (1 RCT), or letrozole (no RCTs) Stratified analysis was based on pretreatment status. Treatment-naive women There may be little or no difference in LBR between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles: OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.61; 3 RCTs; 731 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence; 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle: OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.92; 2 RCTs; 221 women; I2 = 54%; low-quality evidence); or between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 2.51, 95% CI 0.96 to 6.55; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 42% LBR with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles) and 26% LBR with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle), LBR would be 39% to 54% and 24% to 51% with IVF. Assuming 15% LBR with IUI + CC, LBR would be 15% to 54% with IVF. There may be little or no difference in CPR between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles: OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.59; 3 RCTs; 731 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence; 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle: OR 4.59, 95% CI 1.86 to 11.35; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence); or between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 3.58, 95% CI 1.51 to 8.49; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 48% CPR with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles) and 17% with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle), CPR would be 44% to 60% and 28% to 70% with IVF. Assuming 21% CPR with IUI + CC, CPR would be 29% to 69% with IVF. There may be little or no difference in multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles: OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.77; 3 RCTs; 731 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence; 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle: OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.58; 2 RCTs; 221 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence); or between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.41; 1 RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if there is a difference in OHSS between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins with 1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles (OR 6.86, 95% CI 0.35 to 134.59; 1 RCT; 207 women; very low-quality evidence); and there may be little or no difference in OHSS with 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.36 to 4.16; 2 RCTs; 221 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.24 to 9.57; 1 RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if there is a difference in miscarriage rate between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins with 1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.04; 1 RCT; 207 women; very low-quality evidence); and there may be little or no difference with 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.02; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.54 to 4.05; 1 RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence). In women pretreated with IUI + CC IVF may improve LBR compared with IUI + gonadotropins (OR 3.90, 95% CI 2.32 to 6.57; 1 RCT; 280 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 22% LBR with IUI + gonadotropins, LBR would be 39% to 65% with IVF. IVF may improve CPR compared with IUI + gonadotropins (OR 14.13, 95% CI 7.57 to 26.38; 1 RCT; 280 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 30% CPR with IUI + gonadotropins, CPR would be 76% to 92% with IVF.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

IVF may improve LBR over unstimulated IUI. Data should be interpreted with caution as overall evidence quality was low.

Should we adopt a prognosis-based approach to unexplained infertility?

The treatment of unexplained infertility is a contentious topic that continues to attract a great deal of interest amongst clinicians, patients and policy makers. The inability to identify an underlying pathology makes it difficult to devise effective treatments for this condition. Couples with unexplained infertility can conceive on their own and any proposed intervention needs to offer a better chance of having a baby. Over the years, several prognostic and prediction models based on routinely collected clinical data have been developed, but these are not widely used by clinicians and patients. In this opinion paper, we propose a prognosis-based approach such that a decision to access treatment is based on the estimated chances of natural and treatment-related conception, which, in the same couple, can change over time. This approach avoids treating all couples as a homogeneous group and minimizes unnecessary treatment whilst ensuring access to those who need it early.

Successful pregnancy with restorative reproductive medicine after 16 years of infertility, three recurrent miscarriages, and eight unsuccessful embryo transfers with in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a case report

BACKGROUND

Restorative reproductive medicine represents a comprehensive approach to subfertility (infertility and miscarriage) with investigations, diagnoses, and treatments combined with fertility charting to restore optimal reproductive function. Restorative reproductive medicine assumes that multiple factors need to be identified and treated (cycle optimization) for up to 12 cycles to achieve a successful pregnancy. Conception can occur during normal intercourse without intrauterine insemination or in vitro fertilization.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 35-year-old Croatian female presented for fertility treatment in May 2019 with a previous diagnosis of polycystic ovaries, infertility of 16 years duration, and 8 unsuccessful embryo transfers with in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. She was gravida 3 para 0, with 2 miscarriages after spontaneous conception at 5-6 weeks gestation in 2002 and 2004, followed by a miscarriage after in vitro fertilization at 12 weeks gestation in 2011. We initially found poor follicle function and suboptimal progesterone levels. Restorative reproductive medicine treatment resulted in conception after two cycles of treatment. This pregnancy ended in miscarriage at 7 weeks 4 days. Additional investigations found a balanced Robertsonian translocation (13, 14) and a uterine septum. We achieved repeat fertilization with restorative reproductive medicine after three cycles of treatment following resection of the uterine septum and ovulation induction with letrozole and human chorionic gonadotrophin. She had a full-term healthy pregnancy and live birth in 2021.

CONCLUSION

We propose that a full evaluation of underlying factors, and up to 12 cycles of cycle optimization, should be offered to subfertile patients before considering in vitro fertilization treatment.

Investigations and treatment offered to women presenting for infertility care in Harare, Zimbabwe: a cross sectional study

INTRODUCTION

clinical infertility is failure to conceive within a year of regular sexual intercourse by a non contracepting couple. Infertility care is costly and result in investigations being incomplete and inconclusive. It is therefore important to streamline investigations offered to infertile couples such that only the most cost effective tests are done. This paper explores the adequacy of investigations and treatments offered to women presenting for infertility care.

METHODS

the data used in this analysis was obtained from a cross sectional sample of 216 women who presented with infertility in public and private gynaecological clinics in Harare, Zimbabwe. Information on investigations and treatment offered to women presenting for care was extracted from hospital cards, case notes, laboratory and radiological reports. Data was analysed using STATA SE/15.

RESULTS

of the 178 (82.4%) who had ultrasound scan evaluation (USS) 50 (28.1%) had fibroids and 22 (12.4%) had polycystic ovaries. Tubal patency tests were done in 118 participants using (hystero-salpingogram) HSG alone in 62.7%, laparoscope and dye alone in 21.2% and both in 16.1% of them. Of the 97 (44.9%) men who had semen analysis 61 (62.9%) had abnormal parameters.

CONCLUSION

this study reveals that evaluation for tubal patency and USS to rule out reproductive organ pathology are not being offered to all women with a diagnosis of infertility. Likewise, male partner semen evaluation is not being done in all male partners. There is a high prevalence of abnormal semen parameters. Studies should be done to understand why some male partners are not forthcoming in providing semen for analysis. It is important for protocols to be produced by professional bodies which prescribe the minimum basic investigations in couples with infertility.

Intrauterine insemination + controlled ovarian hyperstimulation versus in vitro fertilisation in unexplained infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

IUI + COH is widely used in cases of unexplained infertility before resorting to IVF. Debate continues about what should be the first-line treatment for couples with unexplained infertility.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review assessed the relative efficacy of IUI + COH compared with IVF in couples with unexplained infertility.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Medline, Embase, CIHNL, Pscy Info, and Cochrane Library from 1980 to November 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only RCTs published articles in full text with female patients aged 18-43 years and diagnosed with unexplained infertility were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors reviewed citations from primary search independently and any disagreement was resolved by mutual discussion and consultation with a third author.

MAIN RESULT

In total, eight RCTs were included. The quality of evidence was moderate to low due to inconsistency across the trials and imprecision. The pooled result showed that IVF was associated with a statistically significant higher live birth rate (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.01-2.32, P < 0.00001 I² = 86%) with no significant difference in multiple pregnancy rate or OHSS rate. Sensitivity analysis based on women's age and a history of previous IUI or IVF treatment showed no significant difference in the live birth rates (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.88-1.15, I² = 0%, 3 RCTs) in treatment-naïve women younger than 38 years. In women over 38 years, the live birth rates were significantly higher in the IVF group (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.16-4.0, I² = 42%, 1 RCT).

CONCLUSION

Further research using a standardised treatment protocol and taking into account important prognostic variables and cumulative live birth rates from fresh IVF and all sibling frozen embryos is required to further guide clinical practice.

Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Preclinical Infertility Cytotherapy: A Retrospective Review

Infertility is a global reproductive disorder which is caused by a variety of complex diseases. Infertility affects the individual, family, and community through physical, psychological, social and economic consequences. The results from recent preclinical studies regarding stem cell-based therapies are promising. Stem cell-based therapies cast a new hope for infertility treatment as a replacement or regeneration strategy. The main features and application prospects of mesenchymal stem cells in the future of infertility should be understood by clinicians. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are multipotent stem cells with abundant source, active proliferation, and multidirectional differentiation potential. MSCs play a role through cell homing, secretion of active factors, and participation in immune regulation. Another advantage is that, compared with embryonic stem cells, there are fewer ethical factors involved in the application of MSCs. However, a number of questions remain to be answered prior to safe and effective clinical application. In this review, we summarized the recent status of MSCs in the application of the diseases related to or may cause to infertility and suggest a possible direction for future cytotherapy to infertility.

In-Vitro Fertilization Impact on the Risk of Breast Cancer: A Review Article

Background

Due to the increasing prevalence of infertility, the number of referrals to infertility treatment centers has also increased. Nowadays, assisted reproductive technology (ART), including in vitro fertilization (IVF), is a treatment for infertility or genetic problems. Considering the possible consequences of this method among women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) and kids conceived by IVF, extensive research has been conducted in this regard.

Methods

Overall, 100 articles were entered into the study, and relevant articles were searched and extracted from PubMed, Springer, and Google Scholar databases. In IVF procedure, medications such as Clomiphene citrate and gonadotropins are used to stimulate and mature follicles and thus increase ovulation.

Results

There are conflicting opinions on this issue. Some findings report a slight increase in cancer risk for hormone-sensitive cancers including breast cancer. The long-term use of IVF medications can increase estrogen hormones and cause excessive expression of genes, resulting in an increased risk of breast cancer, which is one of the most frequent cancers among women.

Conclusion

There are some risks to be aware of, which followed the hypothesis that long IVF treatment process may lead to breast cancer among IVF candidates. Furthermore, the risk of breast cancer may be increased in those women with a positive family history and related inherited genes. Therefore, women candidates for IVF should be informed of the probable implications of the reproductive therapy techniques.

Interventions for unexplained infertility: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinical management for unexplained infertility includes expectant management as well as active treatments, including ovarian stimulation (OS), intrauterine insemination (IUI), OS-IUI,  and in vitro fertilisation (IVF) with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).Existing systematic reviews have conducted head-to-head comparisons of these interventions using pairwise meta-analyses. As this approach allows only the comparison of two interventions at a time and is contingent on the availability of appropriate primary evaluative studies, it is difficult to identify the best intervention in terms of effectiveness and safety. Network meta-analysis compares multiple treatments simultaneously by using both direct and indirect evidence and provides a hierarchy of these treatments, which can potentially better inform clinical decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different approaches to clinical management (expectant management, OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF/ICSI) in couples with unexplained infertility.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We searched electronic databases including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL, up to 6 September 2018, as well as reference lists, to identify eligible studies. We also searched trial registers for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing at least two of the following clinical management options in couples with unexplained infertility: expectant management, OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF (or combined with ICSI).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts identified by the search strategy. We obtained the full texts of potentially eligible studies to assess eligibility and extracted data using standardised forms. The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of cumulative live birth or ongoing pregnancy, and the primary safety outcome was multiple pregnancy. We performed a network meta-analysis within a random-effects multi-variate meta-analysis model. We presented treatment effects by using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For the network meta-analysis, we used Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA) to evaluate the overall certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 RCTs (4349 couples) in this systematic review and 24 RCTs (3983 couples) in a subsequent network meta-analysis. Overall, the certainty of evidence was low to moderate: the main limitations were imprecision and/or heterogeneity.Ten RCTs including 2725 couples reported on live birth. Evidence of differences between OS, IUI, OS-IUI, or IVF/ICSI versus expectant management was insufficient (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.98; low-certainty evidence; OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.43; low-certainty evidence; OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.94; low-certainty evidence; OR 1.88, 95 CI 0.81 to 4.38; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following expectant management is assumed to be 17%, the chance following OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF would be 9% to 28%, 11% to 33%, 15% to 37%, and 14% to 47%, respectively. When only including couples with poor prognosis of natural conception (3 trials, 725 couples) we found OS-IUI and IVF/ICSI increased live birth rate compared to expectant management (OR 4.48, 95% CI 2.00 to 10.1; moderate-certainty evidence; OR 4.99, 95 CI 2.07 to 12.04; moderate-certainty evidence), while there was insufficient evidence of a difference between IVF/ICSI and OS-IUI (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.60; low-certainty evidence).Eleven RCTs including 2564 couples reported on multiple pregnancy. Compared to expectant management/IUI, OS (OR 3.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 9.41; low-certainty evidence) and OS-IUI (OR 3.34 95% CI 1.09 to 10.29; moderate-certainty evidence) increased the odds of multiple pregnancy, and there was insufficient evidence of a difference between IVF/ICSI and expectant management/IUI (OR 2.66, 95% CI 0.68 to 10.43; low-certainty evidence). These findings suggest that if the chance of multiple pregnancy following expectant management or IUI is assumed to be 0.6%, the chance following OS, OS-IUI, and IVF/ICSI would be 0.6% to 5.0%, 0.6% to 5.4%, and 0.4% to 5.5%, respectively.Trial results show insufficient evidence of a difference between IVF/ICSI and OS-IUI for moderate/severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (OR 2.50, 95% CI 0.92 to 6.76; 5 studies; 985 women; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of moderate/severe OHSS following OS-IUI is assumed to be 1.1%, the chance following IVF/ICSI would be between 1.0% and 7.2%.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence of differences in live birth between expectant management and the other four interventions (OS, IUI, OS-IUI, and IVF/ICSI). Compared to expectant management/IUI, OS may increase the odds of multiple pregnancy, and OS-IUI probably increases the odds of multiple pregnancy. Evidence on differences between IVF/ICSI and expectant management for multiple pregnancy is insufficient, as is evidence of a difference for moderate or severe OHSS between IVF/ICSI and OS-IUI.

The management of unexplained infertility: an evidence-based guideline from the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society

Unexplained infertility is a common diagnosis affecting as many as 50% of couples seeking infertility care. As a diagnosis of exclusion, its treatment remains largely empirical. Historically, a step-wise progression in treatment has been initiated with the least invasive, least expensive option followed by a gradual progression to therapies using assisted reproductive technology. In recent years there have been advocates for more rapid-progression IVF. This guideline from the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society (CFAS) provides comprehensive, evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of unexplained infertility, including expectant management, laparoscopy, intrauterine insemination (IUI) alone, ovarian stimulation with oral agents or gonadotropins alone, ovarian stimulation + IUI, and IVF. The quality of supporting evidence for each recommendation is evaluated using the framework outlined by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. This guideline recognizes that the therapeutic approach should be individualized taking into account patient age and duration of infertility, and emphasizes those strategies that are most likely to result in a healthy live birth.

Ultrasound monitoring during first-cycle treatment with clomifene citrate: a national survey of compliance with NICE

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Clinical Guideline 156 advises that transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS) should be used in the first cycle of treatment with clomifene citrate, to assess for multifollicular development and hence the risk of multiple pregnancy. This guidance is based on expert opinion rather than research evidence. We conducted a cross-sectional online and postal survey among UK-based consultant gynaecologists and fertility specialists, to explore compliance with this guideline. A total of 110 responses met the inclusion criteria. During first-cycle treatment with clomifene, 50.9% of respondents were not always using TVUS, and 21.8% never were. Clinicians who did not have immediate access to TVUS were significantly less likely to scan (p < 0.01). Other key factors influencing practice were, personal experience of the clinician, lack of an evidence base to support the guideline and a willingness to accept the risk of multiple pregnancy. Several respondents questioned the value of scanning the first cycle only and highlighted that over-response may be seen in subsequent cycles. This study confirms that there is variation in adherence to the guideline and uncertainty about the clinical need for scan monitoring. Further evidence to support or refute the guideline is required.

Assessment of Laser Biostimulation in Induction of Ovulation

AIM:

This study aimed to evaluate a new modality of low power laser biostimulation in rat ovaries, in comparison with the conventional medical therapy by clomiphene citrate that depends on up-regulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis to induce ovulation.

STUDY DESIGN:

A Prospective experimental study carried out from January 2014 to February 2016.

SETTING:

University-based photobiology laboratory.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Seventy-two (72) Female-Wistar Albino rats were used in this study, divided into three groups: 17 rats used as a control group, 19 rats received clomiphene citrate (Clomid group), 36 rats exposed to diode laser 660 nm wavelength (laser group).

RESULTS:

Biochemical assessment of serum Estradiol and serum Progesterone was done in the three study groups. Serum Estradiol & Progesterone levels were statistically significantly higher in clomiphene and laser treated groups than non-interventional controls, while no significant difference between clomiphene and laser groups as regard of both hormones.

CONCLUSION:

This study shows that ovarian laser biostimulation is a new encouraging method for induction of ovulation, at least in animals. This had been proven biochemically by a significant increase in serum Estradiol and serum Progesterone.

Intracranial venous thrombosis in a man taking clomiphene citrate

Clomiphene citrate is widely used by the female population for the management of a wide array of medical conditions especially those related to ovulation, but its use in male population remains controversial. Efficacy of clomiphene is not well established in male hypogonadism and infertility. Its side effects and complications are also poorly studied or reported. We present a case of a man with infertility issues for which he started receiving clomiphene citrate 3 weeks before presenting with progressive symptoms of headache, vomiting, transient blurred vision and diplopia, which eventually turned out to be the symptoms of intracranial venous thrombosis. After excluding the common causes of intracranial venous thrombosis and hypercoagulable state, clomiphene citrate seems the most likely culprit.

A New Dawn for Intrauterine Insemination: Efficient and Prudent Practice will Benefit Patients, the Fertility Industry and the Healthcare Bodies

This review addresses the misplaced facts about the IUI procedure within a lucrative fertility industry. Evidence suggests IUI must be a first-line treatment option for most couples except in cases of bilateral tubal blockage and severe oligozoospermia. We introduce the concept of using 'consecutive ejaculation' in men with subfertility and one which can radically alter the male infertility definition, thereby providing a new approach to examining and managing male factor infertility. The review also explores various aspects affecting the IUI procedure, its determinants of success, risks and areas for future improvements. Areas such as choice of patients, clinical management of patients, the type of stimulation regime, timing and the management of sperm usage have significant bearing to whether IUI will succeed. The paper asserts that IUI should be the first choice of fertility treatment.

Development of new method and protocol for cryopreservation related to embryo and oocytes freezing in terms of fertilization rate: A comparative study including review of literature

Background:

Cryopreservation is basically related to meritorious thin samples or small clumps of cells that are cooled quickly without loss. Our main objective is to establish and formulate an innovative method and protocol development for cryopreservation as a gold standard for clinical uses in laboratory practice and treatment. The knowledge regarding usefulness of cryopreservation in clinical practice is essential to carry forward the clinical practice and research.

Materials and Methods:

We are trying to compare different methods of cryopreservation (in two dozen of cells) at the same time we compare the embryo and oocyte freezing interms of fertilization rate according to the International standard protocol.

Results:

The combination of cryoprotectants and regimes of rapid cooling and rinsing during warming often allows successful cryopreservation of biological materials, particularly cell suspensions or thin tissue samples. Examples include semen, blood, tissue samples like tumors, histological cross-sections, human eggs and human embryos. Although presently many studies have reported that the children born from frozen embryos or “frosties,” show consistently positive results with no increase in birth defects or development abnormalities is quite good enough and similar to our study (50–85%).

Conclusions:

We ensure that cryopreservation technology provided useful cell survivability, tissue and organ preservation in a proper way. Although it varies according to different laboratory conditions, it is certainly beneficial for patient's treatment and research. Further studies are needed for standardization and development of new protocol.

Preovulatory uterine flushing with saline as a treatment for unexplained infertility: a randomised controlled trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is the treatment of choice for unexplained infertility. Preovulatory uterine flushing could reduce intrauterine debris and inflammatory factors preventing pregnancy and constitute an alternative to IVF. Our objective is to assess the efficacy of preovulatory uterine flushing with physiological saline for the treatment of unexplained infertility.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will perform a randomised controlled trial based on consecutive women aged between 18 and 37 years consulting for unexplained infertility for at least 1 year. On the day of their luteinising hormone surge, 192 participants will be randomised in two equal groups to either receive 20 mL of physiological saline by an intrauterine catheter or 10 mL of saline intravaginally. We will assess relative risk of live birth (primary outcome), as well as pregnancy (secondary outcome) over one cycle of treatment. We will report the side effects, complications and acceptability of the intervention.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This project was approved by the Ethics committee of the Centre Hospitatlier Universitaire de Quebec (no 2015-1146). Uterine flushing is usually well tolerated by women and would constitute a simple, affordable and minimally invasive treatment for unexplained infertility. We plan to communicate the results of the review by presenting research abstracts at conferences and by publishing the results in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02539290; Pre-results.

Open-label, Prospective, Investigator Initiated Study to Assess the Clinical Role of Oral Natural or Synthetic Progesterone During Stimulated IUI Cycles for Unexplained Infertility

BACKGROUND

Unexplained infertility remains as one of the important subtype of infertility that follows expectant management with Intrauterine Insemination (IUI) in most cases.

AIM

To evaluate the clinical role of progesterone supplement as luteal phase support for women with unexplained infertility following stimulation protocol with Clomiphene Citrate (CC)/Human Menopausal Gonadotropin (HMG).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An investigator initiated study to survey the success rate for first cycle of IUI following stimulation protocol with CC/HMG & luteal phase support with oral natural or synthetic progesterone was conducted. 120 patient records between observation period of Jan to May '14 were retrieved especially for subjects undergoing IUI procedure for Unexplained infertility. Patients with baseline Serum (Sr). progesterone records who received Oral Natural Micronized Progesterone Sustained Release (Oral NMP SR) (N=45) or Dydrogesterone (n=33) following CC/HMG induction protocol and human Chorionic Gonadotropin(HCG) Inj., were further analysed following Luteal Phase Support(LPS) with oral natural or synthetic progesterone.

RESULTS

Baseline demographics showed 78 patients with mean age, weight and cycle duration of 29.5 yrs, 57.3 kg & 28.6 days respectively. Progesterone was supplemented as Oral NMP SR 200/300 mg OD or Dydrogesterone 10 mg bid in 22, 23 and 33 patients respectively. In all cases ovulation was triggered with HCG inj., followed by IUI within the next 48 hours while baseline sr. progesterone levels were being assessed. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) UK recommended therapeutic compliance to suggest sr. progesterone levels of ≥14ng/ml were recorded as Mid-luteal levels in all of these patients. This therapeutic compliance was noted in 82.2% & 78.8% of the patients treated with oral NMP SR or Dydrogesterone respectively. Pregnancy was observed amongst 5 and 10 patients treated with oral NMP SR and Dydrogesterone respectively at the end of 'First' IUI cycle. Both the groups were well tolerated with drowsiness documented in three cases for Oral NMP SR.

CONCLUSION

Clinical supplementation with ONMPSR suggests therapeutic compliance and alternative strategy to conventional formulations while offering dosing convenience with minimal side effects.

In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility

BACKGROUND

One-third of subfertile couples have no identifiable cause for their inability to conceive. In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a widely accepted treatment for this condition; however, this treatment is invasive and expensive and is associated with risks.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IVF compared with expectant management, unstimulated intrauterine insemination (IUI) or intrauterine insemination along with ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins (IUI + gonadotropins) or clomiphene (IUI + CC) or letrozole (IUI + letrozole) in improving pregnancy outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

This review has drawn on the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (searched May 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, first quarter), MEDLINE (1946 to May 2015), EMBASE (1985 to May 2015), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (May 2015) and reference lists of articles. We searched the following trial registries: clinicaltrials.gov (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform search portal (http://www.who.int/trialsearch/Default.aspx). We searched the Web of Science (http://wokinfo.com/) as another source of trials and conference abstracts, OpenGrey (http://www.opengrey.eu/) for unpublished literature from Europe and the Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) database (http://regional.bvsalud.org/php/index.php?lang=en). Moreover, we handsearched relevant conference proceedings and contacted study authors to ask about additional publications.Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The primary review outcome was cumulative live birth rate. Multiple pregnancy and other adverse effects were secondary outcomes. We combined data to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity by using the I(2) statistic. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for the main comparisons using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which the effectiveness of IVF in couples with unexplained subfertility was compared with that of other treatments, including expectant management, unstimulated IUI and stimulated IUI using gonadotropins or clomiphene or letrozole.Live birth rate (LBR) per woman was the primary outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and quality of trials and evaluated the quality of the evidence by using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

IVF versus expectant management (two RCTs):Live birth rate per woman was higher with IVF than with expectant management (odds ratio (OR) 22.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.56 to 189.37, one RCT, 51 women, very low quality evidence). Multiple pregnancy rates (MPRs), ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and miscarriage were not reported. IVF versus unstimulated IUI (two RCTs):Live birth rate was higher with IVF than with unstimulated IUI (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.19 to 5.12, two RCTs, 156 women, I(2) = 60%, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in multiple pregnancy rates (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.04 to 27.29, one RCT, 43 women, very low quality evidence) IVF versus IUI + ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins (three RCTs) or clomiphene (one RCT) or letrozole (no RCTs):Data from these trials could not be pooled because of high statistical heterogeneity (I(2) = 93.3%). Heterogeneity was eliminated when studies were stratified by pretreatment status.In trials comparing IVF versus IUI + gonadotropins among treatment-naive women, there was no conclusive evidence of a difference between the groups in live birth rates (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.73, four RCTs, 745 women, I(2) = 8.0%, moderate-quality evidence). In women pretreated with IUI + clomiphene, a higher live birth rate was reported among those who underwent IVF than those given IUI + gonadotropins (OR 3.90, 95% CI 2.32 to 6.57, one RCT, 280 women, moderate-quality evidence).There was no conclusive evidence of a difference in live birth rates between IVF and IUI + CC in treatment-naive women (OR 2.51, 95% CI 0.96 to 6.55, one RCT, 103 women, low quality evidence).In treatment-naive women, there was no evidence of a difference in rates of multiple pregnancy between women who underwent IVF and those who received IUI + gonadotropins (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.39, four RCTs, 745 women, I(2) = 0%, moderate quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in MPRs between women who underwent IVF compared with those given IUI + CC (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.20 to 5.31, one RCT, 103 women, low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference in ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate between treatment-naive women who underwent IVF and those given IUI + gonadotropins (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.36 to 4.14, two RCTs, 221 women, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in OHSS rates between groups receiving IVF versus those receiving IUI + CC (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.20 to 5.31, one RCT, 103 women, low-quality evidence).In treatment naive women, there was no evidence of a difference in miscarriage rates between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.02, one RCT, 103 women, low-quality evidence), nor between women treated with IVF versus those receiving IUI+ gonadotropins (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.02, one RCT, 103 women).No studies compared IVF with IUI + letrozole.The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitation was serious imprecision resulting from small study numbers and low event rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

IVF may be associated with higher live birth rates than expectant management, but there is insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions. IVF may also be associated with higher live birth rates than unstimulated IUI. In women pretreated with clomiphene + IUI, IVF appears to be associated with higher birth rates than IUI + gonadotropins. However in women who are treatment-naive there is no conclusive evidence of a difference in live birth rates between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins or between IVF and IUI + clomiphene. Adverse events associated with these interventions could not be adequately assessed owing to lack of evidence.

Breast cancer incidence after hormonal treatments for infertility: systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies

The increasing practice of hormonal infertility treatments (HITs) raised concerns about their effects on breast cancer (BC) risk. Available evidence reported conflicting results. The aim of this study was to assess the potential association between HITs and BC risk. The literature was searched through November 2014. Eligible studies included cohort studies reporting BC incidence in women undergone HITs. Data were analyzed with standard meta-analytic techniques. Subgroup analyses were performed by type of intervention (IVF vs. NO IVF), follow-up duration (<10 vs. >10 years), and type of control (population vs. infertile). 20 eligible studies (207.914 women, 2347 BC) were retrieved: no increased risk was detected (SRR = 1.05, 95 % CI 0.96-1.14), with a significant heterogeneity (I (2) = 59 %, p = 0.001) among studies. In the seven studies with the in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedure, no increase in BC risk was observed (SRR = 0.96, 95 % CI 0.80-1.14); in the three NO IVF studies, an increased BC risk was identified (SRR = 1.26, 95 %CI 1.06-1.50). A borderline interaction between type of intervention (IVF vs. NO IVF) and BC risk was observed (p = 0.06). An increased risk with longer follow-up (≥10 vs. <10 years) was detected (SRR = 1.13, 95 % CI 1.02-1.26 vs. SRR = 0.95, 95 % CI 0.85-1.06). Overall, HITs are not associated with an increased BC risk. In particular, no increased risk was observed in women undergoing IVF. Conversely, an increased in BC risk cannot be ruled out with older treatment protocols based on clomiphene. The long-term administration of clomiphene outside the current indications should be discouraged because of a possible increase in BC risk.

Should IVF be used as first-line treatment or as a last resort? A debate presented at the 2013 Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society meeting

Infertility outcomes can be influenced by many factors. Although a number of treatments are offered, deciding which one to use first is a controversial topic. Although IVF may have superior efficacy in achieving a live birth with a reasonable safety profile, the availability of cheaper and less invasive treatments preclude its absolute use. For this reason, certain patient groups with 'good-prognosis' infertility are traditionally treated with less invasive treatments first. 'Good-prognosis' infertility may include unexplained infertility, mild male factor infertility, stage I or II endometriosis, unilateral tubal blockage and diminished ovarian reserve. Here, evidence behind the use of IVF as a first-line treatment is compared with its use as a last-resort option in women with 'good-prognosis' infertility.

In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility

BACKGROUND

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a widely accepted treatment for unexplained infertility (NICE 2004), which affects up to a third of all infertile couples. With estimated live birth rates (LBRs) per cycle varying from 33.1% in women aged under 35 years down to 12.5% in women aged between 40 and 42 years (HFEA 2011), its effectiveness has not been rigorously evaluated in comparison with other treatments. With increasing awareness of the role of expectant management, less-invasive procedures such as intrauterine insemination (IUI), and concerns about multiple pregnancies and costs associated with IVF, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of IVF against other treatment options in couples with unexplained infertility.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IVF compared to expectant management, clomiphene citrate, IUI alone and intrauterine insemination plus controlled ovarian stimulation (IUI+SO).

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (searched July 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, first quarter), MEDLINE (1970 to July 2011), EMBASE (1985 to July 2011) and reference lists of articles were searched. Relevant conference proceedings were handsearched. Authors were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. LBR per woman was the primary outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and quality of trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Six RCTs were included in the final analysis. LBR per woman was significantly higher with IVF (45.8%) than expectant management (3.7%) (odds ratio (OR) 22.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.56 to 189.37, 1 RCT, 51 women). There were no comparative data for clomiphene citrate. There was no evidence of a significant difference in LBR between IVF and IUI alone (OR 1.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 4.36, 1 RCT, 113 women), 40.7% with IVF versus 25.9% with IUI. In studies comparing IVF versus IUI+SO, LBR per woman did not differ significantly between the groups among treatment-naive women (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.59, 2 RCTs, 234 women) but was significantly higher in a large RCT of women pretreated with IUI + clomiphene citrate (OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.94 to 3.63, 1 RCT, 341 women). These three studies could not be pooled due to high heterogeneity (I(2) = 84%). There was no evidence of a significant difference in multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) or ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) between the two treatments (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.29, 3 RCTs, 351 women; OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 9.49, 1 RCT, 118 women, respectively).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

IVF may be more effective than IUI+SO. Due to paucity of data from RCTs the effectiveness of IVF for unexplained infertility relative to expectant management, clomiphene citrate and IUI alone remains unproven. Adverse events and the costs associated with these interventions have not been adequately assessed.

Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery for leiomyoma-associated infertility

OBJECTIVE

To describe magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery (FUS) as a treatment for a case of leiomyoma-associated infertility.

DESIGN

Case report from a randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Academic medical center.

PATIENT(S)

A 37-year-old woman with known leiomyomas and a history of 18 months of home-inseminations from a known donor.

INTERVENTION(S)

Magnetic resonance-guided FUS treatment of uterine fibroids, where the dominant fibroid distorted the uterine cavity.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Pregnancy.

RESULT(S)

A viable intrauterine pregnancy, with a full-term vaginal delivery, was conceived after a single clomiphene citrate and intrauterine insemination cycle.

CONCLUSION(S)

The role of FUS for enhancement of fertility in women with nonhysteroscopically resectable uterine fibroids distorting the uterine cavity should be investigated further.