Intra-uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility

Indication of intravaginal insemination for infertility treatment in couples with sexual dysfunction

PURPOSE

To analyze the usefulness of intravaginal insemination (IVI) for the infertility treatment in couples with sexual dysfunction before applying assisted reproductive technology (ART).

METHODS

Among 208 couples who presented sexual dysfunction, 144 couples underwent IVI procedures. The profiles of pregnant and non-pregnant patients were compared.

RESULTS

Of 144 patients, 58 women conceived successfully (40.3% pregnancy rate). Between the pregnant and non-pregnant cases, the husband's age and infertility period were significantly higher (P = .0104) and longer (P = .0027) in the unsuccessful cases than the successful ones. The husbands who could not impregnate had a significantly higher ratio of sperm abnormalities (P = .0048). Among the 57 successful cases who underwent IVI treatment, 38 (66.7%) patients became pregnant within 3 times of the procedure, while 48 (84.2%) patients conceived within 6 times.

CONCLUSION

The authors can propose the following inclusion IVI criteria for couples with sexual dysfunction: (a) younger husband (36 years old or less) which may be most important, (b) infertility duration of 3 years or less, (c) normal sperm condition, and (d) IVI trial for 3 times (maximum of 6 times). Since IVI appears to be a simple, noninvasive, and inexpensive way for couples with sexual dysfunction, it can be attempted before ART application.

Low-dose human menopausal gonadotrophin versus natural cycles in intrauterine insemination for subfertile couples with regular menstruation

BACKGROUND

Women with irregular menstruation should be considered to benefit from the ovarian stimulation. However, most literature did not separate ovulatory disorders from normal menstrual cycles. Our purpose was to assess the superiority of ovarian mild stimulation compared with the natural cycle in IUI for subfertile couples when the women with regular menstruation.

METHODS

A retrospective study in a single medical center in which 2413 couples with 3573 IUI cycles were studied from 2013 to 2018. The results of IUI in natural cycles versus low-dose HMG induced cycles were analyzed.

RESULTS

For young women (age < 35 years) with normal menstrual cycle, HMG induced ovulation combined with IUI can improve clinical pregnancy outcome (13.55% in two follicular induced cycles vs. 7.23% in natural cycles, p < 0.01); even if only one follicle was induced, the clinical pregnancy rate was increased to 10.32% (p < 0.01). When two growth follicles were induced in HMG cycles, a remarkable improvement of the live birthrate (10.28% vs. 5.91% in natural cycles, p < 0.05) was noted. Simultaneously, twin pregnancy rates were increased to 20.69% (p < 0.01). Twin pregnancies showed significantly increased risk of both ectopic pregnancy and preterm birth (p = 0.00 for both). For advanced women (age ≥ 35 years) with regular menstrual cycle, ovulation induction didn't improve clinical pregnancy and live birthrates, while age was the only relevant factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining HMG induced ovulation and IUI can improve pregnancy outcome in young women with normal menstrual cycles. 1-2 follicles with diameter ≥ 14 mm served as the purpose of ovulation induction. Further, both twin and ectopic pregnancy rate in HMG cycles with two growth follicles were significantly higher than those in natural cycles were. Therefore, doctors must evaluate the risk before making choices and inform the patients to achieve the best results. For advanced women with normal menstrual cycles, natural IUI cycles were optional.

Intra-uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility

BACKGROUND

Intra-uterine insemination (IUI) is a widely-used fertility treatment for couples with unexplained subfertility. Although IUI is less invasive and less expensive than in vitro fertilisation (IVF), the safety of IUI in combination with ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) is debated. The main concern about IUI treatment with OH is the increase in multiple pregnancy rates.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether, for couples with unexplained subfertility, the live birth rate is improved following IUI treatment with or without OH compared to timed intercourse (TI) or expectant management with or without OH, or following IUI treatment with OH compared to IUI in a natural cycle.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and two trials registers up to 17 October 2019, together with reference checking and contact with study authors for missing or unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IUI with TI or expectant management, both in stimulated or natural cycles, or IUI in stimulated cycles with IUI in natural cycles in couples with unexplained subfertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, quality assessment and data extraction. Primary review outcomes were live birth rate and multiple pregnancy rate.

MAIN RESULTS

We include 15 trials with 2068 women. The evidence was of very low to moderate quality. The main limitation was very serious imprecision. IUI in a natural cycle versus timed intercourse or expectant management in a natural cycle It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a natural cycle improves live birth rate compared to treatment with expectant management in a natural cycle (odds ratio (OR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 2.78; 1 RCT, 334 women; low-quality evidence). If we assume the chance of a live birth with expectant management in a natural cycle to be 16%, that of IUI in a natural cycle would be between 15% and 34%. It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a natural cycle reduces multiple pregnancy rates compared to control (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.53; 1 RCT, 334 women; low-quality evidence). IUI in a stimulated cycle versus timed intercourse or expectant management in a stimulated cycle It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a stimulated cycle improves live birth rates compared to treatment with TI in a stimulated cycle (OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.88; 2 RCTs, 208 women; I² = 72%; low-quality evidence). If we assume the chance of achieving a live birth with TI in a stimulated cycle was 26%, the chance with IUI in a stimulated cycle would be between 23% and 50%. It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a stimulated cycle reduces multiple pregnancy rates compared to control (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.87; 4 RCTs, 316 women; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). IUI in a stimulated cycle versus timed intercourse or expectant management in a natural cycle In couples with a low prediction score of natural conception, treatment with IUI combined with clomiphene citrate or letrozole probably results in a higher live birth rate compared to treatment with expectant management in a natural cycle (OR 4.48, 95% CI 2.00 to 10.01; 1 RCT; 201 women; moderate-quality evidence). If we assume the chance of a live birth with expectant management in a natural cycle was 9%, the chance of a live birth with IUI in a stimulated cycle would be between 17% and 50%. It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a stimulated cycle results in a lower multiple pregnancy rate compared to control (OR 3.01, 95% CI 0.47 to 19.28; 2 RCTs, 454 women; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). IUI in a natural cycle versus timed intercourse or expectant management in a stimulated cycle Treatment with IUI in a natural cycle probably results in a higher cumulative live birth rate compared to treatment with expectant management in a stimulated cycle (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.44; 1 RCT, 342 women: moderate-quality evidence). If we assume the chance of a live birth with expectant management in a stimulated cycle was 13%, the chance of a live birth with IUI in a natural cycle would be between 14% and 34%. It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a natural cycle results in a lower multiple pregnancy rate compared to control (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.90; 1 RCT, 342 women; low-quality evidence). IUI in a stimulated cycle versus IUI in a natural cycle Treatment with IUI in a stimulated cycle may result in a higher cumulative live birth rate compared to treatment with IUI in a natural cycle (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.50; 4 RCTs, 396 women; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). If we assume the chance of a live birth with IUI in a natural cycle was 14%, the chance of a live birth with IUI in a stimulated cycle would be between 17% and 36%. It is uncertain whether treatment with IUI in a stimulated cycle results in a higher multiple pregnancy rate compared to control (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.11 to 78.27; 2 RCTs, 65 women; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to insufficient data, it is uncertain whether treatment with IUI with or without OH compared to timed intercourse or expectant management with or without OH improves cumulative live birth rates with acceptable multiple pregnancy rates in couples with unexplained subfertility. However, treatment with IUI with OH probably results in a higher cumulative live birth rate compared to expectant management without OH in couples with a low prediction score of natural conception. Similarly, treatment with IUI in a natural cycle probably results in a higher cumulative live birth rate compared to treatment with timed intercourse with OH. Treatment with IUI in a stimulated cycle may result in a higher cumulative live birth rate compared to treatment with IUI in a natural cycle.

Does different subfertility etiology affect pregnancy rates in intrauterineinsemination cycles?

Background/aim

To investigate the relationship between subfertility etiologies and success rates in controlled ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination (COS–IUI) cycles.

Materials and methods

The medical records of 218 couples who applied to a university-based fertility center were analyzed retrospectively. Detailed infertility examination data and pregnancy outcomes were compared according to different subfertility etiologies. The study groups with regard to subfertility etiologies were minimal–mild endometriosis, unexplained infertility, and mild male infertility. The primary outcome measure was live birth rate.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding demographics except for total motile sperm count. Live birth rates in the male infertility group were comparable to the endometriosis and unexpected infertility groups (6.6%, 11.9%, and 10.3%, respectively; P = 0.63).

Conclusion

The success rate of the mild male subfertility group following COS–IUI cycles for live birth rates was similar to those of the endometriosis and unexplained subfertility groups.

Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities

BACKGROUND

Observational studies suggest higher pregnancy rates after the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions, which are present in 10% to 15% of women seeking treatment for subfertility.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions suspected on ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from their inception to 16 April 2018; The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online, ; MEDLINE, Embase , CINAHL , and other electronic sources of trials including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature, and reference lists. We handsearched the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) conference abstracts and proceedings (from 1 January 2014 to 12 May 2018) and we contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for unexplained subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities.Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities prior to medically assisted reproduction.Primary outcomes were live birth and hysteroscopy complications. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy and miscarriage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies met the inclusion criteria.1. Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for unexplained subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities.In women with otherwise unexplained subfertility and submucous fibroids, we were uncertain whether hysteroscopic myomectomy improved the clinical pregnancy rate compared to expectant management (odds ratio (OR) 2.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 6.17; P = 0.06, 94 women; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether hysteroscopic myomectomy improves the miscarriage rate compared to expectant management (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.00; P = 0.47, 94 women; very low-quality evidence). We found no data on live birth or hysteroscopy complication rates. We found no studies in women with endometrial polyps, intrauterine adhesions or uterine septum for this randomised comparison.2. Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities prior to medically assisted reproduction.The hysteroscopic removal of polyps prior to IUI may have improved the clinical pregnancy rate compared to diagnostic hysteroscopy only: if 28% of women achieved a clinical pregnancy without polyp removal, the evidence suggested that 63% of women (95% CI 45% to 89%) achieved a clinical pregnancy after the hysteroscopic removal of the endometrial polyps (OR 4.41, 95% CI 2.45 to 7.96; P < 0.00001, 204 women; low-quality evidence). We found no data on live birth, hysteroscopy complication or miscarriage rates in women with endometrial polyps prior to IUI. We found no studies in women with submucous fibroids, intrauterine adhesions or uterine septum prior to IUI or in women with all types of suspected uterine cavity abnormalities prior to IVF/ICSI.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Uncertainty remains concerning an important benefit with the hysteroscopic removal of submucous fibroids for improving the clinical pregnancy rates in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility. The available low-quality evidence suggests that the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps suspected on ultrasound in women prior to IUI may improve the clinical pregnancy rate compared to simple diagnostic hysteroscopy. More research is needed to measure the effectiveness of the hysteroscopic treatment of suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities in women with unexplained subfertility or prior to IUI, IVF or ICSI.

Intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation versus expectant management for unexplained infertility (TUI): a pragmatic, open-label, randomised, controlled, two-centre trial

BACKGROUND

Women with unexplained infertility are often offered intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian stimulation as an alternative to in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). However, little evidence exists that IUI is an effective treatment. In 2013, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended that IUI should not be routinely offered for couples with unexplained infertility.

METHODS

For this pragmatic, open-label, randomised, controlled, two-centre study, we enrolled women attending two fertility clinics in New Zealand with unexplained infertility and an unfavourable prognosis of natural conception. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated randomisation sequence, prepared by an independent statistician, to either three cycles of IUI with ovarian stimulation (with either oral clomifene citrate [50-150 mg, days 2-6] or oral letrozole [2·5-7·5 mg, days 2-6], with choice of ovarian stimulation made by the clinic) or three cycles of expectant management (couples advised to be sexually active around the likely time of ovulation and provided with a diary to record the first day of each menstrual cycle and dates of sexual activity) in blocks of four, six, and ten, without stratification. The participating couple and the clinicians were informed of treatment allocation. The primary outcome was cumulative livebirth rate in the intention-to-treat population. The safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This study was prospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register, number ACTRN12612001025820.

FINDINGS

Between March 12, 2013, and May 12, 2016, we randomly assigned 101 women to IUI with ovarian stimulation and 100 to expectant management, all of whom were included in the primary efficacy analysis and safety analyses. Women assigned to IUI had a higher cumulative livebirth rate than women assigned to expectant management (31 [31%] livebirths among 101 women vs nine [9%] livebirths among 100 women; risk ratio [RR] 3·41, 95% CI 1·71-6·79; p=0·0003). Of 31 livebirths in the IUI group, 23 resulted from IUI cycles and eight were conceived without assistance before or between IUI cycles. Of nine livebirths in the expectant management group, one patient was pregnant from IUI with ovarian stimulation at study entry and one had received off-protocol treatment (IVF). Two sets of twins were born, both in the IUI group (one from a cancelled cycle for over-response).

INTERPRETATION

IUI with ovarian stimulation is a safe and effective treatment for women with unexplained infertility and an unfavourable prognosis for natural conception.

FUNDING

Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Evelyn Bond Fund of Auckland District Health Board, Mercia Barnes Trust of Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust, and The Nurture Foundation for Reproductive Research.

Risk of pelvic inflammatory disease after intrauterine insemination: a systematic review

The aim of this study was to ascertain the incidence of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) after intrauterine insemination (IUI). A systematic review was conducted using three different approaches: a search of IUI registries; a search of published meta-analyses; and a search of prospective randomized trials. Search terms were 'IUI', 'complications', 'infection' and 'PID'. Two IUI registers were identified that met the inclusion criteria, totalling 365,874 cycles, with 57 PID cases being reported. The post-IUI PID rate was 0.16/1000 (95% CI 0.2 to 0.3/1000). The frequency was higher in husband sperm cycles (0.21/1000) (28/135,839) than in donor sperm cycles (0.03/1000) (1/33,712) (P < 0.05; OR 6.95). Nineteen meta-analyses were retrieved, which included 156 trials, totalling 43,048 cycles, with no PID case being reported. Seventeen prospective clinical trials published between 2013 and 2014 were identified, totalling 4968 cycles; no PID case was reported. The reported rate of post-IUI clinical PID is low (0.16/1000), about 40% higher than reported in the general population of women during their reproductive life. No antibiotic prophylaxis should be recommended unless there is an associated risk factor.

The effect of slow release insemination on pregnancy rates: report of two randomized controlled pilot studies and meta-analysis

Purpose

A modified application technique of intrauterine insemination (IUI) is slow release insemination (SRI), first described by Muharib et al. (Hum Reprod 7(2):227–229, 1992), who postulated higher pregnancy rates with a slow release of spermatozoa for 3 h.

Methods

To investigate this approach, two randomized controlled, cross-over pilot studies were performed from 2004 to 2006 in Israel and Germany to compare SRI with the standard bolus IUI. We aimed to present the results and perform a meta-analysis on available data for SRI. Univariate comparisons of pregnancy rates were performed using one-tailed z tests for method superiority. For meta-analysis, a fixed-effect Mantel–Haentzel weighted average of relative risk was performed.

Results

Fifty treatment cycles (IUI: n = 25, SRI: n = 25) were performed in Germany, achieving four pregnancies (IUI: 4%, SRI: 12%, p > 0.05). Thirty-nine treatment cycles (IUI: n = 19, SRI: n = 20) were performed in Israel achieving six pregnancies (IUI: 10.5%, SRI: 20%; p > 0.05). Meta-analysis of all eligible studies for SRI (n = 3) revealed a combined relative risk for pregnancy after SRI of 2.64 (95% CI 1.04–6.74), p = 0.02).

Conclusions

In conclusion, these results lend support to the hypothesis that the pregnancy rate might be improved by SRI compared to the standard bolus technique.

Seminal biomarkers for the evaluation of male infertility

For men struggling to conceive with their partners, diagnostic tools are limited and often consist of only a standard semen analysis. This baseline test serves as a crude estimation of male fertility, leaving patients and clinicians in need of additional diagnostic biomarkers. Seminal fluid contains the highest concentration of molecules from the male reproductive glands, therefore, this review focuses on current and novel seminal biomarkers in certain male infertility scenarios, including natural fertility, differentiating azoospermia etiologies, and predicting assisted reproductive technique success. Currently available tests include antisperm antibody assays, DNA fragmentation index, sperm fluorescence in situ hybridization, and other historical sperm functional tests. The poor diagnostic ability of current assays has led to continued efforts to find more predictive biomarkers. Emerging research in the fields of genomics, epigenetics, proteomics, transcriptomics, and metabolomics holds promise for the development of novel male infertility biomarkers. Seminal protein-based assays of TEX101, ECM1, and ACRV1 are already available or under final development for clinical use. Additional panels of DNA, RNA, proteins, or metabolites are being explored as we attempt to understand the pathophysiologic processes of male infertility. Future ventures will need to continue data integration and validation for the development of clinically useful infertility biomarkers to aid in male infertility diagnosis, treatment, and counseling.

Sperm Chromatin Dispersion Test before Sperm Preparation Is Predictive of Clinical Pregnancy in Cases of Unexplained Infertility Treated with Intrauterine Insemination and Induction with Clomiphene Citrate

Background/aims

A large proportion of men with normal sperm results as analyzed using conventional techniques have fragmented DNA in their spermatozoa. We performed a prospective study to examine the incidence of DNA fragmentation in sperm in cases of couples with previously unexplained infertility and treated with intrauterine insemination. We evaluated whether there was any predictive value of DNA fragmentation for pregnancy outcome in such couples.

Methods

The percentage of DNA fragmentation and all classical variables to evaluate sperm before and after sperm treatment were determined. We studied the probable association between these results and pregnancy outcome in terms of clinical and ongoing pregnancy rate per started first cycle. We also assessed the optimal threshold level to diagnose DNA fragmentation in our center.

Results

When using threshold levels of 20, 25, and 30%, the occurrence of DNA fragmentation was 42.9, 33.3, and 28.6%, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of all cases revealed an area under the curve of 80% to predict the clinical pregnancy rate per cycle from testing the sperm motility (a + b) before treatment. We failed to generate an ROC curve to estimate pregnancy outcome from the amount of DNA fragmentation before treatment. However, when selecting only those men with a pretreatment DNA fragmentation of at least 20%, the pretreatment result was statistically different between couples who achieved a clinical pregnancy and those who did not.

Conclusion

DNA fragmentation is often diagnosed in couples with unexplained infertility. Each center should evaluate the type of test it uses to detect DNA fragmentation in sperm and determine its own threshold values.

Factors affecting clinical pregnancy rates after IUI for the treatment of unexplained infertility and mild male subfertility

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present retrospective study was to evaluate intrauterine insemination (IUI) clinical experiences and to define the variables for predicting success.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The present study was an observational trial performed in a private IVF center on subfertile couples who had applied for treatment between 2002 and 2012, in which the data of 503 IUI cases were retrospectively reviewed. Couples who had been diagnosed with unexplained and mild male subfertility were included. The primary outcome measure was the clinical pregnancy rate in an attempt to form a predictive model for the odds of a clinical pregnancy. Recorded parameters were used to determine the prediction model.

RESULTS

Utilizing univariate logistic regression analysis, clinical pregnancy was positively associated with the duration of infertility (OR=1.09, p=0.089), secondary infertility (OR=1.77, p=0.050), and +4 sperm motility after preparation (OR=1.03, p=0.091). Following an adjustment analysis involving a multivariate logistic regression, clinical pregnancy was still found to positively associate with secondary infertility (OR=2.51, p=0.008).

CONCLUSION

IUI success in secondary infertile couples who were in the unexplained infertility and mild male subfertility groups was higher than that in primary infertile couples, and the chances of pregnancy increased as sperm numbers with +4 motility increased. It is difficult to concomitantly evaluate all these parameters and to determine a predictive parameter in IUI independent from other factors.

Factors Leading to Pregnancies in Stimulated Intrauterine Insemination Cycles and the Use of Consecutive Ejaculations Within a Small Clinic Environment

INTRODUCTION

Understanding and improving IUI pregnancy rates has enormous global appeal and application. This pilot study goes one step further by utilising consecutive ejaculates from men with oligozoospermia and comparing with normozoospermic male group.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on 117 IUI-stimulated treatment cycles in a small fertility clinic in North Middlesex University Hospitals Trust, UK, within a NHS setting. Risks of OHSS and multiple births are carefully controlled.

RESULTS

In our cohort, several factors are associated with positive IUI pregnancies and these were: age of the woman, inseminating with ≥5 total progressive motile sperm; having ≥50 % Grade A sperm progression and having ≥1 follicle achieved with a realistic hMG dosage, hCG trigger and IUI of 29.7 h (2.5-38.4 h), with an endometrial thickness of 10.7 mm (6.6-13.4 mm). Bifollicular presence in at least half the cases along with hMG protocols added usefully to the pregnancy outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The pregnancy rates per cycle were 19 and 23 % in the consecutive ejaculates and non-consecutive ejaculate groups, respectively, P = 0.59. For the whole cohort, the pregnancy rate was 20.51 % per cycle and 33.8 % per women. This approach if validated with large RCT will have universally beneficial effects.

Replacing IUI with IVF for initial treatment of unexplained infertility: why this NICE recommendation is cause for concern

The latest guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for assisted conception recommend that people experiencing unexplained infertility should no longer be offered stimulated intra-uterine insemination (IUI) as a first-line treatment, but rather be directed towards IVF or alternatively be left to expectant management. NICE has acknowledged that the cited evidence leading to this decision was not sufficiently robust. As such, we are concerned that accordance with these new NICE guidelines may result in people with no identifiable cause of their infertility being prematurely referred for IVF treatment. Since IVF constitutes a more invasive and expensive treatment process, which also represents an additional and unnecessary cost pressure to the National Health Service, there is a longstanding need for a robust clinical trial to resolve the uncertainty as to whether one treatment is more appropriate than another. Until such data is available, we suggest that provision of stimulated IUI, in centres achieving a satisfactory live birth rate, represents a significant cost-saving to those commissioning fertility services, with lower risks to people treated.

First line fertility treatment strategies regarding IUI and IVF require clinical evidence

The advent of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) has contributed to a significant growth in the delivery of assisted conception technique, such that IVF/ICSI procedures are now recommended over other interventions. Even the UK National Institute for Health Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines controversially recommends against intrauterine insemination (IUI) procedures in favour of IVF. We reflect on some of the clinical, economic, financial and ethical realities that have been used to selectively promote IVF over IUI, which is less intrusive and more patient friendly, obviates the need for embryo storage and has a global application. The evidence strongly favours IUI over IVF in selected couples and national funding strategies should include IUI treatment options. IUI, practised optimally as a first line treatment in up to six cycles, would also ease the pressures on public funds to allow the provision of up to three IVF cycles for couple who need it. Fertility clinics should also strive towards ISO15189 accreditation standards for basic semen diagnosis for male infertility used to triage ICSI treatment, to reduce the over-diagnosis of severe male factor infertility. Importantly, there is a need to develop global guidelines on inclusion policies for IVF/ICSI procedures. These suggestions are an ethically sound basis for constructing the provision of publicly funded fertility treatments.

Predicting suitable timing for artificial reproductive technology treatment in aged infertile women

It has been widely accepted that the age of women plays a fundamental role in fecundity, and age-related fertility decline has one of the most significant and detrimental effects on the success rate of infertility treatment. Therefore, treatment cycles of non-in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment for infertile women of advanced aged have been limited due to their lack of efficacy, and they are often optimized, compared to IVF/ICSI treatment. Recent trends in infertility treatment apparently indicate that IVF/ICSI treatment, including egg donation, is frequently offered to aged women for first-line management, despite its heavy burden, but hasty IVF/ICSI treatment should be avoided, considering its socioeconomic problems. It is important to distinguish women who could conceive by non-IVF/ICSI treatment, although the optimization of non-IVF/ICSI treatment protocols remains poorly understood. This review focuses on extracting aged patients who have higher chance of conceiving with non-IVF/ICSI treatment and providing necessary and sufficient infertility treatment. After initial evaluation for fertility, including tubal factor, male factor, the presence of endometriosis and/or adenomyosis, and ovarian reserve, the outcomes of fertility treatment can be predicted to some extent in aged infertile women.

Assisted reproductive technologies for male subfertility

BACKGROUND

Intra-uterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) are frequently used fertility treatments for couples with male subfertility. The use of these treatments has been subject of discussion. Knowledge on the effectiveness of fertility treatments for male subfertility with different grades of severity is limited. Possibly, couples are exposed to unnecessary or ineffective treatments on a large scale.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different fertility treatments (expectant management, timed intercourse (TI), IUI, IVF and ICSI) for couples whose subfertility appears to be due to abnormal sperm parameters.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for all publications that described randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the treatment for male subfertility. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the National Research Register from inception to 14 April 2015, and web-based trial registers from January 1985 to April 2015. We applied no language restrictions. We checked all references in the identified trials and background papers and contacted authors to identify relevant published and unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing different treatment options for male subfertility. These were expectant management, TI (with or without ovarian hyperstimulation (OH)), IUI (with or without OH), IVF and ICSI. We included only couples with abnormal sperm parameters.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. They resolved disagreements by discussion with the rest of the review authors. We performed statistical analyses in accordance with the guidelines for statistical analysis developed by The Cochrane Collaboration. The quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE methods. Primary outcomes were live birth and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) per couple randomised.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 10 RCTs (757 couples). The quality of the evidence was low or very low for all comparisons. The main limitations in the evidence were failure to describe study methods, serious imprecision and inconsistency. IUI versus TI (five RCTs)Two RCTs compared IUI with TI in natural cycles. There were no data on live birth or OHSS. We found no evidence of a difference in pregnancy rates (2 RCTs, 62 couples: odds ratio (OR) 4.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 102, very low quality evidence; there were no events in one of the studies).Three RCTs compared IUI with TI both in cycles with OH. We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates (1 RCT, 81 couples: OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.59; low quality evidence) or pregnancy rates (3 RCTs, 202 couples: OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.07; I(2) = 11%, very low quality evidence). One RCT reported data on OHSS. None of the 62 women had OHSS.One RCT compared IUI in cycles with OH with TI in natural cycles. We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates (1 RCT, 44 couples: OR 3.14, 95% CI 0.12 to 81.35; very low quality evidence). Data on OHSS were not available. IUI in cycles with OH versus IUI in natural cycles (five RCTs)We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates (3 RCTs, 346 couples: OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.33; I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence) and pregnancy rates (4 RCTs, 399 couples: OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.82; I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence). There were no data on OHSS. IVF versus IUI in natural cycles or cycles with OH (two RCTs)We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates between IVF versus IUI in natural cycles (1 RCT, 53 couples: OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.35; low quality evidence) or IVF versus IUI in cycles with OH (2 RCTs, 86 couples: OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.45; I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence). One RCT reported data on OHSS. None of the women had OHSS.Overall, we found no evidence of a difference between any of the groups in rates of live birth, pregnancy or adverse events (multiple pregnancy, miscarriage). However, most of the evidence was very low quality.There were no studies on IUI in natural cycles versus TI in stimulated cycles, IVF versus TI, ICSI versus TI, ICSI versus IUI (with OH) or ICSI versus IVF.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any difference in safety and effectiveness between different treatments for male subfertility. More research is needed.

Intra-uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility

BACKGROUND

Intra-uterine insemination (IUI) is a widely used fertility treatment for couples with unexplained subfertility. Although IUI is less invasive and less expensive thAppendixan in vitro fertilisation (IVF), the safety of IUI in combination with ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) is debated. The main concern about IUI treatment with OH is the increase in multiple pregnancy rate. This is an update of a Cochrane review (Veltman-Verhulst 2012) originally published in 2006 and updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether, for couples with unexplained subfertility, IUI improves the live birth rate compared with timed intercourse (TI), or expectant management, both with and without ovarian hyperstimulation (OH).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (formerly Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group) Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, inception to Issue 11, 2015), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, PsycINFO and trial registers, all from inception to December 2015 and reference lists of articles. Authors of identified studies were contacted for missing or unpublished data. The evidence is current to December 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Truly randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparisons of IUI versus TI, in natural or stimulated cycles. Only couples with unexplained subfertility were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, quality assessment and data extraction. We extracted outcomes, and pooled data and, where possible, we carried out subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 trials including 1867 women. IUI versus TI or expectant management both in natural cycleLive birth rate (all cycles)There was no evidence of a difference in cumulative live births between the two groups (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 2.78; 1 RCT; n = 334; moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of a live birth in TI was assumed to be 16%, that of IUI would be between 15% and 34%.Multiple pregnancy rateThere was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rate between the two treatment groups (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.53; 1 RCT; n = 334; moderate quality evidence). IUI versus TI or expectant management both in stimulated cycleLive birth rate (all cycles)There was no evidence of a difference between the two treatment groups (OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.88; 2 RCTs; n = 208; I(2) = 72%; moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of achieving a live birth in TI was assumed to be 26%, the chance of a live birth with IUI would be between 23% and 50%.Multiple pregnancy rateThere was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rates between the two treatment groups (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.87; 4 RCTs, n = 316; I(2) = 0%; low quality evidence). IUI in a natural cycle versus IUI in a stimulated cycle Live birth rate (all cycles)An increase in live birth rate was found for women who were treated with IUI in a stimulated cycle compared with those who underwent IUI in natural cycle (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.82; 4 RCTs, n = 396; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of a live birth in IUI in a stimulated cycle was assumed to be 25%, the chance of a live birth in IUI in a natural cycle would be between 9% and 21%.Multiple pregnancy rateThere was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rate between the two treatment groups (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.70; 2 RCTs; n = 65; low quality evidence). IUI in a stimulated cycle versus TI or expectant management in a natural cycleLive birth rate (all cycles)There was no evidence of a difference in live birth rate between the two treatment groups (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.49; 1 RCT; n = 253; moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of a live birth in TI or expectant management in a natural cycle was assumed to be 24%, the chance of a live birth in IUI in a stimulated cycle would be between 12% and 32%.Multiple pregnancy rateThere was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rate between the two treatment groups (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.18 to 22.34; 2 RCTs; n = 304; moderate quality evidence). IUI in natural cycle versus TI or expectant management in stimulated cycle Live birth rate (all cycles)There was evidence of an increase in live births for IUI (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.44; 1 RCT, n = 342; moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of a live birth in TI in a stimulated cycle was assumed to be 13%, the chance of a live birth in IUI in a natural cycle would be between 14% and 34%.Multiple pregnancy rateThere was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rate between the groups (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.90; 1 RCT; n = 342; moderate quality evidence).The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods. Quality ranged from low to moderate, the main limitation being imprecision in the findings for both live birth and multiple pregnancy..

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review did not find conclusive evidence of a difference in live birth or multiple pregnancy in most of the comparisons for couples with unexplained subfertility treated with intra-uterine insemination (IUI) when compared with timed intercourse (TI), both with and without ovarian hyperstimulation (OH). There were insufficient studies to allow for pooling of data on the important outcome measures for each of the comparisons.

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.

Treatment of infertility in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: approach to clinical practice

Polycystic ovary syndrome represents 80% of anovulatory infertility cases. Treatment initially includes preconception guidelines, such as lifestyle changes (weight loss), folic acid therapy to prevent the risk of fetal neural tube defects and halting the consumption of tobacco and alcohol. The first-line pharmacological treatment for inducing ovulation consists of a clomiphene citrate treatment for timed intercourse. The second-line pharmacological treatment includes the administration of exogenous gonadotropins or laparoscopic ovarian surgery (ovarian drilling). Ovulation induction using clomiphene citrate or gonadotropins is effective with cumulative live birth rates of approximately 70%. Ovarian drilling should be performed when laparoscopy is indicated; this procedure is typically effective in approximately 50% of cases. Finally, a high-complexity reproduction treatment (in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection) is the third-line treatment and is recommended when the previous interventions fail. This option is also the first choice in cases of bilateral tubal occlusion or semen alterations that impair the occurrence of natural pregnancy. Evidence for the routine use of metformin in infertility treatment of anovulatory women with polycystic ovary syndrome is not available. Aromatase inhibitors are promising and longer term studies are necessary to prove their safety.

RETRACTED: Comparing the effect of office hysteroscopy with endometrial scratch versus office hysteroscopy on intrauterine insemination outcome: a randomized controlled trial

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal). This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief. The editors were alerted to the possibility of data fabrication in this study by a systematic reviewer who had noticed discrepancies between the trial registry and the published version, and an implausible interval between the date of last recruit and paper submission, given the duration of follow-up. The editors wrote to Dr El-Khayat, who did not give a clear explanation, but kindly supplied a copy of the trial dataset. An independent statistical review of that dataset suggested a high probability that at least some of the data had been fabricated. We shared the comments of our statistical reviewer's analysis with Dr El-Kayat who again failed to give a satisfactory explanation. As suggested by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the editor-in-chief wrote to the authorities at Cairo University requesting that they investigate. We have not heard back from them. We have therefore decided to retract.

Intrauterine insemination: a UK survey on the adherence to NICE clinical guidelines by fertility clinics

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the awareness and response of fertility clinics in the UK to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline recommendation that intrauterine insemination (IUI) should not be offered routinely, in order to report on current practice in the UK.

DESIGN

Online questionnaire survey of fertility clinics in the UK regarding their current clinical practice of IUI, formal discussion of the guideline recommendations, and any alterations made since the recommendations.

SETTING

66 UK fertility clinics licensed to provide IUI.

PARTICIPANTS

46 fertility clinics, including 6 clinic groups which represent 70% of all clinics and clinic groups licensed to provide IUI in April 2014 when the survey email was sent.

RESULTS

Of the 46 clinics that responded, 96% (44/46) of clinics continue to offer IUI. 98% (43/44) of those offering IUI also use ovarian stimulation. The most commonly used medications for ovarian stimulation are gonadotrophins (95%), followed by clomiphene citrate (49%) and letrozole (19%). 78% (36/46) of clinics had formally discussed NICE guideline recommendations. 17 clinics (37%) had made some changes to their practices; as a result, four clinics reported a reduction in the number of IUI cycles, six clinics had restricted the indications for IUI, and five clinics had begun informing patients of the guideline recommendations, while two did not specify.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of clinics were aware of the guideline recommendations. However, only a small proportion of clinics had made significant changes to their practice by reducing the number of IUI cycles or restricting the clinical indications for IUI. The availability of further evidence will assist NICE and clinicians in making recommendations on the use of IUI. There is a need to further explore the reasons for the lack of adherence to the recommendations.

Timed intercourse for couples trying to conceive

BACKGROUND

Fertility problems are very common, as subfertility affects about 10% to 15% of couples trying to conceive. There are many factors that may impact a couple's ability to conceive and one of these may be incorrect timing of intercourse. Conception is only possible from approximately five days before up to several hours after ovulation. Therefore, to be effective, intercourse must take place during this fertile period. 'Timed intercourse' is the practice of prospectively identifying ovulation and, thus, the fertile period to increase the likelihood of conception. Whilst timed intercourse may increase conception rates and reduce unnecessary intervention and costs, there may be associated adverse aspects including time consumption and stress. Ovulation prediction methods used for timing intercourse include urinary hormone measurement (luteinizing hormone (LH), estrogen), tracking basal body temperatures, cervical mucus investigation, calendar charting and ultrasonography. This review considered the evidence from randomised controlled trials for the use of timed intercourse on positive pregnancy outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and risks of ovulation prediction methods for timing intercourse on conception in couples trying to conceive.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following sources to identify relevant randomised controlled trials, the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed, LILACS, Web of Knowledge, the World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Trials Register Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. Furthermore, we manually searched the references of relevant articles. The search was not restricted by language or publication status. The last search was on 5 August 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing timed intercourse versus intercourse without ovulation prediction or comparing different methods of ovulation prediction for timing intercourse against each other in couples trying to conceive.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted the data. The primary review outcomes were cumulative live birth and adverse events (such as quality of life, depression and stress). Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, pregnancy (clinical or self-reported pregnancy, not yet confirmed by ultrasound) and time to conception. We combined data to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs (2840 women or couples) comparing timed intercourse versus intercourse without ovulation prediction. Unfortunately one large study (n = 1453) reporting live birth and pregnancy had not published outcome data by randomised group and therefore could not be analysed. Consequently, four RCTs (n = 1387) were included in the meta-analysis. The evidence was of low to very low quality. Main limitations for downgrading the evidence included imprecision, lack of reporting clinically relevant outcomes and the high risk of publication bias.One study reported live birth, but the sample size was too small to draw any relevant conclusions on the effect of timed intercourse (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.41, 1 RCT, n = 17, very low quality).One study reported stress as an adverse event. There was no evidence of a difference in levels of stress (mean difference 1.98, 95 CI% -0.87 to 4.83, 1 RCT, n = 77, low level evidence). No other studies reported adverse events.Two studies reported clinical pregnancy. There was no evidence of a difference in clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.12, 2 RCTs, n = 177, I(2) = 0%, low level evidence). This suggested that if the chance of a clinical pregnancy following intercourse without ovulation prediction is assumed to be 16%, the chance of success following timed intercourse would be between 9% and 33%.Four studies reported pregnancy rate (clinical or self-reported pregnancy). Timed intercourse was associated with higher pregnancy rates compared to intercourse without ovulation prediction in couples trying to conceive (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.71, 4 RCTs, n = 1387, I(2) = 0%, very low level evidence). This suggests that if the chance of a pregnancy following intercourse without ovulation prediction is assumed to be 13%, the chance following timed intercourse would be between 14% and 23%. Subgroup analysis by duration of subfertility showed no difference in effect between couples trying to conceive for < 12 months versus couples trying for ≥ 12 months. One trial reported time to conception data and showed no evidence of a difference in time to conception.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are insufficient data available to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of timed intercourse for the outcomes of live birth, adverse events and clinical pregnancy. Timed intercourse may improve pregnancy rates (clinical or self-reported pregnancy, not yet confirmed by ultrasound) compared to intercourse without ovulation prediction. The quality of this evidence is low to very low and therefore findings should be regarded with caution. There is a high risk of publication bias, as one large study remains unpublished 8 years after recruitment finished. Further research is required, reporting clinically relevant outcomes (live birth, clinical pregnancy rates and adverse effects), to determine if timed intercourse is safe and effective in couples trying to conceive.

Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities

BACKGROUND

Observational studies suggest higher pregnancy rates after the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions, which are detectable in 10% to 15% of women seeking treatment for subfertility.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions suspected on ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Specialised Register (8 September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1950 to 12 October 2014), EMBASE (inception to 12 October 2014), CINAHL (inception to 11 October 2014) and other electronic sources of trials including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature and reference lists. We handsearched the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) conference abstracts and proceedings (from January 2013 to October 2014) and we contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised comparisons between operative hysteroscopy versus control in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or undergoing IUI, IVF or ICSI and suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities diagnosed by ultrasonography, saline infusion/gel instillation sonography, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods. Primary outcomes were live birth and hysteroscopy complications. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy and miscarriage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved 12 randomised trials possibly addressing the research questions. Only two studies (309 women) met the inclusion criteria. Neither reported the primary outcomes of live birth or procedure related complications. In women with otherwise unexplained subfertility and submucous fibroids there was no conclusive evidence of a difference between the intervention group treated with hysteroscopic myomectomy and the control group having regular fertility-oriented intercourse during 12 months for the outcome of clinical pregnancy. A large clinical benefit with hysteroscopic myomectomy cannot be excluded: if 21% of women with fibroids achieve a clinical pregnancy having timed intercourse only, the evidence suggests that 39% of women (95% CI 21% to 58%) will achieve a successful outcome following the hysteroscopic removal of the fibroids (odds ratio (OR) 2.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 6.17, P = 0.06, 94 women, very low quality evidence). There is no evidence of a difference between the comparison groups for the outcome of miscarriage (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.85, P = 0.50, 30 clinical pregnancies in 94 women, very low quality evidence). The hysteroscopic removal of polyps prior to IUI can increase the chance of a clinical pregnancy compared to simple diagnostic hysteroscopy and polyp biopsy: if 28% of women achieve a clinical pregnancy with a simple diagnostic hysteroscopy, the evidence suggests that 63% of women (95% CI 50% to 76%) will achieve a clinical pregnancy after the hysteroscopic removal of the endometrial polyps (OR 4.41, 95% CI 2.45 to 7.96, P < 0.00001, 204 women, moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A large benefit with the hysteroscopic removal of submucous fibroids for improving the chance of clinical pregnancy in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility cannot be excluded. The hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps suspected on ultrasound in women prior to IUI may increase the clinical pregnancy rate. More randomised studies are needed to substantiate the effectiveness of the hysteroscopic removal of suspected endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions in women with unexplained subfertility or prior to IUI, IVF or ICSI.

Prevention of multiple pregnancies in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility: randomised controlled trial of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer or in vitro fertilisation in modified natural cycle compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer or in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle with that of intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in terms of a healthy child.

DESIGN

Multicentre, open label, three arm, parallel group, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

SETTING

17 centres in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

Couples seeking fertility treatment after at least 12 months of unprotected intercourse, with the female partner aged between 18 and 38 years, an unfavourable prognosis for natural conception, and a diagnosis of unexplained or mild male subfertility.

INTERVENTIONS

Three cycles of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer (plus subsequent cryocycles), six cycles of in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, or six cycles of intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation within 12 months after randomisation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was birth of a healthy child resulting from a singleton pregnancy conceived within 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were live birth, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, time to pregnancy, complications of pregnancy, and neonatal morbidity and mortality

RESULTS

602 couples were randomly assigned between January 2009 and February 2012; 201 were allocated to in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer, 194 to in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, and 207 to intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Birth of a healthy child occurred in 104 (52%) couples in the in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer group, 83 (43%) in the in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle group, and 97 (47%) in the intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation group. This corresponds to a risk, relative to intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation, of 1.10 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.34) for in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer and 0.91 (0.73 to 1.14) for in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle. These 95% confidence intervals do not extend below the predefined threshold of 0.69 for inferiority. Multiple pregnancy rates per ongoing pregnancy were 6% (7/121) after in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer, 5% (5/102) after in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, and 7% (8/119) after intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation (one sided P=0.52 for in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer compared with intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation; one sided P=0.33 for in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation).

CONCLUSIONS

In vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer and in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle were non-inferior to intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in terms of the birth of a healthy child and showed comparable, low multiple pregnancy rates.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52843371; Nederlands Trial Register NTR939.

Outcomes after intrauterine insemination are independent of provider type

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine whether the success of intrauterine insemination (IUI) varies based on the type of health care provider performing the procedure.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study set at an infertility clinic at an academic institution. The patients who comprised this study were 1575 women who underwent 3475 IUI cycles from late 2003 through early 2012. Cycles were stratified into 3 groups according to the type of provider who performed the procedure: attending physician, fellow physician, or registered nurse (RN). The primary outcome was live birth. Additional outcomes of interest included positive pregnancy test and clinical pregnancy. Repeated measures log binomial regression was used to estimate the risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the outcomes and to evaluate the effect of potential confounders. All tests were 2-sided, and P values < .05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Of the 3475 IUI cycles, 2030 (58.4%) were gonadotropin stimulated, 929 (26.7%) were clomiphene citrate stimulated, and 516 (14.9%) were natural. The incidences of clinical pregnancy and live birth among all cycles were 11.8% and 8.8%, respectively. After adjusting for female age, male partner age, and cycle type, the incidence of live birth was similar for RNs compared with attending physicians (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.58-1.1) and fellow physicians compared with attending physicians (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.2). Similar results were seen for positive pregnancy test and clinical pregnancy.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in live birth following IUI cycles in which the procedure was performed by a fellow physician or RN compared with an attending physician.

Single-donor and double-donor sperm intrauterine insemination cycles: does double intrauterine insemination increase clinical pregnancy rates?

OBJECTIVE

To compare the pregnancy outcomes in the setting of a single- vs. double-donor sperm intrauterine insemination (IUI) treatment cycle.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Large, private assisted reproductive technology practice.

PATIENT(S)

Donor sperm IUI recipients.

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Clinical pregnancy.

RESULT(S)

There were 2,486 double and 673 single-donor sperm IUI cycles. The two groups were similar for age, body mass index, and the number of prior cycles. The clinical pregnancy rates were similar between the two groups (single: 16.4% vs. double: 13.6%). In univariate regression analysis, age, total motile sperm, and diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) were associated with pregnancy. Generalized estimating equation models accounting for repeated measures, age, DOR and total motile sperm and the interactions of these factors demonstrated that single and double IUI had similar odds of pregnancy (odds ratio 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.44). Pregnancy rates remained similar between the two groups in matched comparison and other subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSION(S)

Single and double-donor IUI cycles had similar clinical pregnancy rates. This large data set did not demonstrate a benefit to routine double IUI in donor sperm cycles.

Patient-specific predictions of outcome after gonadotropin ovulation induction/intrauterine insemination

OBJECTIVE

To use patient-specific and cycle-specific characteristics to predict clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, and spontaneous abortion rates after gonadotropin ovulation induction (OI)/IUI.

DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

SETTING

Academic fertility center.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 1,438 women who underwent 3,375 gonadotropin OI/IUI cycles.

INTERVENTION(S)

Individual and cycle-specific characteristics were evaluated to determine predictors of the rates of clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, and spontaneous abortion. Logistic regression using individual parameters was used to create predictive models.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Clinical pregnancy (CPR), multiple pregnancy (MPR), and spontaneous abortion rates (SABR).

RESULT(S)

Multiple predictors were identified for CPR, MPR, and SABR. The presence of at least two follicles ≥ 13 mm at ovulation trigger significantly increased CPR (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.45, 1.18-1.78) and MPR (OR, 95% CI = 5.17, 2.16-12.41). An E2 level >400 pg/mL significantly increased MPR (OR, 95% CI = 9.54, 2.31-39.42). Logistic regression models were developed for individualized predictions of outcome.

CONCLUSION(S)

Regression analysis reveals the patient and cycle-specific characteristics that are significant predictors of CPR, MPR, and SABR after OI/IUI. Logistic models using significant or nearly significant predictors for CPR, MPR, and SABR offer improved predictive power relative to simpler models, and allow for the development of a risk calculator for personalized patient counseling.

Prognostic profiles and the effectiveness of assisted conception: secondary analyses of individual patient data

BACKGROUND

At present, it is unclear which treatment strategy is best for couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility. We hypothesized that the prognostic profile influences the effectiveness of assisted conception. We addressed this issue by analysing individual patient data (IPD) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We performed an IPD analysis of published RCTs on treatment strategies for subfertile couples. Eligible studies were identified from Cochrane systematic reviews and we also searched Medline and EMBASE. The authors of RCTs that compared expectant management (EM), intracervical insemination (ICI), intrauterine insemination (IUI), all three with or without controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and IVF in couples with unexplained or male subfertility, and had reported live birth or ongoing pregnancy as an outcome measure, were invited to share their data. For each individual patient the chance of natural conception was calculated with a validated prognostic model. We constructed prognosis-by-treatment curves and tested whether there was a significant interaction between treatment and prognosis.

RESULTS

We acquired data from 8 RCTs, including 2550 couples. In three studies (n = 954) the more invasive treatment strategies tended to be less effective in couples with a high chance of natural conception but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P-value for interaction between prognosis and treatment outcome were 0.71, 0.31 and 0.19). In one study (n = 932 couples) the strategies with COS (ICI and IUI) led to higher pregnancy rates than unstimulated strategies (ICI 8% versus 15%, IUI 13% versus 22%), regardless of prognosis (P-value for interaction in all comparisons >0.5), but at the expense of a high twin rate in the COS strategies (ICI 6% versus 23% and IUI 3% versus 30%, respectively). In two studies (n = 373 couples), the more invasive treatment strategies tended to be more effective in couples with a good prognosis but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P-value for interaction: 0.38 and 0.68). In one study (n = 253 couples) the differential effect of prognosis on treatment effect was limited (P-value for interaction 0.52), perhaps because prognosis was incorporated in the inclusion criteria. The only study that compared EM with IVF included 38 couples, too small for a precise estimate.

CONCLUSIONS

In this IPD analysis of couples with unexplained or male subfertility, we did not find a large differential effect of prognosis on the effectiveness of fertility treatment with IUI, COS or IVF.

Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities

BACKGROUND

Observational studies suggest higher pregnancy rates after the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions, which are detectable in 10% to 15% of women seeking treatment for subfertility.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions suspected on ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Specialised Register (6 August 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (T he Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1950 to October 2012), EMBASE (1974 to October 2012), CINAHL (from inception to October 2012) and other electronic sources of trials including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature and reference lists. We handsearched the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) conference abstracts and proceedings (from January 2008 to October 2012) and we contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised comparisons between operative hysteroscopy versus control in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or undergoing IUI, IVF or ICSI and suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities diagnosed by ultrasonography, saline infusion/gel instillation sonography, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods. Primary outcomes were live birth and hysteroscopy complications. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy and miscarriage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies met the inclusion criteria and neither reported the primary outcomes of live birth and complications from the procedure. In women with otherwise unexplained subfertility and submucous fibroids, there is no evidence of benefit with hysteroscopic myomectomy compared to regular fertility-oriented intercourse during 12 months for clinical pregnancy (odds ratio (OR) 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 6.2, P = 0.06, 94 women) and miscarriage (OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.0, P = 0.47, 94 women) (very low-quality evidence). The hysteroscopic removal of polyps prior to IUI increases the odds of clinical pregnancy (experimental event rate (EER) 63%) compared to diagnostic hysteroscopy and polyp biopsy only (control event rate (CER) 28%) (OR 4.4, 95% CI 2.5 to 8.0, P < 0.00001, 204 women, high-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Hysteroscopic myomectomy might increase the odds of clinical pregnancy in women with unexplained subfertility and submucous fibroids, but the evidence is at present not conclusive. The hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps suspected on ultrasound in women prior to IUI might increase the clinical pregnancy rate. More randomised studies are needed to substantiate the effectiveness of the hysteroscopic removal of suspected endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions in women with unexplained subfertility or prior to IUI, IVF or ICSI.