In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility

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.

Effect of the anterior uterocervical angle in unexplained infertility: a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed to evaluate an anatomical region, the anterior uterocervical angle (UCA), to determine whether it plays a role in unexplained infertility.

METHODS

In this prospective, cross-sectional study, unexplained infertile and healthy fertile (controls) women were compared. The longitudinal and transverse axes of the uterine cervix and uterine corpus were measured by transvaginal ultrasonography. The UCA was determined as the angle between two lines. One line was drawn between the internal and the external os, and the other was drawn through the internal cervical os and was parallel to the lower side of the front part of the uterine wall in the internal os. Demographic characteristics and uterocervical ultrasonographic measurements were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Eighty participants, aged from 20 to 35 years, were enrolled (unexplained infertile [n = 30] and healthy fertile women [n = 50)]. The mean lengths of the uterine corpus longitudinal axis, uterine corpus transverse axis, and uterine cervix longitudinal axis were similar between the groups. The mean UCA was significantly higher in healthy fertile women (131.9 ± 22.9 degrees) than in women with unexplained infertility (114.2 ± 17.3 degrees).

CONCLUSION

The present study shows that a narrow anterior UCA is associated with unexplained infertility.

Oral contraceptive pill, progestogen or oestrogen pretreatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques

BACKGROUND

Among subfertile women undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART), hormone pills given before ovarian stimulation may improve outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether pretreatment with the combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) or with a progestogen or oestrogen alone in ovarian stimulation protocols affects outcomes in subfertile couples undergoing ART.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from inception to January 2017: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Central Register Studies Online, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and registers of ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of hormonal pretreatment in women undergoing ART.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy and pregnancy loss.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 RCTs (4701 women) of pretreatment with COCPs, progestogens or oestrogens versus no pretreatment or alternative pretreatments, in gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist or antagonist cycles. Overall, evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were risk of bias and imprecision. Most studies did not describe their methods in adequate detail. Combined oral contraceptive pill versus no pretreatmentWith antagonist cycles in both groups the rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy was lower in the pretreatment group (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.95; 6 RCTs; 1335 women; I2 = 0%; moderate quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of pregnancy loss (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.26; 5 RCTs; 868 women; I2 = 0%; moderate quality evidence), multiple pregnancy (OR 2.21, 95% CI 0.53 to 9.26; 2 RCTs; 125 women; I2 = 0%; low quality evidence), ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS; OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.40; 2 RCTs; 642 women; I2 = 0%, low quality evidence), or ovarian cyst formation (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.75; 1 RCT; 64 women; very low quality evidence).In COCP plus antagonist cycles versus no pretreatment in agonist cycles, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.25; 4 RCTs; 724 women; I2 = 0%; moderate quality evidence), multiple pregnancy (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.19; 4 RCTs; 546 women; I2 = 0%; moderate quality evidence), or OHSS (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.96; 2 RCTs; 290 women, I2 = 0%), but there were fewer pregnancy losses in the pretreatment group (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.72; 5 RCTs; 780 women; I2 = 0%; moderate quality evidence). There were no data suitable for analysis on ovarian cyst formation.One small study comparing COCP versus no pretreatment in agonist cycles showed no clear difference between the groups for any of the reported outcomes. Progestogen versus no pretreatmentAll studies used the same protocol (antagonist, agonist or gonadotrophins) in both groups. There was insufficient evidence to determine any differences in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (agonist: OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.65; 2 RCTs; 222 women; I2 = 24%; low quality evidence; antagonist: OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.54; 1 RCT; 47 women; low quality evidence; gonadotrophins: OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.09 to 4.23; 1 RCT; 42 women; very low quality evidence), pregnancy loss (agonist: OR 2.26, 95% CI 0.67 to 7.55; 2 RCTs; 222 women; I2 = 0%; low quality evidence; antagonist: OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.09; 1 RCT; 47 women; low quality evidence; gonadotrophins: OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 17.12; 1 RCT; 42 women; very low quality evidence) or multiple pregnancy (agonist: no data available; antagonist: OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.06 to 17.76; 1 RCT; 47 women; low quality evidence; gonadotrophins: no data available). Three studies, all using agonist cycles, reported ovarian cyst formation: rates were lower in the pretreatment group (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.32; 374 women; I2 = 1%; moderate quality evidence). There were no data on OHSS. Oestrogen versus no pretreatmentIn antagonist or agonist cycles, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (antagonist versus antagonist: OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.17; 2 RCTs; 502 women; I2 = 0%; low quality evidence; antagonist versus agonist: OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.50; 2 RCTs; 242 women; I2 = 0%; very low quality evidence), pregnancy loss (antagonist versus antagonist: OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.47; 1 RCT; 49 women; very low quality evidence; antagonist versus agonist: OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.62 to 4.06; 1 RCT; 220 women; very low quality evidence), multiple pregnancy (antagonist versus antagonist: no data available; antagonist versus agonist: OR 2.24, 95% CI 0.09 to 53.59; 1 RCT; 22 women; very low quality evidence) or OHSS (antagonist versus antagonist: no data available; antagonist versus agonist: OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.25 to 9.42; 1 RCT; 220 women). Ovarian cyst formation was not reported. Head-to-head comparisonsCOCP was compared with progestogen (1 RCT, 44 women), and with oestrogen (2 RCTs, 146 women), and progestogen was compared with oestrogen (1 RCT, 48 women), with an antagonist cycle in both groups. COCP in an agonist cycle was compared with oestrogen in an antagonist cycle (1 RCT, 25 women). Data were scant but there was no clear evidence that any of the groups differed in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy, pregnancy loss or other adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Among women undergoing ovarian stimulation in antagonist protocols, COCP pretreatment was associated with a lower rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy than no pretreatment. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy were influenced by pretreatment with progestogens or oestrogens, or by COCP pretreatment using other stimulation protocols. Findings on adverse events were inconclusive, except that progesterone pretreatment may reduce the risk of ovarian cysts in agonist cycles, and COCP in antagonist cycles may reduce the risk of pregnancy loss compared with no pretreatment in agonist cycles.

Compartmentalized gene expression profiling of receptive endometrium reveals progesterone regulated ENPP3 is differentially expressed and secreted in glycosylated form

The complexity of endometrial receptivity at the molecular level needs to be explored in detail to improve the management of infertility. Here, differential expression of transcriptomes in receptive endometrial glands and stroma revealed Ectonucleotide Pyrophosphatase/Phosphodiesterase 3 (ENPP3) as a progesterone regulated factor and confirmed by various methods, both at mRNA and protein level. The involvement of ENPP3 in embryo attachment was tested in an in vitro model for human embryo implantation. Interestingly, there was high expression of ENPP3 mRNA in stroma but not protein. Presence of N-glycosylated ENPP3 in receptive phase uterine fluid in women confirms its regulation by progesterone and makes it possible to use in a non-invasive test of endometrial receptivity.

Assisted reproductive technologies: a systematic review of safety and effectiveness to inform disinvestment policy

OBJECTIVE

Health policy relating to assisted reproductive technologies (ART) has been variably informed by clinical evidence, social values, political and fiscal considerations. This systematic review examined key factors associated with specific benefits and harms of ART to inform the development of a model for generating policy recommendations within an Australian disinvestment research agenda.

METHODS

Six databases were searched from 1994 to 2009. Included articles contained data on safety and/or effectiveness of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or IVF with intracytoplasmic sperm injection with reference to female age, male age or cycle rank. Narrative descriptions of key outcomes (live birth, miscarriage) were constructed alongside tabular summaries.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight studies and one registry report were included. There was substantial heterogeneity present within the evidence-base which limited the strength and scope of conclusions that could be drawn. However, this review does affirm the differential effectiveness associated with the ageing of ART patients with regard to live birth and miscarriage.

CONCLUSION

From the available evidence, it was not possible to determine an explicit age or cycle rank that could be used to formulate defensible policy responsive to identified differential effectiveness. Stakeholder interpretation of this evidence-base may assist in developing policy that can incorporate uncertainty and reflect social values.

[Assisted reproductive technologies place]

There are three kinds of infertility treatment: medical treatment, surgical treatment and assisted reproductive technology (ART). ART includes intra uterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). ART technologies made a lot of progress last years and their field of applications extended. Through literature reviews, IUI is recommended for unexplained infertility and discussed for male or cervical infertility. IVF is recommended for tubal and unexplained infertility. Limits between IVF and ICSI in case of male infertility remains unclear. In non mal infertility ICSI is not recommended.

Soft versus firm catheters for intrauterine insemination

BACKGROUND

Intrauterine insemination (IUI) is a recommended treatment for unexplained subfertility. The treatment involves the direct delivery of spermatozoa into the uterus using a catheter. Many factors influence the success of IUI treatments including the type of catheter used.

OBJECTIVES

To compare pregnancy-related outcomes from women undergoing intrauterine insemination cycles performed with either soft or firm catheters in subfertile women.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following databases (inception to July 2010) with no language restrictions: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS and OpenSigle. We also searched the conference abstracts in the ISI Web of Knowledge and Google, and conference abstracts and citation lists of relevant publications, reviews and included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only truly randomised controlled studies of women who underwent IUI using either soft or firm catheter types and reporting data on rates of live birth, clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, ease of introduction of the catheter, occurrence of trauma, or woman's discomfort.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened the titles and abstracts of 78 potentially eligible studies and excluded 66 of these. We critically appraised the full texts of twelve studies and excluded three studies. Nine publications of six studies were remaining. We extracted data from the six remaining studies and there were no disagreements. We assessed risk of bias and pooled dichotomous data and presented the Peto odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

There was no evidence of a significant effect difference regarding the choice of catheter type for any of the outcomes. Three studies reported live birth rates (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.35) with a translated OR percentages (1.3, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.1) while six studies reported clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.35 ). Two studies were pooled for the analysis of miscarriages (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.22). Results of other adverse outcomes were reported per cycle and were therefore not pooled.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the evidence available in this review, no specific conclusion can be made regarding the superiority of one catheter class over another. Further adequately powered studies reporting on clinical outcomes (e.g. live birth rate) are required. Additional outcomes such as miscarriage rates and measures of discomfort need to be reported.

Perinatal risk in singleton pregnancies after in vitro fertilization

OBJECTIVE

To assess perinatal risks to singleton births after in vitro fertilization (IVF) versus spontaneous conception.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

SETTING

A 2006 registry database of the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (JSOG) capturing 5.8% of total births.

PATIENT(S)

53,939 singleton births from spontaneous conceptions and 1,408 singletons after IVF.

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Perinatal death, low-birth weight (LBW), small for gestational age (SGA), congenital malformation, and sex ratio assessment based on singleton birth cases versus singleton live-born cases.

RESULT(S)

In this study, IVF may include intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), gamete intrafallopian transfer, or IVF followed by zygote intrafallopian transfer. In crude and adjusted analysis, perinatal death, SGA, congenital malformation, and sex ratio were not statistically significantly associated with IVF. The LBW rates were statistically significantly higher in IVF pregnancies, but the association statistically significantly decreased after adjusting for confounding factors. Placental previa, a maternal outcome, was found to be statistically significantly higher in IVF pregnancies.

CONCLUSION(S)

No evidence was implicated IVF procedures as dramatically increasing the adjusted risk of perinatal death, LBW, SGA, congenital malformation, or sex ratio when compared with spontaneous conceptions. However, because of sample size limitations, the study cannot exclude small to moderate increases in perinatal deaths or congenital malformations.

Oral contraceptive pill, progestogen or estrogen pre-treatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques

BACKGROUND

For many subfertile women, assisted reproductive techniques (ART) is the only hope for a pregnancy and live birth. The combined oral contraceptive pill (OCP) given prior to the hormone therapy in an IVF cycle may result in better pregnancy outcomes of ART.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether pre-treatment with combined OCPs, progestogens or estrogens in ovarian stimulation protocols affects outcomes in subfertile couples undergoing ART.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO. Other electronic resources on the Internet, reference list of relevant articles were also searched as well as the ESHRE abstracts (2008). All these searches were conducted in November 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of pre-treatment with combined OCP, progestogen or estrogen in subfertile women undergoing IVF/ICSI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated Peto odds ratios for dichotomous data and weighted mean difference for continuous variables. Authors of trials were contacted in case of missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

No evidence of effect was found with regard to the number of live births when using a pre-treatment. However, the combined OCP in GnRH antagonist cycles, compared to no pre-treatment, is associated with fewer clinical pregnancies (Peto OR 0.69, P = 0.03) and more days and a higher amount of gonadotrophin therapy (respectively: MD 1.44, P < 0.00001; and MD 691.69, P < 0.00001). Also compared to placebo or no pre-treatment, a progestogen pre-treatment in GnRH agonist cycles, is associated with more clinical pregnancies (Peto OR 1.95, P = 0.007) and fewer ovarian cysts (Peto OR 0.21, P < 0.00001). At last, in estrogen pre-treated GnRH antagonist cycles, compared to no pre-treatment, more oocytes are retrieved (MD 2.01, P < 0.00001), but a higher amount of gonadotrophin therapy is needed (MD 207.08, P < 0.00001). For the other outcomes no evidence of effect was found or there were not enough studies available in the subgroup for pooling.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was evidence of improved pregnancy outcomes with progestogen pre-treatment and poorer pregnancy outcomes with a combined OCP pre-treatment. However, we conclude that major changes in ART protocols should not be made at this time, since the number of overall studies in the subgroups is small and reporting of the major outcomes is inadequate.

Approaches to improve the diagnosis and management of infertility

BACKGROUND Recent advances in our understanding of the causes of infertility and of assisted reproductive technology (ART) have led to the development of complex diagnostic tools, prognostic models and treatment options. The Third Evian Annual Reproduction (EVAR) Workshop Meeting was held on 26-27 April 2008 to evaluate evidence supporting current approaches to the diagnosis and management of infertility and to identify areas for future research efforts. METHODS Specialist reproductive medicine clinicians and scientists delivered presentations based on published literature and ongoing research on patient work-up, ovarian stimulation and embryo quality assessment during ART. This report is based on the expert presentations and subsequent group discussions and was supplemented with publications from literature searches and the authors' knowledge. RESULTS It was agreed that single embryo transfer (SET) should be used with increasing frequency in cycles of ART. Continued improvements in cryopreservation techniques, which improve pregnancy rates using supernumerary frozen embryos, are expected to augment the global uptake of SET. Adaptation and personalization of fertility therapy may help to optimize efficacy and safety outcomes for individual patients. Prognostic modelling and personalized management strategies based on individual patient characteristics may prove to represent real progress towards improved treatment. However, at present, there is limited good-quality evidence to support the use of these individualized approaches. CONCLUSIONS Greater quality control and standardization of clinical and laboratory evaluations are required to optimize ART practices and improve individual patient outcomes. Well-designed, good-quality studies are required to drive improvements to the diagnosis and management of ART processes.

Cumulative pregnancy probabilities among couples with subfertility: effects of varying treatments

OBJECTIVE

To model the cumulative probability of pregnancy among couples with subfertility without a definitive diagnosis, according to different treatment strategies.

DESIGN

A beta distribution of fecundity was fitted that reproduced the cumulative probability of pregnancy in prospective studies of natural fertility, and this distribution was applied to simulated cohorts starting with one million couples each. Probabilities of pregnancy were generated for each cycle of each couple.

SETTING

Simulation study.

PATIENT(S)

Hypothetic subfertile population.

INTERVENTION(S)

After 2 or 4 years of attempting pregnancy and diagnostic evaluation to exclude anovulation, tubal obstruction, and severe male factor, simulated treatments were applied to the remaining nonpregnant couples, with treatment effects based on published literature.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Simulated cumulative probability of pregnancy.

RESULT(S)

Initially, the cumulative probability of pregnancy was highest for early treatment with IVF, but over time, conservative treatment or frequent intercourse approached the same cumulative probability.

CONCLUSION(S)

In couples without clear indications for IVF, the main benefit of early IVF may be to shorten time to pregnancy, a benefit that must be weighed against costs and potential adverse outcomes. Couples should be encouraged to maintain regular intercourse to maximize chances of pregnancy, even after unsuccessful treatment attempts.

Tubal flushing for subfertility

BACKGROUND

A possible therapeutic effect of diagnostic tubal patency testing has been debated in the literature for half a century. Further debate surrounds whether oil-soluble or water-soluble contrast media might have the bigger fertility-enhancing effect.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of flushing a woman's fallopian tubes with oil- or water-soluble contrast media on subsequent fertility outcomes in couples with infertility.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's specialised register of trials (searched 31 January 2007), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biological Abstract and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials comparing tubal flushing with oil-soluble contrast media or tubal flushing with water-soluble media or with no treatment in women with subfertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected adverse effects information from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve trials involving 2079 participants were included. Tubal flushing with oil-soluble media versus no intervention was associated with a significant increase in the odds of live birth (Peto OR 2.98, 95% CI 1.40 to 6.37) and of pregnancy (Peto OR 3.30, 95% CI 2.00 to 5.43). For the comparison of tubal flushing with oil-soluble media versus tubal flushing with water-soluble media, the increase in the odds of live birth for tubal flushing with oil-soluble versus water-soluble media (Peto OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.11) was based on two trials where statistical heterogeneity was present and the higher quality trial showed no significant difference; there was no evidence of a significant difference in the odds of pregnancy (Peto OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.54). The addition of oil-soluble media to flushing with water-soluble media showed no evidence of a significant difference in the odds of pregnancy (Peto OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.79) or live birth (Peto OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.77). There were no serious adverse event reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence of effectiveness of tubal flushing with oil-soluble contrast media in increasing the odds of pregnancy and live birth versus no intervention. Future robust randomised trials, comparing oil-soluble versus water-soluble media, water-soluble media versus no intervention and tubal flushing versus established treatments for infertility would be a useful further guide to clinical practice.

Rational diagnosis and treatment in infertility

Subfertility is a statistical concept. When a pregnancy has not been achieved within a year of unprotected intercourse, the odds are that an underlying pathological mechanism is at play. Advanced female age, longer duration and primary infertility, are important prognostic factors, suggestive of low fecundity and indicating a need for further diagnosis and treatment. Many diagnostic tests only have screening value and the only gold standards are hysteroscopy and laparoscopy. Severely impaired semen quality should lead to andrological work-up. Postcoital test and endometrial biopsy are obsolete. Treatment should preferably be aetiological, such as in anovulation, and sometimes also in endometriosis and tubal infertility. Primary treatment of male infertility is not proven to be advantageous. Conception-enhancing techniques such as intrauterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), have shown to be effective. As a rule, and where possible, IUI is preferred and only if four to six cycles have failed should IVF be offered.