IUI for unexplained infertility-a network meta-analysis

[First-line management of infertile couple. Guidelines for clinical practice of the French College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2022]

OBJECTIVE

To update the 2010 CNGOF clinical practice guidelines for the first-line management of infertile couples.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five major themes (first-line assessment of the infertile woman, first-line assessment of the infertile man, prevention of exposure to environmental factors, initial management using ovulation induction regimens, first-line reproductive surgery) were identified, enabling 28 questions to be formulated using the Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) format. Each question was addressed by a working group that had carried out a systematic review of the literature since 2010, and followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE®) methodology to assess the quality of the scientific data on which the recommendations were based. These recommendations were then validated during a national review by 40 national experts.

RESULTS

The fertility work-up is recommended to be prescribed according to the woman's age: after one year of infertility before the age of 35 and after 6months after the age of 35. A couple's initial infertility work-up includes a single 3D ultrasound scan with antral follicle count, assessment of tubal permeability by hysterography or HyFOSy, anti-Mullerian hormone assay prior to assisted reproduction, and vaginal swabbing for vaginosis. If the 3D ultrasound is normal, hysterosonography and diagnostic hysteroscopy are not recommended as first-line procedures. Chlamydia trachomatis serology does not have the necessary performance to predict tubal patency. Post-coital testing is no longer recommended. In men, spermogram, spermocytogram and spermoculture are recommended as first-line tests. If the spermogram is normal, it is not recommended to check the spermogram. If the spermogram is abnormal, an examination by an andrologist, an ultrasound scan of the testicles and hormonal test are recommended. Based on the data in the literature, we are unable to recommend a BMI threshold for women that would contraindicate medical management of infertility. A well-balanced Mediterranean-style diet, physical activity and the cessation of smoking and cannabis are recommended for infertile couples. For fertility concern, it is recommended to limit alcohol consumption to less than 5 glasses a week. If the infertility work-up reveals no abnormalities, ovulation induction is not recommended for normo-ovulatory women. If intrauterine insemination is indicated based on an abnormal infertility work-up, gonadotropin stimulation and ovulation monitoring are recommended to avoid multiple pregnancies. If the infertility work-up reveals no abnormality, laparoscopy is probably recommended before the age of 30 to increase natural pregnancy rates. In the case of hydrosalpinx, surgical management is recommended prior to ART, with either salpingotomy or salpingectomy depending on the tubal score. It is recommended to operate on polyps>10mm, myomas 0, 1, 2 and synechiae prior to ART. The data in the literature do not allow us to systematically recommend asymptomatic uterine septa and isthmoceles as first-line surgery.

CONCLUSION

Based on strong agreement between experts, we have been able to formulate updated recommendations in 28 areas concerning the initial management of infertile couples.

Uterine infusion strategies for infertile patients with recurrent implantation failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intra-uterine infusion treatments were reported to be beneficial to embryo implantation and pregnancy outcomes, and considered as potential therapies for infertile patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF). Nevertheless, their efficiencies were controversial and there lack of consensus on which intrauterine treatment is the most effective.

METHODS

All prospective trials (in Chinese or English) were searched in Databases PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and CNKI from July 2013 to July 2023. We included studies that investigated various uterine infusions, including chorionic gonadotropin, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, monocytes, platelet-rich plasma, etc. during IVF treatment and reported subsequent pregnancy outcomes.

RESULTS

We finally included 56 researches, including 40 randomized controlled trials, 14 non-randomized controlled trials, and 3 prospective cohort studies. This study included a total of 11 uterine perfusion methods: Placebo, Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG), Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (G-CSF), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cell (PBMC), Growth hormone (GH), dexamethasone (DEX), Embryo culture supernatant (ESC), PRP combined with G-CSF (PRP + G-CSF), RPR combined with subcutaneous injection of G-CSF (RPR + G-CSFsc), G-CSF combined with subcutaneous injection of AXaIU (G-CSF + AXaIUsc). Intrauterine infusion of HCG, PBMC, G-CSF, and PRP significantly improves pregnancy outcomes in patients with repeated implantation failure compared with blank controls or placebo, and PRP improved the clinical pregnancy and live birth most. GH and ESC infusion might improve the pregnancy outcomes, but uterine infusion of DEX was shown with high miscarriage. The combination therapy did not show a significant advantage over the mono-therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Intrauterine infusion of HCG, PBMC, G-CSF, and PRP are promising strategies for improving pregnancy outcomes for infertile patients with recurrent implantation failure. Among these treatments, PRP may be the best. More researches are required to explore the effect of drug combinations and less commonly used drugs as well.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Our study was registered in PROSPERO and the ID was CRD42023467188.

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.

Intrauterine Insemination After Human Chorionic Gonadotropin Trigger or Luteinizing Hormone Surge: A Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the odds of pregnancy after intrauterine insemination (IUI) timed by ultrasound monitoring and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration compared with monitoring luteinizing hormone (LH) levels.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE (Elsevier), Scopus (Elsevier), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), ClinicalTrials.gov (National Institutes of Health), and the Cochrane Library (Wiley) from the inception until October 1, 2022. No language limitations were applied.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

After deduplication, 3,607 unique citations were subjected to blinded independent review by three investigators. Thirteen studies (five retrospective cohort, four cross-sectional, two randomized controlled trials, and two randomized crossover studies) that enrolled women undergoing natural cycle, oral medication (clomid or letrozole), or both for IUI were included in the final random-effects model meta-analysis. Methodologic quality of included studies was assessed with the Downs and Black checklist.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Data extraction was compiled by two authors, including publication information, hCG and LH monitoring guidelines, and pregnancy outcomes. No significant difference in odds of pregnancy between hCG administration and endogenous LH monitoring was observed (odds ratio [OR] 0.92, 95% CI 0.69-1.22, P=.53). Subgroup analysis of the five studies that included natural cycle IUI outcomes also showed no significant difference in odds of pregnancy between the two methods (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.46-1.69, P=.61). Finally, a subgroup analysis of 10 studies that included women who underwent ovarian stimulation with oral medications (clomid or letrozole) did not demonstrate a difference in odds of pregnancy between ultrasonography with hCG trigger and LH-timed IUI (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66-1.16, P=.32). Statistically significant heterogeneity was noted between studies.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed no difference between pregnancy outcomes between at-home LH monitoring and timed IUI.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42021230520.

Pregnancy outcomes of intrauterine insemination without ovarian stimulation in couples affected by unilateral tubal occlusion and male infertility

BACKGROUND

Information available to date regarding the pregnancy outcomes of intrauterine insemination (IUI) without ovarian stimulation (OS) in infertile patients with unilateral tubal occlusion remains scarce. The objectives of this study were to investigate for couples affected by unilateral tubal occlusion (diagnosed via hysterosalpingography (HSG)/transvaginal real-time three-dimensional hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (TVS RT-3D-HyCoSy)) and male infertility: (1) whether significant differences exist in pregnancy outcomes between IUI with or without OS cycles, and (2) whether the pregnancy outcomes of IUI without OS in women with unilateral tubal occlusion were similar to those of women with bilateral patent tubes.

METHODS

258 couples affected by male infertility completed 399 IUI cycles. The cycles were divided into three groups: group A, IUI without OS in women with unilateral tubal occlusion; group B, IUI with OS in women with unilateral tubal occlusion; and group C, IUI without OS in women with bilateral patent tubes. The main outcome measures, including clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), live birth rate (LBR), and first trimester miscarriage rate, were compared between either groups A and B or groups A and C.

RESULTS

Although the number of dominant follicles > 16 mm were significantly higher in group B than that in group A (group B vs. group A: 1.6 ± 0.6 vs. 1.0 ± 0.2, P < 0.001), the CPR, LBR, and first trimester miscarriage rate were comparable between these two groups. When comparing group C to group A, the duration of infertility was significantly longer in group C than that in group A (group A vs. group C: 2.3 ± 1.2 (year) vs. 2.9 ± 2.1 (year), P = 0.017). Except for the first trimester miscarriage rate, which was significantly higher in group A (42.9%, 3/7) than that in group C (7.1%, 2/28) (P = 0.044), no significant differences were observed in the CPR and LBR in these two groups. After adjusting for female age, body mass index, and the duration of infertility, similar results were obtained between groups A and C.

CONCLUSIONS

In couples affected by unilateral tubal occlusion (diagnosed via HSG/TVS RT-3D-HyCoSy) and male infertility, IUI without OS might be an alternative treatment strategy. However, when compared to patients with bilateral patent tubes, the patients with unilateral tubal occlusion showed a higher first trimester miscarriage rate following IUI without OS cycles. Further studies are warranted to clarify this relationship.

Factors associated with spontaneous miscarriage risk in IUI treatment: A retrospectively cohort of 31,933 cycles

To determine the factors associated with intrauterine insemination (IUI) miscarriages and reduce the IUI miscarriage rate, a retrospective study was performed by reviewing 31,933 IUI cycles from 2006 to 2018. The overall there were 14.50% clinical pregnancies, and 16.74% miscarriages. Logistic regression revealed the following three predictive variables: females aged ≥ 35 years (odds ratio [OR] = 2.131; p < 0.001), spontaneous miscarriage history (OR = 1.513; p = 0.005), and ovarian stimulation schemes such as clomiphene citrate (CC) (OR = 1.459; p = 0.003). The natural cycle led to a lower miscarriage rate for patients without spontaneous miscarriage history both for those over 35 years old (OR = 0.402; p = 0.034) and for those under 35 years old (OR = 0.806; p = 0.017). Gonadotropin (Gn) showed the lowest miscarriage rate for patients without abortion history, though no significant differences were found. Patients under 35 with a history of miscarriage were protected from miscarriage by using CC and Gn together (OR = 0.516; p = 0.032). No significant differences were found between various ovarian protocols when patients with abortion history were aged ≥ 35 years (p = 0.606). CC + Gn showed the lowest miscarriage rate. In conclusion, the natural cycle could be suggested for infertility couples to minimize abortion risk. When ovarian induction is required, CC + Gn had the lowest miscarriage rate for women with a history of spontaneous miscarriage while Gn is more successful for individuals without such a history.

GRADE Use in Evidence Syntheses Published in High-Impact-Factor Gynecology and Obstetrics Journals: A Methodological Survey

Objective: To identify and describe the certainty of evidence of gynecology and obstetrics systematic reviews (SRs) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Method: Database searches of SRs using GRADE, published between 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2020, in the 10 "gynecology and obstetrics" journals with the highest impact factor, according to the Journal Citation Report 2019. Selected studies included those SRs using the GRADE approach, used to determine the certainty of evidence. Results: Out of 952 SRs, ninety-six SRs of randomized control trials (RCTs) and/or nonrandomized studies (NRSs) used GRADE. Sixty-seven SRs (7.04%) rated the certainty of evidence for specific outcomes. In total, we identified 946 certainty of evidence outcome ratings (n = 614 RCT ratings), ranging from very-low (42.28%) to low (28.44%), moderate (17.65%), and high (11.63%). High and very low certainty of evidence ratings accounted for 2.16% and 71.60% in the SRs of NRSs, respectively, compared with 16.78% and 26.55% in the SRs of RCTs. In the SRs of RCTs and NRSs, certainty of evidence was mainly downgraded due to imprecision and bias risks. Conclusions: More attention needs to be paid to strengthening GRADE acceptance and building knowledge of GRADE methods in gynecology and obstetrics evidence synthesis.

Multiple gestation associated with infertility therapy: a committee opinion

This Committee Opinion provides practitioners with suggestions to reduce the likelihood of iatrogenic multiple gestation resulting from infertility treatment. This document replaces the document of the same name previously published in 2012 (Fertil Steril 2012;97:825-34 by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine).

Retrospective analysis: The application of human menopausal gonadotropin combined with letrozole for IUI in patients undergoing artificial insemination by husband due to unexplained or mild male factors

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of human menopausal gonadotropin (HMG) combined with letrozole (LE) to HMG only for ovarian stimulation on pregnancy outcome of infertile patients undergoing artificial insemination by husband (AIH) due to unexplained or mild male factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Infertile patients with unexplained or mild male factors treated from July 2015 to December 2021 were selected as subjects. The patients were divided into two groups according to the ovarian stimulation schemes they received, namely HMG combined with LE or HMG only. We analyzed the laboratory examination results before drug treatment (baseline) and during ovarian stimulation and compared the pregnancy outcomes of the two groups using univariable analysis and multivariable logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 526 cycles of 372 couples were included. The univariate analysis showed that the clinical pregnancy rate of the HMG combined with LE group was 24.8%, significantly higher than that of the HMG group (14.8%, P = 0.007). The live birth rate (19.9%) of the HMG combined with LE group were also significantly higher than those of the HMG group (11.2%, respectively). In multivariate logistic analysis, the age of males was negatively associated with the clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.874, 95% CI 0.793~0.963, P=0.006) and live birth (OR0.875, 95% CI 0.783~0.977, P=0.018). Moreover, ovarian stimulation with HMG+LE was the only beneficial factor significantly associated with clinical pregnancy (OR 1.929, 95% CI 1.068~3.485, P=0.029) and live birth (OR 2.255, 95% CI 1.188~4.282, P=0.013).

CONCLUSION

Ovarian stimulation using HMG combined with LE can increase the clinical outcomes (live birth and clinical pregnancy) among infertile patients undergoing AIH due to explained or mild male factors.

The İmpact of gonadotropin type on controlled ovarian stimulation and İntrauterine İnsemination cycle outcomes

Background:

Intrauterine insemination (IUI) combined with controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) results in higher pregnancy rates. However, there is still no consensus on the optimal COS protocol.

Aims:

In the present study, we aimed to analyse the effects of COS protocols with different gonadotropin types on IUI outcomes.

Study Setting and Design:

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at the infertility clinic of a University hospital, including 237 COS + IUI cycles.

Materials and Methods:

Eligible cycles were divided into three groups according to the type of gonadotropin used for COS; cycles with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) (group 1, n = 36), highly purified FSH (HP-FSH) (group 2, n = 178) and highly purified menotropin (HP-hMG) (group 3, n = 23). Clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and live birth rate (LBR) per cycle were compared between groups.

Statistical Analysis Used:

The Mann–Whitney U test and Kruskal–Wallis test were used to compare numerical variables. Dunn test was used for multiple comparisons.

Results:

The duration of stimulation and total gonadotropin dose were similar between the three groups (P > 0.05). The CPR was 16.7% in rFSH group, 9.6% in HP-FSH group and 13.0% in HP-hMG group. The LBR was 16.7% in rFSH group, 8.4% in HP-FSH group and 13.0% in HP-hMG group. Both CPR and LBR were comparable in all three groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusions:

Ovarian stimulation with rFSH, HP-FSH and HP-hMG show similar COS characteristics. Furthermore, these three gonadotropin protocols for COS + IUI yielded comparable CPR and LBR. These findings suggest that all three gonadotropin types (rFSH, HP-FSH, HP-hMG) are similarly effective in COS + IUI cycles.

OUP accepted manuscript

BACKGROUND

Intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) is a first-line treatment for unexplained infertility. Gonadotrophins, letrozole and clomiphene citrate (CC) are commonly used agents during IUI-OS and have been compared in multiple aggregate data meta-analyses, with substantial heterogeneity and no analysis on time-to-event outcomes. Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) is considered the gold standard for evidence synthesis as it can offset inadequate reporting of individual studies by obtaining the IPD, and allows analyses on treatment–covariate interactions to identify couples who benefit most from a particular treatment.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

We performed this IPD-MA to compare the effectiveness and safety of ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophins, letrozole and CC and to explore treatment–covariate interactions for important baseline characteristics in couples undergoing IUI.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from their inception to 28 June 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IUI-OS with gonadotrophins, letrozole and CC among couples with unexplained infertility. We contacted the authors of eligible RCTs to share the IPD and established the IUI IPD-MA Collaboration. The primary effectiveness outcome was live birth and the primary safety outcome was multiple pregnancy. Secondary outcomes were other reproductive outcomes, including time to conception leading to live birth. We performed a one-stage random effects IPD-MA.

OUTCOMES

Seven of 22 (31.8%) eligible RCTs provided IPD of 2495 couples (62.4% of the 3997 couples participating in 22 RCTs), of which 2411 had unexplained infertility and were included in this IPD-MA. Six RCTs (n = 1511) compared gonadotrophins with CC, and one (n = 900) compared gonadotrophins, letrozole and CC. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that gonadotrophins increased the live birth rate compared to CC (6 RCTs, 2058 women, RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.12–1.51, I² = 26%). Low-certainty evidence showed that gonadotrophins may also increase the multiple pregnancy rate compared to CC (6 RCTs, 2058 women, RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.33–3.54, I² = 69%). Heterogeneity on multiple pregnancy could be explained by differences in gonadotrophin starting dose and choice of cancellation criteria. Post-hoc sensitivity analysis on RCTs with a low starting dose of gonadotrophins (≤75 IU) confirmed increased live birth rates compared to CC (5 RCTs, 1457 women, RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05–1.51), but analysis on only RCTs with stricter cancellation criteria showed inconclusive evidence on live birth (4 RCTs, 1238 women, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.94–1.41). For multiple pregnancy, both sensitivity analyses showed inconclusive findings between gonadotrophins and CC (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.45–1.96; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.32–2.03, respectively). Moderate certainty evidence showed that gonadotrophins reduced the time to conception leading to a live birth when compared to CC (6 RCTs, 2058 women, HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15–1.63, I² = 22%). No strong evidence on the treatment–covariate (female age, BMI or primary versus secondary infertility) interactions was found.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

In couples with unexplained infertility undergoing IUI-OS, gonadotrophins increased the chance of a live birth and reduced the time to conception compared to CC, at the cost of a higher multiple pregnancy rate, when not differentiating strategies on cancellation criteria or the starting dose. The treatment effects did not seem to differ in women of different age, BMI or primary versus secondary infertility. In a modern practice where a lower starting dose and stricter cancellation criteria are in place, effectiveness and safety of different agents seem both acceptable, and therefore intervention availability, cost and patients’ preferences should factor in the clinical decision-making. As the evidence for comparisons to letrozole is based on one RCT providing IPD, further RCTs comparing letrozole and other interventions for unexplained infertility are needed.

The efficacy and safety of luteal phase support with progesterone following ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to update the current evidence for the efficacy and safety of progesterone luteal phase support (LPS) following ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination treatment (OS-IUI) for unexplained or mild male infertility. Four additional studies were identified compared to the previous review in 2017. Twelve RCTs (2631 patients, 3262 cycles) met full inclusion criteria. Results from quantitative synthesis suggest that progesterone LPS after OS-IUI leads to higher live birth (RR 1.38, 95%CI [1.09, 1.74]; 7 RCTs, n=1748) and clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.38, 95% CI [1.21, 1.59]; 11 RCTs, n=2163) than no LPS or placebo. This effect is specifically present in protocols using gonadotropins for OS-IUI (RR 1.41, 95%CI [1.17, 1.71]; 7 RCTs, n=1114), and unclear in protocols involving clomiphene citrate (RR 1.01, 95% CI [0.05, 18.94]; 2 RCTs, n=138). We found no effect of progesterone LPS on multiple pregnancy or miscarriage rates. No correlation between drug-dosage or duration of treatment and effect size was seen. Though our results suggest both benefit and safety of progesterone LPS in OS-IUI, evidence is of low to moderate quality and additional well-powered trials are still mandatory to confirm our findings and justify implementation in daily practice.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=292325, identifier CRD42021292325.

Agents for ovarian stimulation for intrauterine insemination (IUI) in ovulatory women with infertility

BACKGROUND

Intrauterine insemination (IUI), combined with ovarian stimulation (OS), has been demonstrated to be an effective treatment for infertile couples. Several agents for ovarian stimulation, combined with IUI, have been proposed, but it is still not clear which agents for stimulation are the most effective. This is an update of the review, first published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of agents for ovarian stimulation for intrauterine insemination in infertile ovulatory women.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and two trial registers from their inception to November 2020. We performed reference checking and contacted study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included truly randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different agents for ovarian stimulation combined with IUI for infertile ovulatory women concerning couples with unexplained infertility. mild male factor infertility and minimal to mild endometriosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

In this updated review, we have included a total of 82 studies, involving 12,614 women. Due to the multitude of comparisons between different agents for ovarian stimulation, we highlight the seven most often reported here. Gonadotropins versus anti-oestrogens (13 studies) For live birth, the results of five studies were pooled and showed a probable improvement in the cumulative live birth rate for gonadotropins compared to anti-oestrogens (odds ratio (OR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.79; I² = 30%; 5 studies, 1924 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following anti-oestrogens is assumed to be 22.8%, the chance following gonadotropins would be between 23.7% and 34.6%. The pooled effect of seven studies revealed that we are uncertain whether gonadotropins lead to a higher multiple pregnancy rate compared with anti-oestrogens (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.60 to 4.17; I² = 58%; 7 studies, 2139 participants; low-certainty evidence). Aromatase inhibitors versus anti-oestrogens (8 studies) One study reported live birth rates for this comparison. We are uncertain whether aromatase inhibitors improve live birth rate compared with anti-oestrogens (OR 0.75, CI 95% 0.51 to 1.11; 1 study, 599 participants; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following anti-oestrogens is 23.4%, the chance following aromatase inhibitors would be between 13.5% and 25.3%. The results of pooling four studies revealed that we are uncertain whether aromatase inhibitors compared with anti-oestrogens lead to a higher multiple pregnancy rate (OR 1.28, CI 95% 0.61 to 2.68; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 1000 participants; low-certainty evidence).  Gonadotropins with GnRH (gonadotropin-releasing hormone) agonist versus gonadotropins alone (4 studies) No data were available for live birth. The pooled effect of two studies  revealed that we are uncertain whether gonadotropins with GnRH agonist lead to a higher multiple pregnancy rate compared to gonadotropins alone (OR 2.53, 95% CI 0.82 to 7.86; I² = 0; 2 studies, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Gonadotropins with GnRH antagonist versus gonadotropins alone (14 studies) Three studies reported live birth rate per couple, and we are uncertain whether gonadotropins with GnRH antagonist improve live birth rate compared to gonadotropins (OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.52 to 4.39; I² = 81%; 3 studies, 419 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of a live birth following gonadotropins alone is 25.7%, the chance following gonadotropins combined with GnRH antagonist would be between 15.2% and 60.3%. We are also uncertain whether gonadotropins combined with GnRH antagonist lead to a higher multiple pregnancy rate compared with gonadotropins alone (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.28; I² = 0%; 10 studies, 2095 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Gonadotropins with anti-oestrogens versus gonadotropins alone (2 studies) Neither of the studies reported data for live birth rate. We are uncertain whether gonadotropins combined with anti-oestrogens lead to a higher multiple pregnancy rate compared with gonadotropins alone, based on one study (OR 3.03, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.1; 1 study, 230 participants; low-certainty evidence). Aromatase inhibitors versus gonadotropins (6 studies) Two studies  revealed that aromatase inhibitors may decrease live birth rate compared with gonadotropins (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.71; I²=0%; 2 studies, 651 participants; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of a live birth following gonadotropins alone is 31.9%,  the chance of live birth following aromatase inhibitors would be between 13.7% and 25%. We are uncertain whether aromatase inhibitors compared with gonadotropins lead to a higher multiple pregnancy rate (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.06 to 8.17; I²=77%; 3 studies, 731 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Aromatase inhibitors with gonadotropins versus anti-oestrogens with gonadotropins (8 studies) We are uncertain whether aromatase inhibitors combined with gonadotropins improve live birth rate compared with anti-oestrogens plus gonadotropins (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.3 8 to 2.54;  I² = 69%; 3 studies, 708 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of a live birth following anti-oestrogens plus gonadotropins is 13.8%, the chance following aromatase inhibitors plus gonadotropins would be between 5.7% and 28.9%. We are uncertain of the effect of aromatase inhibitors combined with gonadotropins compared to anti-oestrogens combined with gonadotropins on multiple pregnancy rate (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.39 to 4.37;  I² = 0%; 5 studies, 901 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available results, gonadotropins probably improve cumulative live birth rate compared with anti-oestrogens (moderate-certainty evidence). Gonadotropins may also improve cumulative live birth rate when compared with aromatase inhibitors (low-certainty evidence). From the available data, there is no convincing evidence that aromatase inhibitors lead to higher live birth rates compared to anti-oestrogens. None of the agents compared lead to significantly higher multiple pregnancy rates. Based on low-certainty evidence, there does not seem to be a role for different combined therapies, nor for adding GnRH agonists or GnRH antagonists in IUI programs.

Cost-effectiveness of ovarian stimulation agents for IUI in couples with unexplained subfertility

STUDY QUESTION

Which agent for ovarian stimulation (OS) is the most cost-effective option in terms of net benefit for couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI?

SUMMARY ANSWER

In settings where a live birth is valued at €3000 or less, between €3000 and €55 000 and above €55 000, clomiphene citrate (CC), Letrozole and gonadotrophins were the most cost-effective option in terms of net benefit, respectively.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

IUI-OS is a common first-line treatment for couples with unexplained subfertility and its increased uptake over the past decades and related personal or reimbursed costs are pressing concerns to patients and health service providers. However, there is no consensus on a protocol for conducting IUI-OS, with differences between countries, clinics and settings in the number of cycles, success rates, the agent for OS and the maximum number of dominant follicles in order to minimise the risk of a multiple pregnancy. In view of this uncertainty and the association with costs, guidance is needed on the cost-effectiveness of OS agents for IUI-OS.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We developed a decision-analytic model based on a decision tree that follows couples with unexplained subfertility from the start of IUI-OS to a protocoled maximum of six cycles, assuming couples receive four cycles on average within one year. We chose the societal perspective, which coincides with other perspectives such as that from health care providers, as the treatments are identical except for the stimulation agent. We based our model on parameters from a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials for IUI-OS. We compared the following three agents: CC (oral medication), Letrozole (oral medication) and gonadotrophins (subcutaneous injection).

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The main health outcomes were cumulative live birth and multiple pregnancy. As the procedures are identical except for the agent used, we only considered direct medical costs of the agent during four cycles. The main cost-effectiveness measures were the differences in costs divided by the differences in cumulative live birth (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ICER) and the probability of the highest net monetary benefit in which costs for an agent were deducted from the live births gained. The live birth rate for IUI using CC was taken from trials adhering to strict cancellation criteria included in a network meta-analysis and extrapolated to four cycles. We took the relative risks for the live birth rate after Letrozole and gonadotrophins versus CC from that same network meta-analysis to estimate the remaining absolute live birth rates. The uncertainty around live birth rates, relative effectiveness and costs was assessed by probabilistic sensitivity analysis in which we drew values from distributions and repeated this procedure 20 000 times. In addition, we changed model assumptions to assess their influence on our results.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The agent with the lowest cumulative live birth rate over 4 IUI-OS cycles conducted within one year was CC (29.4%), followed by Letrozole (32.0%) and gonadotrophins (34.5%). The average costs per four cycles were €362, €434 and €1809, respectively. The ICER of Letrozole versus CC was €2809 per additional live birth, whereas the ICER of gonadotrophins versus Letrozole was €53 831 per additional live birth. When we assume a live birth is valued at €3000 or less, CC had the highest probability of maximally 65% to achieve the highest net benefit. Between €3000 and €55 000, Letrozole had the highest probability of maximally 62% to achieve the highest net benefit. Assuming a monetary value of €55 000 or more, gonadotrophins had the highest probability of maximally 56% to achieve the highest net benefit.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Our model focused on population level and was thus based on average costs for the average number of four cycles conducted. We also based the model on a number of key assumptions. We changed model assumptions to assess the influence of these assumptions on our results.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The high uncertainty surrounding our results indicate that more research is necessary on the relative effectiveness of using CC, Letrozole or gonadotrophins for IUI-OS in terms of the cumulative live birth rate. We suggest that in the meantime, CC or Letrozole are the preferred choice of agent.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This work was supported by ZonMw Doelmatigheidsonderzoek, grant 80-85200-98-91072. The funder had no role in the design, conduct or reporting of this work. BWM is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet and travel and research support from ObsEva, Merck and Guerbet. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Predictors of pregnancy after intrauterine insemination in women with polycystic ovary syndrome

Objective

To evaluate the effects of body mass index (BMI) in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with intrauterine insemination (IUI).

Methods

This retrospective study evaluated couples with PCOS undergoing COS and IUI. The relationship between cumulative IUI pregnancy outcomes and BMI, treatment cycles, treatment schemes, number of dominant follicles, endometrial thickness, infertility duration and type of infertility was analysed.

Results

The study evaluated 831 IUI cycles in 451 couples with PCOS. Compared with normoweight women, overweight and obese women required more human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) doses and more days of COS. Gestational diabetes mellitus occurred more frequently in the obese group than in the other BMI groups. The clinical pregnancy and live birth rates in the hMG, clomiphene citrate (CC) + hMG and letrozole (LE) + hMG groups were significantly higher than those in the CC and LE groups. The clinical pregnancy rate was higher in the secondary infertility group compared with the primary infertility group.

Conclusion

Obese women might require more hMG doses and more days of COS to overcome the effects of weight. As BMI increases, the incidence of gestational diabetes might also increase. The number of cycles and type of infertility may have a predictive value for pregnancy outcomes.

Treatment Strategies for Unexplained Infertility

Unexplained infertility is a common diagnosis among couples with infertility. Pragmatic treatment options in these couples are directed at trying to improve chances to conceive, and consequently intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian stimulation and in vitro fertilization (IVF) are standard clinical practice, while expectant management remains an important alternative. While evidence on IVF or IUI with ovarian stimulation versus expectant management was inconclusive, these interventions seem more effective in couples with a poor prognosis of natural conception. Strategies such as strict cancellation criteria and single-embryo transfer aim to reduce multiple pregnancies without compromising cumulative live birth. We propose a prognosis-based approach to manage couples with unexplained infertility so as to expose less couples to unnecessary interventions and less mothers and children to the potential adverse effects of ovarian stimulation or laboratory procedures.

How and Why to Define Unexplained Infertility?

Unexplained infertility represents up to 30% of all cases of infertility. It is a diagnosis of exclusion, where no cause for infertility may be identified in the investigation of the couple, be it anovulation, fallopian tube blockage, or severe male factor. Unexplained infertility therefore cannot be considered a diagnosis to which a specific treatment is directed, rather that it indicates a failure to reach a diagnosis of the true cause of infertility. In this review, we explore the evidence base and potential limitations of the current routine infertility assessment. We also aim to highlight the importance of considering the prognosis of each individual couple through the process of assessment and propose a reconsidered approach to treatment, targeted to the prognosis rather than the diagnosis. Ultimately, a better understanding of the mechanisms of infertility will reduce the number of couples diagnosed with "unexplained" infertility.

Effect of ejaculatory abstinence period on sperm DNA fragmentation and pregnancy outcome of intrauterine insemination cycles: A prospective randomized study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of the ejaculatory abstinence period on sperm DNA fragmentation and pregnancy rates in IUI cycles.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty couples with unexplained infertility were prospectively randomized into two groups on the second day of their cycle. In group A, patients had 1-day ejaculatory abstinence period; in group B patients had 3-day ejaculatory abstinence period. Each patient was stimulated with gonadotropins, and IUI was performed. The primary outcome measure was clinical pregnancy and sperm DNA fragmentation rate.

RESULTS

The pregnancy rate was 17.3% and 18.5% in group A and group B, respectively. No significant difference was found among the groups (p = 0.803). The sperm DNA fragmentation rate for group A (20.71 ± 11.01) and group B (23.78 ± 12.64) were almost similar (p = 0.187). The sperm DNA fragmentation rate was 24.89 ± 12.89 in pregnant couples and 21.71 ± 11.69 in non-pregnant couples (p = 0.288).

CONCLUSION

Even after a short abstinence period of 1 day, compared to the standard abstinence period of 3 days, pregnancy rates are similar among unexplained infertility couples undergoing ovarian stimulation and IUI.

CLINICALTRIALS

The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with ID NCT04361292. Date of registration: 27 April 2020. The study was registered retrospectively.

Strategies to reduce multiple pregnancies during medically assisted reproduction

Multiple birth rates after fertility treatment are still high in many countries. Multiple births are associated with increased rates of preterm birth and low birth weight babies, in turn increasing the risk of severe morbidity for the children. The multiple birth rates vary in different countries between 2% and 3% and up to 30% in some settings. Elective single-embryo transfer, particularly in combination with frozen-embryo transfer and milder stimulation in ovulation induction/intrauterine insemination, to avoid multifollicular development is an effective strategy to decrease the multiple birth rates while still achieving acceptable live-birth rates. Although this procedure is used successfully in many countries, it ought to be implemented broadly to improve the health of the children. One at a time should be the normal routine.