The use of clearplan home ovulation detection kits in unexplained and male factor infertility

Timed intercourse for couples trying to conceive

BACKGROUND

Many factors influence fertility, one being the timing of intercourse. The 'fertile window' describes a stage in the cycle when conception can occur and is approximately five days before to several hours after ovulation. 'Timed intercourse' is the practice of prospectively identifying ovulation and, thus, the fertile window to increase the likelihood of conception. Methods of predicting ovulation include urinary hormone measurement (luteinising hormone (LH) and oestrogen), fertility awareness-based methods (FABM) (including tracking basal body temperatures, cervical mucus monitoring, calendar charting/tracking apps), and ultrasonography. However, there are potentially negative aspects associated with ovulation prediction, including stress, time consumption, and cost implications of purchasing ovulation kits and app subscriptions. This review considered the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of timed intercourse (using ovulation prediction) on pregnancy outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in January 2023. We also checked the reference lists of relevant studies and searched trial registries for any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared methods of timed intercourse using ovulation prediction to other forms of ovulation prediction or intercourse without ovulation prediction in couples trying to conceive.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane to select and analyse studies in this review. The primary review outcomes were live birth and adverse events (such as depression and stress). Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, pregnancy (clinical or positive urinary pregnancy test not yet confirmed by ultrasound), time to pregnancy, and quality of life. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

This review update included seven RCTs involving 2464 women or couples. Four of the five studies from the previous review were included in this update, and three new studies were added. We assessed the quality of the evidence as moderate to very low, the main limitations being imprecision, indirectness, and risk of bias. Urinary ovulation tests versus intercourse without ovulation prediction Compared to intercourse without ovulation prediction, urinary ovulation detection probably increases the chance of live birth in couples trying to conceive (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.81, 1 RCT, n = 844, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of a live birth without urine ovulation prediction is 16%, the chance of a live birth with urine ovulation prediction is 16% to 28%. However, we are uncertain whether timed intercourse using urinary ovulation detection resulted in a difference in stress (mean difference (MD) 1.98, 95% CI -0.87 to 4.83, I² = 0%, P = 0.17, 1 RCT, n = 77, very low-quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.31, I² = 0%, 1 RCT, n = 148, low-quality evidence). Similar to the live birth result, timed intercourse using urinary ovulation detection probably increases the chances of clinical pregnancy or positive urine pregnancy test (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.50, I² = 0, 4 RCTs, n = 2202, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of a clinical pregnancy or positive urine pregnancy test without ovulation prediction is assumed to be 18%, the chance following timed intercourse with urinary ovulation detection would be 20% to 28%. Evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of urine ovulation tests on time to pregnancy or quality of life. Fertility awareness-based methods (FABM) versus intercourse without ovulation prediction Due to insufficient evidence, we are uncertain whether timed intercourse using FABM resulted in a difference in live birth rate compared to intercourse without ovulation prediction (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.20, I² = 0%, 2 RCTs, n = 157, low-quality evidence). We are also uncertain whether FABM affects stress (MD -1.10, 95% CI -3.88 to 1.68, 1 RCT, n = 183, very low-quality evidence). Similarly, we are uncertain of the effect of timed intercourse using FABM on anxiety (MD 0.5, 95% CI -0.52 to 1.52, P = 0.33, 1 RCT, n = 183, very low-quality evidence); depression (MD 0.4, 95% CI -0.28 to 1.08, P = 0.25, 1 RCT, n = 183, very low-quality evidence); or erectile dysfunction (MD 1.2, 95% CI -0.38 to 2.78, P = 0.14, 1 RCT, n = 183, very low-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to detect a benefit of timed intercourse using FABM on clinical pregnancy (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.31 to 4.07, 1 RCT, n = 17, very low-quality evidence) or clinical or positive pregnancy test rates (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.30, 3 RCTs, n = 262, very low-quality evidence). Finally, we are uncertain whether timed intercourse using FABM affects the time to pregnancy (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.38, 1 RCT, n = 140, low-quality evidence) or quality of life. No studies assessed the use of timed intercourse with pelvic ultrasonography.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The new evidence presented in this review update shows that timed intercourse using urine ovulation tests probably improves live birth and pregnancy rates (clinical or positive urine pregnancy tests but not yet confirmed by ultrasound) in women under 40, trying to conceive for less than 12 months, compared to intercourse without ovulation prediction. However, there are insufficient data to determine the effects of urine ovulation tests on adverse events, clinical pregnancy, time to pregnancy, and quality of life. Similarly, due to limited data, we are uncertain of the effect of FABM on pregnancy outcomes, adverse effects, and quality of life. Further research is therefore required to fully understand the safety and effectiveness of timed intercourse for couples trying to conceive. This research should include studies reporting clinically relevant outcomes such as live birth and adverse effects in fertile and infertile couples and utilise various methods to determine ovulation. Only with a comprehensive understanding of the risks and benefits of timed intercourse can recommendations be made for all couples trying to conceive.

The negative impact of timed intercourse in infertile couples: A prospective cohort study

Objective:

To study the differences in sexual dysfunction and time to pregnancy (TTP) between infertile couples pursuing timed intercourse (TI – around the time of ovulation) and regular intercourse (RI – at least twice a week).

Methods:

In this prospective cohort study, we recruited all infertile couples presenting to the regional infertility clinics from January 2016 to December 2018, pursuing TI ( n = 283) or RI ( n = 88), and having no pre-existing sexual or psychiatric illness, and no medical contraindications to frequent intercourse. Sexual dysfunction was assessed using the Arizona Sexual Experience Scale and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. The couples for whom natural conception was possible were followed up to determine TTP using Kaplan–Meier analysis.

Results:

TI significantly increased the risk of sexual dysfunction than RI for both males and females, even after adjusting for age, medical disorders, obesity, smoking, cause of infertility, and previous assisted reproductive techniques. TI increased the risk of erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation, male hypoactive sexual dysfunction, female sexual interest-arousal disorder, and female orgasmic disorder. The TTP for natural conception was similar between them.

Conclusion:

TI increased the risk of sexual dysfunction without accelerating the time to achieve pregnancy, compared with RI.

Level of evidence:

Not applicable

Should home-based ovulation predictor kits be offered as an additional approach for fertility management for women and couples desiring pregnancy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

To inform the WHO Guideline on self-care interventions, we conducted a systematic review of the impact of ovulation predictor kits (OPKs) on time-to-pregnancy, pregnancy, live birth, stress/anxiety, social harms/adverse events and values/preferences.

Methods

Included studies had to compare women desiring pregnancy who managed their fertility with and without OPKs, measure an outcome of interest and be published in a peer-reviewed journal. We searched for studies on PubMed, CINAHL, LILACS and EMBASE through November 2018. We assessed risk of bias assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the Evidence Project tool for observational studies, and conducted meta-analysis using random effects models to generate pooled estimates of relative risk (RR).

Results

Four studies (three RCTs and one observational study) including 1487 participants, all in high-income countries, were included. Quality of evidence was low. Two RCTs found no difference in time-to-pregnancy. All studies reported pregnancy rate, with mixed results: one RCT from the 1990s among couples with unexplained or male-factor infertility found no difference in clinical pregnancy rate (RR: 1.09, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.32); two more recent RCTs found higher self-reported pregnancy rates among OPK users (pooled RR: 1.40, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.80). A small observational study found higher rates of pregnancy with lab testing versus OPKs among women using donor insemination services. One RCT found no increase in stress/anxiety after two menstrual cycles using OPKs, besides a decline in positive affect. No studies measured live birth or social harms/adverse events. Six studies presented end-users’ values/preferences, with almost all women reporting feeling satisfied, comfortable and confident using OPKs.

Conclusion

A small evidence base, from high-income countries and with high risk of bias, suggests that home-based use of OPKs may improve fertility management when attempting to become pregnant with no meaningful increase in stress/anxiety and with high user acceptability.

Systematic review registration number

PROSPERO registration number CRD42019119402.

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.

Optimizing natural fertility

This Committee Opinion provides practitioners with suggestions for optimizing the likelihood of achieving pregnancy in couples attempting conception who have no evidence of infertility.