Clomifene citrate or unstimulated intrauterine insemination compared with expectant management for unexplained infertility: pragmatic randomised controlled trial

Unexplained subfertility: active or conservative management?

OBJECTIVES

Unexplained subfertility (UEI) describes a couple whose standard subfertility workout consider acceptable but unable to conceived.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted in the Advanced Reproductive Centre, UKM Hospital, Kuala Lumpur, from January 2016 to December 2019. The data of 268 UEI couples were obtained from the clinical database. Women aged 21-45 years old was included and further divided into four groups according to the female partner's age and subfertility duration: group A (age <35 years and subfertility <2 years), group B (age <35 years and subfertility >2 years), group C (age >35 years and subfertility <2 years), and group D (age >35 years and subfertility <2 years). All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 22.0 for Windows.

RESULTS

A total of 255 cases were included in this study. The mean age of the women was 32.9 ± 4.04 years, and the mean subfertility duration was 5.04 ± 2.9 years. A total of 51 (20 %) cases underwent timed sexual intercourse, 147 (57.6 %) cases had intrauterine insemination (IUI), whereas 57 (22.4 %) cases opted for in vitro fertilization (IVF). A total of 204 cases underwent active management (IUI/IVF), which showed a significant difference (p<0.05). Out of eight clinical pregnancies, half of them were from group B.

CONCLUSIONS

Active management in younger women with a shorter subfertility duration revealed a better pregnancy outcome. Otherwise, individualized treatment should be considered in selecting a suitable treatment plan.

The definition of unexplained infertility: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on tests required to either diagnose unexplained infertility or use for research inclusion criteria. This leads to heterogeneity and bias affecting meta-analysis and best practice advice.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review analyses the variability of inclusion criteria applied to couples with unexplained infertility. We propose standardised criteria for use both in future research studies and clinical diagnosis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

CINAHL and MEDLINE online databases were searched up to November 2022 for all published studies recruiting couples with unexplained infertility, available in full text in the English language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected in an Excel spreadsheet. Results were analysed per category and methodology or reference range.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 375 relevant studies, only 258 defined their inclusion criteria. The most commonly applied inclusion criteria were semen analysis, tubal patency and assessment of ovulation in 220 (85%), 232 (90%), 205 (79.5%) respectively. Only 87/220 (39.5%) studies reporting semen analysis used the World Health Organization (WHO) limits. Tubal patency was accepted if bilateral in 145/232 (62.5%) and if unilateral in 24/232 (10.3%). Ovulation was assessed using mid-luteal serum progesterone in 115/205 (56.1%) and by a history of regular cycles in 87/205 (42.4%). Other criteria, including uterine cavity assessment and hormone profile, were applied in less than 50% of included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the heterogeneity among studied populations with unexplained infertility. Development and application of internationally accepted criteria will improve the quality of research and future clinical care.

Evidence-based guideline: unexplained infertility†

STUDY QUESTION

What is the recommended management for couples presenting with unexplained infertility (UI), based on the best available evidence in the literature?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The evidence-based guideline on UI makes 52 recommendations on the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of UI.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

UI is diagnosed in the absence of any abnormalities of the female and male reproductive systems after 'standard' investigations. However, a consensual standardization of the diagnostic work-up is still lacking. The management of UI is traditionally empirical. The efficacy, safety, costs, and risks of treatment options have not been subjected to robust evaluation.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for ESHRE guidelines. Following formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches, and assessments were undertaken. Papers written in English and published up to 24 October 2022 were evaluated.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Based on the available evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline development group (GDG). Following stakeholder review of an initial draft, the final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

This guideline aims to help clinicians provide the best care for couples with UI. As UI is a diagnosis of exclusion, the guideline outlined the basic diagnostic procedures that couples should/could undergo during an infertility work-up, and explored the need for additional tests. The first-line treatment for couples with UI was deemed to be IUI in combination with ovarian stimulation. The place of additional and alternative options for treatment of UI was also evaluated. The GDG made 52 recommendations on diagnosis and treatment for couples with UI. The GDG formulated 40 evidence-based recommendations-of which 29 were formulated as strong recommendations and 11 as weak-10 good practice points and two research only recommendations. Of the evidence-based recommendations, none were supported by high-quality evidence, one by moderate-quality evidence, nine by low-quality evidence, and 31 by very low-quality evidence. To support future research in UI, a list of research recommendations was provided.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Most additional diagnostic tests and interventions in couples with UI have not been subjected to robust evaluation. For a large proportion of these tests and treatments, evidence was very limited and of very low quality. More evidence is required, and the results of future studies may result in the current recommendations being revised.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in the care of couples with UI, based on the best evidence currently available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in the field. The full guideline and a patient leaflet are available in www.eshre.eu/guideline/UI.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The guideline was developed by ESHRE, who funded the guideline meetings, literature searches, and dissemination of the guideline in collaboration with the Monash University led Australian NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Women's Health in Reproductive Life (CREWHIRL). The guideline group members did not receive any financial incentives; all work was provided voluntarily. D.R. reports honoraria from IBSA and Novo Nordisk. B.A. reports speakers' fees from Merck, Gedeon Richter, Organon and Intas Pharma; is part of the advisory board for Organon Turkey and president of the Turkish Society of Reproductive Medicine. S.B. reports speakers' fees from Merck, Organon, Ferring, the Ostetric and Gynaecological Society of Singapore and the Taiwanese Society for Reproductive Medicine; editor and contributing author, Reproductive Medicine for the MRCOG, Cambridge University Press; is part of the METAFOR and CAPE trials data monitoring committee. E.B. reports research grants from Roche diagnostics, Gedeon Richter and IBSA; speaker's fees from Merck, Ferring, MSD, Roche Diagnostics, Gedeon Richter, IBSA; E.B. is also a part of an Advisory Board of Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Roche Diagnostics, IBSA, Merck, Abbott and Gedeon Richter. M.M. reports consulting fees from Mojo Fertility Ltd. R.J.N. reports research grant from Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC); consulting fees from Flinders Fertility Adelaide, VinMec Hospital Hanoi Vietnam; speaker's fees from Merck Australia, Cadilla Pharma India, Ferring Australia; chair clinical advisory committee Westmead Fertility and research institute MyDuc Hospital Vietnam. T.P. is a part of the Research Council of Finland and reports research grants from Roche Diagnostics, Novo Nordics and Sigrid Juselius foundation; consulting fees from Roche Diagnostics and organon; speaker's fees from Gedeon Richter, Roche, Exeltis, Organon, Ferring and Korento patient organization; is a part of NFOG, AE-PCOS society and several Finnish associations. S.S.R. reports research grants from Roche Diagnostics, Organon, Theramex; consulting fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD and Organon; speaker's fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD/Organon, Besins, Theramex, Gedeon Richter; travel support from Gedeon Richter; S.S.R. is part of the Data Safety Monitoring Board of TTRANSPORT and deputy of the ESHRE Special Interest Group on Safety and Quality in ART; stock or stock options from IVI Lisboa, Clínica de Reprodução assistida Lda; equipment/medical writing/gifts from Roche Diagnostics and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. S.K.S. reports speakers' fees from Merck, Ferring, MSD, Pharmasure. HRV reports consulting and travel fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

DISCLAIMER

This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgment to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.).

Alternatives to in vitro fertilization

There have been concerns on the potential overuse of in vitro fertilization (IVF) in view of the lack of evidence on effectiveness in certain populations, potential short and long-term safety risks, and economic considerations. On the other hand, the use of alternatives to IVF seems to be underappreciated in clinical practice as well as research. In this review, we summarized the up-to-date evidence on the effectiveness, safety as well as cost-effectiveness of different alternatives to IVF, including expectant management, intrauterine insemination, tubal flushing, in vitro maturation as well as intravaginal culture. We also discussed the trend of IVF use over the last decade and the available tiers of service because of intravaginal culture, and revisited the roles of different alternatives to IVF in modern reproductive medicine from both clinical and research perspectives.

Endocrine factors associated with infertility in women: an updated review

INTRODUCTION

Infertility is defined as the inability to conceive after unprotected sexual intercourse for at least 12 consecutive months. Our objective is to present an updated narrative review on the endocrine causes of infertility in women.

AREAS COVERED

A comprehensive review was conducted using Scielo, Scopus, and EMBASE databases, comprising 245 articles. The pathophysiology of infertility in women was described, including endocrinopathies such as hypothalamic amenorrhea, hyperprolactinemia, polycystic ovary syndrome, primary ovarian insufficiency, obesity, thyroid dysfunction, and adrenal disorders. The diagnostic approach was outlined, emphasizing the necessity of hormonal studies and ovarian response assessments. Additionally, the treatment plan was presented, commencing with non-pharmacological interventions, encompassing the adoption of a Mediterranean diet, vitamin supplementation, moderate exercise, and maintaining a healthy weight. Subsequently, pharmacological treatment was discussed, focusing on the management of associated endocrine disorders and ovulatory dysfunction.

EXPERT OPINION

This comprehensive review highlights the impact of endocrine disorders on fertility in women, providing diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms. Despite remaining knowledge gaps that hinder more effective treatments, ongoing research and advancements show promise for improved fertility success rates within the next five years. Enhanced comprehension of the pathophysiology behind endocrine causes and the progress in genetic research will facilitate the delivery of personalized treatments, thus enhancing fertility rates.

The effect of sperm DNA fragmentation on in vitro fertilization outcomes of unexplained infertility

BACKGROUND

Infertility is caused by heterogeneous risks, but most of them are unexplained. The sperm DNA Fragmentation Index (DFI) was increasingly acknowledged as a parameter for the evaluation of male infertility. This study aimed to investigate the association between sperm DFI and laboratory and clinical outcomes in a population with unexplained infertility.

METHODS

The clinical data of an infertile population was collected for the selection of reproductive patients with unexplained infertility. The authors classified the patients with normal sperm parameters in a control group (DFI < 25%) and an observation group (DFI ≥ 25%) and compared the difference in basal characteristics, laboratory, and clinical outcomes between the two groups. The authors conducted a correlation analysis to examine the relationship between DFI and the number of D3 good-quality embryos, as well as the clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate. A total of 176 cases were enrolled in the retrospective study.

RESULTS

The observation group (n = 88) showed advanced male age, lower sperm concentration, progressive motility, and morphology assessment than the control group. In addition, lower No. of D3 good-quality embryos, clinical pregnancy rate, and the live birth rate were shown in the observation group. A negative correlation between the DFI and No. of D3 good-quality embryos (rs = -0.347, p < 0.001) or live birth rate (rs = -0.185, p = 0.028) was shown.

CONCLUSIONS

Sperm DFI was a good indicator for the prediction of D3 good-quality embryos in unexplained infertility couples, but it did not provide sufficient information regarding clinical pregnancy outcome but live pregnancy outcome.

Using Quantitative Hormonal Fertility Monitors to Evaluate the Luteal Phase: Proof of Concept Case Study

Several new quantitative fertility monitors are now available for at-home use that measure estrogen, luteinizing hormone (LH), and progesterone (PDG) in urine. This case report compares the Mira and Inito quantitative fertility monitors with the well-established qualitative ClearBlue fertility monitor. Three clinical scenarios were evaluated: a normal cycle, a prolonged luteinization cycle, and an anovulatory cycle. The identification of the luteal phase (or lack thereof in the case of anovulation) and the transition through the three processes of luteinization, progestation, and luteolysis were clearly demarcated with the help of quantitative LH and PDG. Quantitative fertility monitors have the potential to identify details of the luteal phase to help women with regular cycles and abnormal luteal phases to help target interventions for optimizing fertility.

Evaluation of predictor factors of psychological distress in women with unexplained infertility

Objective:

The objective of this study was to establish the frequency of anxiety and depressive symptoms among women diagnosed with unexplained infertility and to identify risk factors.

Methods:

We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional study. Forty-two women from the CHU de Quebec fertility clinic were recruited. Women completed the ‘Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale’ (HADS) self-administered questionnaire, used to estimate prevalence of anxiety and depressive symptoms (score ≥ 8).

Results:

Overall, 55% (n = 23) of participants were identified with anxiety or depressive symptoms according to the HADS questionnaire. Anxiety symptoms were more frequent (55%) compared with depressive symptoms (10%). According to a logistic regression model, being under 35 years old [odds ratio (OR) = 16.6, confidence interval (CI): 1.9–25.0], never had a previous spontaneous abortion (OR = 5.6, CI: 1.1–43.5) and never sought fertility treatment (OR = 5.5, CI: 1.1–45.4) were associated with a higher risk of anxiety and depressive symptoms.

Conclusion:

Anxiety and depressive symptoms are common among women with unexplained infertility, and strategies should be developed to better support and treat this high-risk population.

'Just have some IVF!': A longitudinal ethnographic study of couples' experiences of seeking fertility treatment

We present findings from a longitudinal ethnographic study of infertile couples seeking treatment following initial GP referral to specialist fertility services. Repeated observations and interviews were undertaken with the same 14 heterosexual participants over an 18-month period. Heterosexual, non-donor couples comprise the majority of fertility clinic patients; however, research interest in this group has dwindled over time as IVF cycles have increased. In the United Kingdom, IVF is presented as a logical response to involuntary childlessness, and as an entirely predictable, and linear, course of action. The market is well-developed and often patients' first experience of privatised health care in the NHS. Our couples were challenged by this, and while they felt expected to move on to IVF, some wished to explore other options. While IVF is ubiquitous, the discomfort and challenge around fertility treatments remain; experiences are prolonged and characterised by recursive narratives and expressions of disequilibrium, which are rarely acknowledged and reflected in ongoing clinic-patient interactions. Our findings develop understanding of the process of 'mazing' (Image - The Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 1989, 21, 220), the pursuit of parenthood, by showing that the routine and normative status of IVF, at least in the current health care context, is at odds with the lived experiences of individuals.

Efficacy of intrauterine insemination in women with endometrioma-associated subfertility: analysis using propensity score matching

BACKGROUND

Intrauterine insemination (IUI) treatment is recommended in subfertile women with AFS/ASRM stage I/II endometriosis. However, the efficacy of IUI in women with ovarian endometriomas with tubal patency is uncertain. We explored the efficacy of IUI for the treatment of endometrioma-associated subfertility.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective matched cohort study using propensity matching (PSM) analysis. Subfertile couples undergoing IUI with and without ovarian stimulation between January 1, 2015, and May 30, 2020 were reviewed.

RESULTS

After PSM, 56 women with endometrioma alone were matched to 173 patients with unexplained subfertility. The per-cycle pregnancy rate (PR) was comparable between women with endometrioma-associated subfertility (n = 56, 87 cycles) and women with unexplained subfertility (n = 173, 280 cycles) (9.2% vs. 17.9%, OR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.21-1.03). Subgroup analyses based on IUI with or without stimulation also resulted in comparable results. A trend toward a lower cumulative pregnancy rates (CPRs) was seen in women with endometrioma (14.3%, 8/56) compared with women with unexplained subfertility (28.9%, 50/173), but the differences were not significant (HR 0.49; 95% CI, 0.23-1.15). However, patients with endometrioma were nearly twice as likely to converse to IVF treatment compared with those without the disease (60.7% versus 43.9%; OR 1.97; 95% CI, 1.07-3.65).

CONCLUSION

IUI may be a viable approach for subfertile women with endometrioma and no other identifiable infertility factor. More studies are needed to reassure the findings.

Dispensing of clomiphene citrate to treat infertility: medication supplied and population prevalence of assisted pregnancies and multiple births

OBJECTIVE

To determine the proportion of pregnancies resulting in birth that were conceived with the use of clomiphene citrate (CC) and the frequency of multiple pregnancy.

DESIGN

Whole-of-population cohort study, constructed through data linkage. Comprehensive Australian Government records of dispensed medications were linked to state Perinatal Registry records for all births of at least 20 weeks' gestation.

SETTING

The state of South Australia.

PATIENT(S)

Women who maintained pregnancy for at least 20 weeks and gave birth between July 2003 and December 2015, a total of 150,713 women with 241,561 pregnancies.

INTERVENTION(S)

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Ongoing pregnancy occurring in proximity to CC, defined as dispensing from 90 days before to the end of a conception window derived from newborn date of birth and gestational age.

RESULT(S)

Linkage to dispensed prescription records was achieved for 97.9% of women. Women who conceived with CC tended to be older and socioeconomically advantaged and more likely than other women to have a history of miscarriage. Ongoing pregnancies associated with CC comprised 1.6% of the total; 5.7% were multiple births (mostly twins, 94.6%) compared with 1.5% in the remainder (98.5% twins).

CONCLUSION(S)

In South Australia, 1.6% of pregnancies (1 in 60) of at least 20 weeks' gestation were conceived proximal to CC dispensing. Of these, 5.7% were multiple pregnancies. This takes the proportion of women who achieved an ongoing pregnancy with medical assistance from 4.4%, based on reports from assisted reproductive technology clinics, to 6% in total.

Poor Endometrial Proliferation After Clomiphene is Associated With Altered Estrogen Action

CONTEXT

Suboptimal endometrial thickening is associated with lower pregnancy rates and occurs in some infertile women treated with clomiphene.

OBJECTIVE

To examine cellular and molecular differences in the endometrium of women with suboptimal vs optimal endometrial thickening following clomiphene.

METHODS

Translational prospective cohort study from 2018 to 2020 at a university-affiliated clinic. Reproductive age women with unexplained infertility treated with 100 mg of clomiphene on cycle days 3 to 7 who developed optimal (≥8mm; n = 6, controls) or suboptimal (<6mm; n = 7, subjects) endometrial thickness underwent preovulatory blood and endometrial sampling. The main outcome measures were endometrial tissue architecture, abundance and location of specific proteins, RNA expression, and estrogen receptor (ER) α binding.

RESULTS

The endometrium of suboptimal subjects compared with optimal controls was characterized by a reduced volume of glandular epithelium (16% vs 24%, P = .01), decreased immunostaining of markers of proliferation (PCNA, ki67) and angiogenesis (PECAM-1), increased immunostaining of pan-leukocyte marker CD45 and ERβ, but decreased ERα immunostaining (all P < .05). RNA-seq identified 398 differentially expressed genes between groups. Pathway analysis of differentially expressed genes indicated reduced proliferation (Z-score = -2.2, P < .01), decreased angiogenesis (Z-score = -2.87, P < .001), increased inflammation (Z-score = +2.2, P < .01), and ERβ activation (Z-score = +1.6, P < .001) in suboptimal subjects. ChIP-seq identified 6 genes bound by ERα that were differentially expressed between groups (P < .01), some of which may play a role in implantation.

CONCLUSION

Women with suboptimal endometrial thickness after clomiphene exhibit aberrant ER expression patterns, architectural changes, and altered gene and protein expression suggesting reduced proliferation and angiogenesis in the setting of increased inflammation.

Diagnosis and Management of Infertility: A Review

IMPORTANCE

In the US, approximately 12.7% of reproductive age women seek treatment for infertility each year. This review summarizes current evidence regarding diagnosis and treatment of infertility.

OBSERVATIONS

Infertility is defined as the failure to achieve pregnancy after 12 months of regular unprotected sexual intercourse. Approximately 85% of infertile couples have an identifiable cause. The most common causes of infertility are ovulatory dysfunction, male factor infertility, and tubal disease. The remaining 15% of infertile couples have "unexplained infertility." Lifestyle and environmental factors, such as smoking and obesity, can adversely affect fertility. Ovulatory disorders account for approximately 25% of infertility diagnoses; 70% of women with anovulation have polycystic ovary syndrome. Infertility can also be a marker of an underlying chronic disease associated with infertility. Clomiphene citrate, aromatase inhibitors such as letrozole, and gonadotropins are used to induce ovulation or for ovarian stimulation during in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. Adverse effects of gonadotropins include multiple pregnancy (up to 36% of cycles, depending on specific therapy) and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (1%-5% of cycles), consisting of ascites, electrolyte imbalance, and hypercoagulability. For individuals presenting with anovulation, ovulation induction with timed intercourse is often the appropriate initial treatment choice. For couples with unexplained infertility, endometriosis, or mild male factor infertility, an initial 3 to 4 cycles of ovarian stimulation may be pursued; IVF should be considered if these approaches do not result in pregnancy. Because female fecundity declines with age, this factor should guide decision-making. Immediate IVF may be considered as a first-line treatment strategy in women older than 38 to 40 years. IVF is also indicated in cases of severe male factor infertility or untreated bilateral tubal factor.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Approximately 1 in 8 women aged 15 to 49 years receive infertility services. Although success rates vary by age and diagnosis, accurate diagnosis and effective therapy along with shared decision-making can facilitate achievement of fertility goals in many couples treated for infertility.

Intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation is a successful step prior to assisted reproductive technology for couples with unexplained infertility

The present retrospective cohort study analysed data of couples with unexplained infertility who underwent two to three intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles. The inclusion criteria were age 20-40 years, failure to conceive for at least two years of unprotected intercourse, ovulation, normal semen analysis, and tubal patency. Total of 578 IUI cycles of 286 couples with unexplained infertility were included in the final analyses. The mean age and duration of infertility of the study population were 28.8 ± 5.1 and 5.2 ± 3.4 years, respectively. The clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and live birth rate (LBR) per cycle were 16.6 and 13.1%, respectively. The cumulative CPR following two to three IUI cycles was 33.5% and the cumulative LBR was 26.5% for the entire cohort. The duration of infertility was significantly shorter in women whose IUI attempt were successful (p = .036). Up to three cycles of IUI with ovarian stimulation seems as an effective first-line treatment modality in unexplained infertility.IMPACT STATEMENTWhat is already known on this subject? Cont rolled ovarian stimulation combined with intrauterine insemination (IUI) is a common infertility treatment as a low-cost, less-invasive alternative to in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and was approved as a first line treatment option for unexplained infertility However, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline states that IUI is not recommended to couples with unexplained infertility, male factor and mild endometriosis, unless the couples have religious, cultural or social objections to proceed with IVF.What do the results of this study add? Up to three IUI cycles with ovarian stimulation can be considered as an effective treatment modality in unexplained infertility even in couples who could not achieve pregnancy by expectant management for two years.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? The clinicians should reconsider the NICE recommendation of IVF in the light of recent studies including ours which recommend IUI together when dealing couples with unexplained infertility.

Prioritizing IVF treatment in the post-COVID 19 era: a predictive modelling study based on UK national data

STUDY QUESTION

Can we use prediction modelling to estimate the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) related delay in starting IVF or ICSI in different groups of women?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Yes, using a combination of three different models we can predict the impact of delaying access to treatment by 6 and 12 months on the probability of conception leading to live birth in women of different age groups with different categories of infertility.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Increased age and duration of infertility can prejudice the chances of success following IVF, but couples with unexplained infertility have a chance of conceiving naturally without treatment whilst waiting for IVF. The worldwide suspension of IVF could lead to worse outcomes in couples awaiting treatment, but it is unclear to what extent this could affect individual couples based on age and cause of infertility.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A population based cohort study based on national data from all licensed clinics in the UK obtained from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Register. Linked data from 9589 women who underwent their first IVF or ICSI treatment in 2017 and consented to the use of their data for research were used to predict livebirth numbers.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Three prediction models were used to estimate the chances of livebirth associated with immediate treatment versus a delay of 6 and 12 months in couples about to embark on IVF or ICSI.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

We estimated that a 6-month delay would reduce livebirths by 0.4%, 2.4%, 5.7%, 9.5% and 11.8% in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years, respectively, while corresponding values associated with a delay of 12 months were 0.9%, 4.9%, 11.9%, 18.8% and 22.4%, respectively. In women with known causes of infertility, worst case (best case) predicted chances of livebirth after a delay of 6 months in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years varied between 31.6% (35.0%), 29.0% (31.6%), 23.1% (25.2%), 17.2% (19.4%) and 10.3% (12.3%) for tubal infertility and 34.3% (39.2%), 31.6% (35.3%) 25.2%(28.5%) 18.3% (21.3%), and 11.3% (14.1%) for male factor infertility. The corresponding values in those treated immediately were 31.7%, 29.8%, 24.5%, 19.0% and 11.7% for tubal factor and 34.4%, 32.4%, 26.7%, 20.2% and 12.8% in male factor infertility. In women with unexplained infertility the predicted chances of livebirth after a delay of 6 months followed by one complete IVF cycle were 41.0%, 36.6%, 29.4%, 22.4% and 15.1% in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years, respectively, compared to 34.9%, 32.5%, 26.9%, 20.7% and 13.2% in similar groups of women treated without any delay. The additional waiting period, which provided more time for spontaneous conception, was predicted to increase the relative number of babies born by 17.5%, 12.6%, 9.1%, 8.4% and 13.8%, in women aged <30, 30-35, 36-37, 38-39 and 40-42 years, respectively. A 12-month delay showed a similar pattern in all subgroups.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Major sources of uncertainty include the use of prediction models generated in different populations and the need for a number of assumptions. Although the models are validated and the bases for the assumptions are robust, it is impossible to eliminate the possibility of imprecision in our predictions. Therefore, our predicted live birth rates need to be validated in prospective studies to confirm their accuracy.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

A delay in starting IVF reduces success rates in all couples. For the first time, we have shown that while this results in fewer babies in older women and those with a known cause of infertility, it has a less detrimental effect on couples with unexplained infertility, some of whom conceive naturally whilst waiting for treatment. Post COVID 19, clinics planning a phased return to normal clinical services should prioritise older women and those with a known cause of infertility.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No external funding was received for this study. B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy work for ObsEva, Merck, Merck KGaA, Guerbet and iGenomics. SB is Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open. None of the other authors declare any conflicts of interest.

Pregnancy predictors in unexplained infertility after intrauterine insemination

BACKGROUND

Intrauterine insemination (IUI) is a first-line treatment for unexplained infertility (UI). There was a compelling need for the improvement of pregnancy rate in females with UI.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the pregnancy predictors in cases of UI undergoing IUI.

METHOD

A total of 212 couples who underwent 446 IUI cycles were involved the study. Different factors were grouped to explore the influencing factors of IUI for UI.

RESULT

Female age and somking affected pregnancy outcomes. As the number of treatment cycles increased, the pregnancy rate increased. The BMI, treatment regimens, type of infertility, endometrium, and timing insemination have no significant prognostic value.

CONCLUSION

Apart from the number of treatment cycles, somking, and female age, no other factors had prognostic value. More studies and samples are necessary to evaluate whether other factors affect conception.

Identification of predictive factors for the probability of pregnancy following ovulation stimulation-intra-uterine insemination cycles in terms of female and male

AIM

To identify which positive prognostic parameters contribute to successful treatment outcomes and the probability of pregnancy by analyzing the results of infertile couples underwent ovulation stimulation (OS) and intra-uterine insemination (IUI) in our clinic.

METHODS

Five hundred and nineteen couples who underwent OS-IUI treatment because of a mild-moderate male factor, unexplained infertility, or anovulation were retrospectively analyzed. The data collected included patient demographics, cycle characteristic, sperm parameters and pregnancy rates. The main outcome measure was pregnancy rate (PR).

RESULTS

Our overall PR was 17.72% (n = 92). In women who did not achieve pregnancy, age, BMI and duration of infertility were significantly higher (P < 0.001, P < 0.001 and P = 0.03, respectively). The IUI indications of higher PR were unexplained infertility (P = 0.018) and primary infertility (P = 0.003). AFC was significantly lower and the total dosage of gonadotropins was significantly higher in women who did not achieve pregnancy (P = 0.001 and P = 0.017, respectively). The number of progressive motile spermatozoa inseminated and the morphology were significantly higher in women who did not achieve pregnancy (P = 0.056 and P = 0.001, respectively). Female age ≤ 30 (OR = 0.87; 95% CI: 0.81-0.95; P < 0.01), BMI ≤23.3 kg/m² (OR = 0.87; 95% CI: 0.80-0.95; P = 0.002) and AFC > 9 (OR = 1.07; 95% CI: 1-1.15; P = 0.034) increase the pregnancy.

CONCLUSION

Younger women, especially those with unexplained infertility, primary infertility, shorter duration of infertility, normal ovarian reserve, higher motile spermatozoa inseminated and sperm morphology, could benefit from OS-IUI.

Can the use of diagnostic and prognostic categorisation tailor the need for assisted reproductive technology in infertile couples?

BACKGROUND

The complications associated with in vitro fertilisation (IVF) for both the offspring and mother, and its high cost make it essential to tailor the technology to those infertile couples who truly benefit from it.

AIMS

To determine whether a simple prognostic algorithm could discriminate between couples who require immediate fertility treatments and couples in whom less invasive strategies should be offered first.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, couples were classified into six groups based on the medical necessity of IVF and their prognosis for natural conception: (i) tubal/severe semen factor mandating immediate IVF due to the very low chance of natural conception; (ii) pure anovulation infertility; (iii) female age ≥39 years; and (iv) unexplained/mild male infertility (no indication for immediate treatment) with (4A) good, (4B) moderate or (4C) poor prognosis of natural conception, as per an existing, validated prognostic model. For each group, we constructed Kaplan-Meier curves to measure natural conception and the effect of fertility treatment.

RESULTS

The 12 months cumulative live birth rate for couples with unexplained or mild male infertility and poor prognosis increased from 1% without treatment to 35% after treatment (P < 0.001). In contrast, couples with good prognosis experienced a statistically insignificant increase in their cumulative live birth rate from 40% to 56% (P = 0.07). This demonstrates that a prognostic model could predict a couple's chances of natural conception and the benefit they derive from treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This prognostic mode allows fertility treatment to be individually tailored to reduce unnecessary IVF without compromising fertility chances.

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.

Evidence-based treatments for couples with unexplained infertility: a guideline

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based recommendations to practicing physicians and others regarding the effectiveness and safety of therapies for unexplained infertility.

METHODS

ASRM conducted a literature search, which included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and prospective and retrospective comparative observational studies published from 1968 through 2019. The ASRM Practice Committee and a task force of experts used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Outcomes of interest included: live-birth rate, clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, fertilization rate, multiple pregnancy rate, dose of treatment, rate of ovarian hyperstimulation, abortion rate, and ectopic pregnancy rate.

RESULT(S)

The literature search identified 88 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline.

RECOMMENDATION(S)

Evidence-based recommendations were developed for the following treatments for couples with unexplained infertility: natural cycle with intrauterine insemination (IUI); clomiphene citrate with intercourse; aromatase inhibitors with intercourse; gonadotropins with intercourse; clomiphene citrate with IUI; aromatase inhibitors with IUI; combination of clomiphene citrate or letrozole and gonadotropins (low dose and conventional dose) with IUI; low-dose gonadotropins with IUI; conventional-dose gonadotropins with IUI; timing of IUI; and in vitro fertilization and treatment paradigms.

CONCLUSION(S)

The treatment of unexplained infertility is by necessity empiric. For most couples, the best initial therapy is a course (typically 3 or 4 cycles) of ovarian stimulation with oral medications and intrauterine insemination (OS-IUI) followed by in vitro fertilization for those unsuccessful with OS-IUI treatments.

Predicting the chances of having a baby with or without treatment at different time points in couples with unexplained subfertility

STUDY QUESTION

Can we develop a prediction model that can estimate the chances of conception leading to live birth with and without treatment at different points in time in couples with unexplained subfertility?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Yes, a dynamic model was developed that predicted the probability of conceiving under expectant management and following active treatments (in vitro fertilisation (IVF), intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation (IUI + SO), clomiphene) at different points in time since diagnosis.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Couples with no identified cause for their subfertility continue to have a realistic chance of conceiving naturally, which makes it difficult for clinicians to decide when to intervene. Previous fertility prediction models have attempted to address this by separately estimating either the chances of natural conception or the chances of conception following certain treatments. These models only make predictions at a single point in time and are therefore inadequate for informing continued decision-making at subsequent consultations.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A population-based study of 1316 couples with unexplained subfertility attending a regional clinic between 1998 and 2011.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

A dynamic prediction model was developed that estimates the chances of conception within 6 months from the point when a diagnosis of unexplained subfertility was made. These predictions were recomputed each month to provide a dynamic assessment of the individualised chances of conception while taking account of treatment status in each month. Conception must have led to live birth and treatments included clomiphene, IUI + SO, and IVF. Predictions for natural conception were externally validated using a prospective cohort from The Netherlands.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A total of 554 (42%) couples started fertility treatment within 2 years of their first fertility consultation. The natural conception leading to live birth rate was 0.24 natural conceptions per couple per year. Active treatment had a higher chance of conception compared to those who remained under expectant management. This association ranged from weak with clomiphene to strong with IVF [clomiphene, hazard ratio (HR) = 1.42 (95% confidence interval, 1.05 to 1.91); IUI + SO, HR = 2.90 (2.06 to 4.08); IVF, HR = 5.09 (4.04 to 6.40)]. Female age and duration of subfertility were significant predictors, without clear interaction with the relative effect of treatment.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We were unable to adjust for other potentially important predictors, e.g. measures of ovarian reserve, which were not available in the linked Grampian dataset that may have made predictions more specific. This study was conducted using single centre data meaning that it may not be generalizable to other centres. However, the model performed as well as previous models in reproductive medicine when externally validated using the Dutch cohort.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

For the first time, it is possible to estimate the chances of conception following expectant management and different fertility treatments over time in couples with unexplained subfertility. This information will help inform couples and their clinicians of their likely chances of success, which may help manage expectations, not only at diagnostic workup completion but also throughout their fertility journey.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This work was supported by a Chief Scientist Office postdoctoral training fellowship in health services research and health of the public research (ref PDF/12/06). B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, and Guerbet. None of the other authors declare any conflicts of interest.

Twenty-one year experience with intrauterine inseminations after controlled ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins: maternal age is the only prognostic factor for success

PURPOSE

To report our experience on homologous intrauterine insemination (IUI) with gonadotropin controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) cycles and to examine different variables which could predict IUI success.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of IUIs performed between January 1997 and December 2017. A total of 7359 COS IUI's procedures (2901 couples) were reviewed. Clinical pregnancy, live birth rate and age, body mass index (BMI), smoking habit, duration of infertility, sperm characteristics before and after treatment (total motile count, morphology, and vitality), day 3 FSH, total gonadotropin dose, and number of follicles were assessed by multivariate logistic regression analysis, and data were expressed as odds ratio (OR).

RESULTS

The mean female age at the time of COS was 35.10 ± 3.93 years. The most common single infertility diagnoses were unexplained infertility (53.55%), mild male factor (19.69%), and anovulation (10.95%). The total progressive motile sperm count (TPMC) was > 1 × 106/ml (mean 1.34 ± 1.08 × 106/ml). The clinical pregnancy rate was 9.38%, and the live birth rate was 7.19% per cycle. Twin pregnancies were 12.17%. Cumulative pregnancy was 21.89% and cumulative live birth rate was 17.58% per couple. Clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were significantly associated with female age [OR 0.97 (95% CI 0.95-0.99) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.93-0.97), respectively] and day 3 FSH [OR 0.91 (95% CI 0.87-0.94) e 0.90 (95% CI 0.87-0.94), respectively].

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rates after COS-IUIs were significantly influenced by female age and FSH levels.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trial registration number: NCT03836118.

Intra-uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Comparison of oral dydrogesterone and vaginal micronized progesterone for luteal phase support in intrauterine insemination

This study aims to compare the pregnancy outcomes of vaginal micronized progesterone capsules with oral dydrogesterone in subjects with unexplained subfertility who are undergoing IUI in conjunction with ovarian stimulation by using rFSH. A total of 432 patients with unexplained subfertility who underwent IUI in conjunction with ovarian stimulation were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients were randomized into two groups: (1) dydrogesterone or (2) vaginal micronized progesterone capsules, for luteal phase support. Clinical pregnancy and live birth were the primary outcome measures of the present study. Dydrogesterone was used in 233 participants (54%) and 337 cycles, while 199 participants (46%) and 233 cycles received vaginal micronized progesterone capsule treatment. The proportion of clinical pregnancies (7.4% vs. 10.2%, p = .213), live births (68% vs. 73%, p = .286) were similar in the two groups. Oral dydrogesterone and vaginal micronized progesterone provide similar pregnancy outcomes in terms of clinical pregnancy and live birth rates in women undergoing IUI in conjunction with ovarian stimulation with rFSH. Given the simple and easy administration, lack of safety concerns and better patient tolerability, we suggest that oral dydrogesterone might be preferred for luteal phase support in IUI.

Predictive serum markers for unexplained infertility in child-bearing aged women

PROBLEM

Unexplained infertility (UI) represents about 25%-40% of all infertility and is a formidable obstacle for successful pregnancy for child-bearing aged women. However, up to now, there is no reliable method to predict this condition with high accuracy, thereby hindering early management of this condition.

METHOD OF STUDY

Our prospective study consists of 84 child-bearing aged women that were clinically diagnosed UI. Forty-four matched healthy fertility (HF) women were served as controls. We examined the profiles of 25 hormones and cytokines that were likely related to pathogeneses and molecular pathways involved in UI with the technique of protein array. The samples were randomly stratified 7:3 into a training set and a testing set. We used the SMOTEboost model with 10 serum proteins in a clinical verification study to identify UI cases.

RESULTS

The predictor had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.788 with 24 serum protein features. The predictive performance in terms of AUC of the model with the top 10 important serum proteins in the clinical verification study to classify UI cases was 0.809. Three most significantly differentially expressed proteins (DEPs) were prolactin, monocyte chemotactic protein-1 (MCP-1), and leptin.

CONCLUSION

Examination of serum-based protein profile changes could help to identify child-bearing aged women at risk of UI. This would enable early detection and facilitate development of clinical strategies to treat UI and guide their planned parenthood. It may also give clues to pathogeneses of the condition of test subjects.

Pharmacotherapy of infertility in Ghana: retrospective study at the cape coast teaching hospital

Background

Infertility is a major challenge for couples globally. Due to low income levels and the high cost of other assisted reproductive techniques, pharmacotherapy remain the major first line treatment option for infertility in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of infertility as well as the effectiveness and success achieved following infertility pharmacotherapy at the Cape Coast Teaching Hospital in Ghana.

Methods

This study was a retrospective observational study of 825 couples attending infertility clinic at the hospital.

Results

Prevalence of infertility at the study center was estimated to be 12.3%. Treatment mainly involved the use of clomiphene citrate, antioxidants, herbo-mineral drugs (Ayurveda), multivitamin and antibiotics. Pharmacotherapy resulted in successful conception in one out of every five couples (19.4%; n = 160). Secondary infertility, although more prevalent in the study population (44.8%; n = 370), had lower conception rates during pharmacotherapy than primary infertility (15% vs 26.2%). Age, kind of infertility, employment status but not educational level were significantly associated with pharmacotherapy success. In ovulation induction, clomiphene citrate plus folic acid and vitamin E adjuncts improved ovulation rates during cycle treatments compared to clomiphene citrate alone. Pharmacotherapy of idiopathic infertility (39%, n = 323) was a major challenge with very limited success rates. Interestingly, it was noted that treating couples or female partners only for idiopathic infertility resulted in higher success rates than treating the male partner only. Again, 90-day treatment regimen doubled conception rates when compared with corresponding 30-day treatment regimen. However, zinc sulfate even in short term treatment regimens (30 days) enhanced conception rates in idiopathic infertility.

Conclusions

Prevalence of infertility was estimated to be about 12.3%. One out of every five infertile couples achieved success with pharmacotherapy. Factors such as age, type of infertility, employment status, but not education were significantly associated with treatment success.

Stratification of fertility potential according to cervical mucus symptoms: achieving pregnancy in fertile and infertile couples

Women wishing to conceive are largely unaware of fertility symptoms at the time of ovulation. This study investigated the effectiveness of fertility-awareness in achieving pregnancy, particularly fertile mucus pattern, in the context of infertility. The 384 eligible participants were taken from consecutive women desiring pregnancy who attended 17 Australian Billings Ovulation Method^® clinics from 1999-2003. This cohort included couples with infertility ≥12 months (51%) and female age >35 years (28%). Under fertility-awareness instruction, pregnancy was achieved by 240 couples (62.5%) after maximum follow-up of two years. Mucus symptom observations effectively stratified 'low pregnancy-potential' (35.2%) and 'high pregnancy-potential' groups. Pregnancy rates were ∼30% higher in the latter group (44.4% versus 72.3%) in addition to consistent effects observed on pregnancy achievements within subgroups defined by prognostic factors such as duration of infertility (p = 0.001) and increasing female age (p = 0.04). Fertile symptoms were also associated with significantly shorter time to conception (4.2 versus 6.4 months) in a survival analysis (p = 0.003). Billings Ovulation Method^® observations strongly predicted successful conception. This has the capacity to provide a rapid, reliable and cost-effective approach to stratifying fertility potential, including directing timely and targeted investigations/management, and is accessible for women who may be remote from primary or specialist care.

Does different subfertility etiology affect pregnancy rates in intrauterineinsemination cycles?

Background/aim

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

Materials and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Irresponsibly Infertile? Obesity, Efficiency, and Exclusion from Treatment

Many countries tightly ration access to publicly funded fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF). One basis for excluding people from access to IVF is their body mass index. In this paper, I consider a number of potential justifications for such a policy, based on claims about effectiveness and cost-efficiency, and reject these as unsupported by available evidence. I consider an alternative justification: that those whose subfertility results from avoidable behaviours for which they are responsible are less deserving of treatment. I ultimately stop short of endorsing or rejecting such a justification, though highlight some reasons for thinking it is unlikely to be practicable.

Growing body of evidence supports intrauterine insemination as first line treatment and rejects unfounded concerns about its efficacy, risks and cost effectiveness

IUI has been practiced for five decades but only three unconvincing trials attempted to demonstrate the superiority of IUI over sexual intercourse (SI). In the absence of evidence of its effectiveness, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommended IVF over IUI after 2 years of unprotected SI. High-quality recent data in well-constructed studies suggest that biases against IUI procedures and in favour of IVF are invalid. It is unethical to continue to misinform patients and stakeholders. The well-constructed randomised controlled trials (RCT) show IUI procedure to be efficient, with minimal risk, and above all improved cost-effectiveness when compared to IVF for live birth. IUI as first-line treatment should be offered to most patients, while funding agencies and stakeholders need to be urgently informed of the cost-benefit in offering IUI. Fertility clinics, IVF interest groups, and regulatory bodies should amend their patient information and guidance to state that IUI should be the first line treatment and that IVF should be offered only when essential. Reappraising and promoting IUI based on evidence enhances patient autonomy, choices, and trust, while allowing the fertility industry to operate within an ethical and acceptable framework not seen as exploitative toward vulnerable patients.

Female subfertility

Subfertility is common and affects one in six couples, half of whom lack an explanation for their delay in conceiving. Developments in the diagnosis and treatment of subfertility over the past 50 years have been truly remarkable. Indeed, current generations of couples with subfertility are more fortunate than previous generations, as they have many more opportunities to become parents. The timely access to effective treatment for subfertility is important as many couples have a narrow window of opportunity before the age-related effects of subfertility limit the likelihood of success. Assisted reproduction can overcome the barriers to fertility caused by tubal disease and low sperm count, but little progress has been made in reducing the effect of increasing age on ovarian function. The next 5-10 years will likely see further increases in birth rates in women with subfertility, a greater awareness of lifestyle factors and a possible refinement of current assisted reproduction techniques and the development of new ones. Such progress will bring challenging questions regarding the potential benefits and harms of treatments involving germ cell manipulation, artificial gametes, genetic screening of embryos and gene editing of embryos. We hope to see a major increase in fertility awareness, access to safe and cost-effective fertility care in low-income countries and a reduction in the current disparity of access to fertility care.

IUI: review and systematic assessment of the evidence that supports global recommendations

BACKGROUND

IUI with or without ovarian stimulation (OS) has become a first-line treatment option for many infertile couples, worldwide. The appropriate treatment modality for couples and their clinical management through IUI or IUI/OS cycles must consider maternal and perinatal outcomes, most notably the clinical complication of higher-order multiple pregnancies associated with IUI-OS. With a current global emphasis to continue to decrease maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity, the World Health Organization (WHO) had established a multi-year project to review the evidence for the establishment of normative guidance for the implementation of IUI as a treatment to address fertility problems, and to consider its cost-effectiveness for lower resource settings.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

The objective of this review is to provide a review of the evidence of 13 prioritized questions that cover IUI with and without OS. We provide summary recommendations for the development of global, evidence-based guidelines based upon methodology established by the WHO.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using question-specific relevant search terms in May 2015. For each PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcomes) drafted by WHO, specific search terms were used to find the available evidence in MEDLINE (1950 to May 2015) and The Cochrane Library (until May 2015). After presentation to an expert panel, a further hand search of references in relevant reviews was performed up to January 2017. Articles that were found to be relevant were read and analysed by two investigators and critically appraised using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias, and AMSTAR in case of systematic reviews. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE system. An independent expert review process of our analysis was conducted in November 2016.

OUTCOMES

This review provides an assessment and synthesis of the evidence that covers 13 clinical questions including the indications for the use of IUI versus expectant management, the sperm parameters required, the best and optimal method of timing and number of inseminations per cycle, prevention strategies to decrease multiple gestational pregnancies, and the cost-effectiveness of IUI versus IVF. We provide an evidence-based formulation of 20 recommendations, as well as two best practice points that address the integration of methods for the prevention of infection in the IUI laboratory. The quality of the evidence ranges from very low to high, with evidence that may be decades old but of high quality, however, we further discuss where critical research gaps in the evidence remain.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

This review presents an evidence synthesis assessment and includes recommendations that will assist health care providers worldwide with their decision-making when considering IUI treatments, with or without OS, for their patients presenting with fertility problems.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

FUNDING

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

Achieving Pregnancy Using Primary Care Interventions to Identify the Fertile Window

Objective

To determine the effectiveness of achieving pregnancy with focused intercourse in the fertile window identified using natural fertility indicators.

Methods

24-cycle prospective effectiveness study.

Setting

A North American web-based fertility monitoring service.

Participants

256 North American women aged 20–43 (mean age 29.2 years) seeking to achieve pregnancy.

Intervention

Participants identified their fertile window with either electronic hormonal fertility monitoring or cervical mucus monitoring, or both, and recorded their observations on an online fertility tracking system.

Main outcome measures

Pregnancies were validated by nurses with an online self-assessed pregnancy evaluation form. Survival analysis was used to determine pregnancy rates.

Results

There were 150 pregnancies among the 256 participants with an overall pregnancy rate of 78 per 100 women over 12 menstrual cycles. There were 54 pregnancies (68%) among the 80 women using the fertility monitor, 11 pregnancies (46%) among the 24 women using mucus monitoring, and 90 (63%) among the 143 women using both mucus and monitor. The 12-cycle pregnancy rates per 100 women were 83 (monitor group), 72 (mucus group), and 75 (mucus and monitor group). Pregnancy rates reached 100% at 24 cycles of use for those women using the hormonal fertility monitor.

Conclusion

Use of the hormonal fertility monitor alone seems to offer the best natural estimate of the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle for women wishing to achieve a pregnancy. Focusing intercourse through 24 menstrual cycles can be beneficial for achieving pregnancy.

The revival of intrauterine insemination: evidence-based data have changed the picture

According to a number of high quality studies intrauterine insemination (IUI) with homologous semen should be the first choice treatment in case of unexplained and moderate male factor subfertility. IVF and ICSI are clearly over-used in this selected group of infertile couples. The limited value of IUI in infertility treatment as mentioned in the 2013 NICE guidelines was surely a premature statement and should be adapted to the actual literature. More evidence-based data are becoming available on different variables influencing the success rates after IUI. It can be expected that these findings may lead to a better understanding and use of IUI in the near future.

Implementing targeted expectant management in fertility care using prognostic modelling: a cluster randomized trial with a multifaceted strategy

STUDY QUESTION

What is the effectiveness of a multifaceted implementation strategy compared to usual care on improving the adherence to guideline recommendations on expectant management for couples with unexplained infertility?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The multifaceted implementation strategy did not significantly increase adherence to guideline recommendations on expectant management compared to care as usual.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Intrauterine insemination (IUI) with or without ovarian hyperstimulation has no beneficial effect compared to no treatment for 6 months after the fertility work-up for couples with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis of natural conception. Therefore, various professionals and policy makers have advocated the use of prognostic profiles and expectant management in guideline recommendations.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A cluster randomized controlled trial in 25 clinics in the Netherlands was conducted between March 2013 and May 2014. Clinics were randomized between the implementation strategy (intervention, n = 13) and care as usual (control, n = 12). The effect of the implementation strategy was evaluated by comparing baseline and effect measurement data. Data collection was retrospective and obtained from medical record research and a patient questionnaire.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

A total of 544 couples were included at baseline and 485 at the effect measurement (247 intervention group/238 control group).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Guideline adherence increased from 49 to 69% (OR 2.66; 95% CI 1.45-4.89) in the intervention group, and from 49 to 61% (OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.38-3.00) in the control group. Multilevel analysis with case-mix adjustment showed that the difference of 8% was not statistically significant (OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.67-2.59). The ongoing pregnancy rate within six months after fertility work-up did not significantly differ between intervention and control group (25% versus 27%: OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.40-1.27).

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

There is a possible selection bias, couples included in the study had a higher socio-economic status than non-responders. How this affects guideline adherence is unclear. Furthermore, when powering for this study we did not take into account the unexpected improvement of adherence in the control group.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Generalization of our results to other countries with recommendations on expectant management might be questionable because barriers for expectant management can be very different in other countries. Furthermore, due to a large variation in improved adherence rate in the intervention group it will be interesting to further analyse the process of implementation in each clinic with a process evaluation on professionals and couples' exposure to and experiences with the strategy.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Supported by Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW, project number 171203005). No competing interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Dutch trial Register, www.trialregister.nl NTR3405.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

19 April 2012.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT

10 July 2012.

The effectiveness of intrauterine insemination: A matched cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To study the effectiveness of an intrauterine insemination (IUI) program compared to no treatment in subfertile couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis on natural conception.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective matched cohort study in which ongoing pregnancy rates in 72 couples who voluntarily dropped out of treatment with IUI were compared to ongoing pregnancy rates in 144 couples who continued treatment with IUI. Couples with unexplained subfertility, mild male subfertility or cervical factor subfertility who started treatment with IUI between January 2000 and December 2008 were included. Couples were matched on hospital, age, duration of subfertility, primary or secondary subfertility and diagnosis. Primary outcome was cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate after three years. Time to pregnancy was censored at the moment couples were lost to follow up or when their child wish ended and, for the no-treatment group, when couples re-started treatment.

RESULTS

After three years, there were 18 pregnancies in the stopped treatment group (25%) versus 41 pregnancies in the IUI group (28%) (RR 1.1 (0.59-2.2)(p=0.4)). The cumulative pregnancy rate after three years was 40% in both groups, showing no difference in time to ongoing pregnancy (shared frailty model p=0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

In couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, treatment with IUI does not to add to expectant management. There is need for a randomized clinical trial comparing IUI with expectant management in these couples.

Intrauterine insemination-No more Mr. N.I.C.E. guy?

OBJECTIVE

To determine the per cycle chance of a live birth and to identify factors that may support a more individualised application of IUI in view of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) updated guideline on fertility 2013.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective, cohort study of 851 couples (1688 cycles) with unexplained, mild endometriosis, one patent Fallopian tube (with ovulation occurring in the corresponding ovary), mild male factor or ovulatory dysfunction, who initiated their first cycle of IUI/COH during the study period 2009-2013 and completed up to 3 cycles. Exclusion criteria included donor sperm and diminished ovarian reserve. Success factors and probabilities were determined based on live birth rates.

RESULTS

Mean age was 33.8±3.3years and mean duration of subfertility was 2.28±1.47years. Independent associates of successful outcome factors were lower age (AOR 0.93; 95%CI 0.89-0.98, p=0.007) and multiparity (AOR 1.72; 95%CI 1.17-2.52). Live-birth rates declined independently of other factors from 15.3% (n=130/851) in cycle 1-7.0% (n=19/273) in cycle 3 (AOR 0.76; 95%CI, 0.62-0.93, p=0.008). Per cycle probabilities of live birth ranged from 21.4% to 5.1% dependent on age, cycle number and previous parity. The unadjusted cumulative pregnancy rate for live birth per cycle started, over three cycles, was 34.9% with a multiple live birth rate per cycle started of 5.4%. The associates of live birth amongst those with unexplained sub-fertility only (n=632, first cycle attempt) were also analysed, yielding similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

IUI/COH is a simple treatment that produces good live birth rates, especially in younger patients and/or those with previous parity. More than 90% of total live births with IUI/COH is achieved during the first two cycles. As a retrospective, observational study, there is no comparator group and therefore we cannot comment on the relative efficacy of up to three IUI cycles over expectant management in a similar cohort. Our study suggests that probabilities of success can be used to individualise treatment decisions and that there is merit in continuing to offer IUI before resorting to IVF for certain patients.

IUI and IVF for unexplained subfertility: where did we go wrong?

IUI is a first-line treatment for couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and has become one of the most widely used fertility-enhancing treatments. The results of a recent trial comparing IVF to IUI, demonstrating similar live birth rates, have been used to build a case supporting the effectiveness of IUI. Yet, this conclusion might be somewhat premature, as the superiority of neither IUI nor IVF over no treatment has ever been proven. The evidence on the effectiveness and safety of IUI and IVF has been evaluated in two Cochrane reviews which both suggested that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that IUI or IVF is effective compared to sexual intercourse in couples with unexplained subfertility. Recommendations for clinical practice have been given in the most recent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence fertility guideline that advises not to offer IUI any longer and suggests 2 years of sexual intercourse followed by IVF. This recommendation has generated an ongoing debate, with only 4% of all gynecologists in the UK discontinuing the use of IUI. We feel that it is high time to provide proper scientific evidence for the effectiveness of IUI, or lack thereof, and invite the medical community to start RCTs comparing IUI to sexual intercourse.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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