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

Assessment of clinical pregnancies in up to eight ovarian stimulation with intrauterine insemination treatment cycles in those unable to proceed with in vitro fertilization

OBJECTIVE

To study the primary objective of clinical pregnancy (CP) rate per ovarian stimulation with intrauterine insemination (OS-IUI) treatment cycle in patients with repetitive cycles up to a maximum of 8 cycles.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

Large fertility clinic.

PATIENTS

A total of 37,565 consecutive OS-IUI cycles from 18,509 patients were included in this study.

INTERVENTIONS

Those with anovulatory diagnoses, tubal factor infertility, male factor infertility, using donor sperm, canceled cycles, and those with missing data for either baseline characteristics or outcome were excluded. The CP rate was analyzed using generalized estimating equations and controlled for age, stimulation protocol, and body mass index.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Clinical pregnancy was defined as intrauterine gestation with fetal heartbeat visible on ultrasound.

RESULTS

A total of 37,565 consecutive OS-IUI cycles from 2002 through 2019 at a private practice facility were evaluated. All cycles met inclusion criteria and were used in generalized estimating equation modeling. Patients aged <35 years comprised 47.6% of the cohort. After adjustment for confounders, the mean predicted probability of CP for cycles one to 8 was 15.7% per cycle. The mean predicted probability of CP in aggregated data from cycles 2 to 4 was only 1.7% lower compared with cycle 1 as the referent (16.7% vs. 15.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2nd: 0.88 {0.82, 0.95}, 3rd: 0.86 {0.79, 0.93}, 4th: 0.88 {0.79, 0.98}). However, the 15.0% mean predicted probability of CP for the second through the fourth cycle was concordant with the mean for all included cycles (15.7%). The mean predicted probability of CP of cycles 5 to 8 was not significantly different compared with the referent (16.7% vs. 16.1%, 95% CI 5th: 0.97 [0.85, 1.11], 6th: 0.93 [0.79, 1.10], 7th: 1.01 [0.81, 1.26], 8th: 1.01 [0.76, 1.34]). The modeling of consecutive cycles suggested that the adjusted cumulative predicted probability of CP from OS-IUI continues to increase with each of the 8 successive cycles.

CONCLUSION

Clinical pregnancy rates are satisfactory in up to 8 consecutive OS-IUI treatment cycles. These data are useful for counseling, especially in those patients for whom in vitro fertilization is not financially or ethically feasible.

The impact of clomiphene citrate on the endometrium in comparison to gonadotropins in intrauterine insemination cycles: is it thinner and does it matter?

Objective

To determine whether endometrial thickness (EMT) differs between i) clomiphene citrate (CC) and gonadotropin (Gn) utilizing patients as their own controls, and ii) patients who conceived with CC and those who did not. Furthermore, to investigate the association between late-follicular EMT and pregnancy outcomes, in CC and Gn cycles.

Methods

Retrospective study. Three sets of analyses were conducted separately for the purpose of this study. In analysis 1, we included all cycles from women who initially underwent CC/IUI (CC1, n=1252), followed by Gn/IUI (Gn1, n=1307), to compare EMT differences between CC/IUI and Gn/IUI, utilizing women as their own controls. In analysis 2, we included all CC/IUI cycles (CC2, n=686) from women who eventually conceived with CC during the same study period, to evaluate EMT differences between patients who conceived with CC (CC2) and those who did not (CC1). In analysis 3, pregnancy outcomes among different EMT quartiles were evaluated in CC/IUI and Gn/IUI cycles, separately, to investigate the potential association between EMT and pregnancy outcomes.

Results

In analysis 1, when CC1 was compared to Gn1 cycles, EMT was noted to be significantly thinner [Median (IQR): 6.8 (5.5-8.0) vs. 8.3 (7.0-10.0) mm, p<0.001]. Within-patient, CC1 compared to Gn1 EMT was on average 1.7mm thinner. Generalized linear mixed models, adjusted for confounders, revealed similar results (coefficient: 1.69, 95% CI: 1.52-1.85, CC1 as ref.). In analysis 2, CC1 was compared to CC2 EMT, the former being thinner both before [Median (IQR): 6.8 (5.5-8.0) vs. 7.2 (6.0-8.9) mm, p<0.001] and after adjustment (coefficient: 0.59, 95%CI: 0.34-0.85, CC1 as ref.). In analysis 3, clinical pregnancy rates (CPRs) and ongoing pregnancy rates (OPRs) improved as EMT quartiles increased (Q1 to Q4) among CC cycles (p<0.001, p<0.001, respectively), while no such trend was observed among Gn cycles (p=0.94, p=0.68, respectively). Generalized estimating equations models, adjusted for confounders, suggested that EMT was positively associated with CPR and OPR in CC cycles, but not in Gn cycles.

Conclusions

Within-patient, CC generally resulted in thinner EMT compared to Gn. Thinner endometrium was associated with decreased OPR in CC cycles, while no such association was detected in Gn cycles.

Evaluating prognosis in unexplained infertility

IMPORTANCE

The diagnosis of unexplained infertility presents a dilemma as it signifies both uncertainty about the cause of infertility and the potential for natural conception. Immediate treatment of all would result in overtreatment. Prediction models estimating the likelihood of natural conception and subsequent live birth can guide treatment decisions.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate if in couples with unexplained infertility, prediction models are effective in guiding treatment decisions.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This review examines 25 studies that assess prediction models for natural conception in couples with unexplained infertility in terms of derivation, validation, and impact analysis.

FINDINGS

The largest prediction models have been integrated in the synthesis models of Hunault, which includes female age and infertility duration, having been pregnant before and motile sperm percentage. Despite its limited discriminative capacity, this model demonstrates excellent calibration. Importantly, the impact of the Hunault model has been evaluated in randomized clinical trials, and shows that in couples with unexplained infertility and 12-month natural conception chances exceeding 30%, immediate treatment with intrauterine insemination (IUI) and controlled ovarian hyperstimulation is not better than expectant management for 6 months. Below the threshold of 30%, treatment with IUI is superior over expectant management, but immediate in vitro fertilization was not better than IUI.

CONCLUSION

In couples with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis for natural conception, treatment can be delayed, whereas in couples with a poor prognosis, immediate treatment (with IUI-controlled ovarian hyperstimulation) is warranted.

RELEVANCE

These data indicate that in couples with unexplained infertility, integration of prediction models into clinical decision making can optimize treatment selection and maximize fertility outcomes while limiting unnecessary treatment.

Multifetal Pregnancy After Implementation of a Publicly Funded Fertility Program

Importance

A publicly funded fertility program was introduced in Ontario, Canada, in 2015 to increase access to fertility treatment. For in vitro fertilization (IVF), the program mandated an elective single-embryo transfer (eSET) policy. However, ovulation induction and intrauterine insemination (OI/IUI)-2 other common forms of fertility treatment-were more difficult to regulate in this manner. Furthermore, prior epidemiologic studies only assessed fetuses at birth and did not account for potential fetal reductions that may have been performed earlier in pregnancy.

Objective

To examine the association between fertility treatment and the risk of multifetal pregnancy in a publicly funded fertility program, accounting for both fetal reductions and all live births and stillbirths.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This population-based, retrospective cohort study used linked administrative health databases at ICES to examine all births and fetal reductions in Ontario, Canada, from April 1, 2006, to March 31, 2021.

Exposure

Mode of conception: (1) unassisted conception, (2) OI/IUI, or (3) IVF.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was multifetal pregnancy (ie, a twin or higher-order pregnancy). Modified Poisson regression generated adjusted relative risks (ARRs) and derived population attributable fractions (PAFs) for multifetal pregnancies attributable to fertility treatment. Absolute rate differences (ARDs) were used to compare the era before eSET was promoted (2006-2011) with the era after the introduction of the eSET mandate (2016-2021).

Results

Of all 1 724 899 pregnancies, 1 670 825 (96.9%) were by unassisted conception (mean [SD] maternal age, 30.6 [5.2] years), 24 395 (1.4%) by OI/IUI (mean [SD] maternal age, 33.1 [4.4] years), and 29 679 (1.7%) by IVF (mean [SD] maternal age, 35.8 [4.7] years). In contrast to unassisted conception, individuals who received OI/IUI or IVF tended to be older, reside in a high-income quintile neighborhood, or have preexisting health conditions. Multifetal pregnancy rates were 1.4% (95% CI, 1.4%-1.4%) for unassisted conception, 10.5% (95% CI, 10.2%-10.9%) after OI/IUI, and 15.5% (95% CI, 15.1%-15.9%) after IVF. Compared with unassisted conception, the ARR of any multifetal pregnancy was 7.0 (95% CI, 6.7-7.3) after OI/IUI and 9.9 (95% CI, 9.6-10.3) after IVF, with corresponding PAFs of 7.1% (95% CI, 7.1%-7.2%) and 13.4% (95% CI, 13.3%-13.4%). Between the eras of 2006 to 2011 and 2016 to 2021, multifetal pregnancy rates decreased from 12.9% to 9.1% with OI/IUI (ARD, -3.8%; 95% CI, -4.2% to -3.4%) and from 29.4% to 7.1% with IVF (ARD, -22.3%; 95% CI, -23.2% to -21.6%).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of more than 1.7 million pregnancies in Ontario, Canada, a publicly funded IVF program mandating an eSET policy was associated with a reduction in multifetal pregnancy rates. Nevertheless, ongoing strategies are needed to decrease multifetal pregnancy, especially in those undergoing OI/IUI.

How successful is intrauterine insemination after failed IVF? A study of 551 women

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the success rate of intrauterine insemination (IUI) after failing IVF?

DESIGN

This retrospective cohort study evaluated the pregnancy outcomes of 551 patients who underwent a total of 992 IUI cycles at an academic fertility centre between October 2008 and April 2018.

RESULTS

The study participants (n = 551) had previously failed one to three fresh IVF cycles and any resultant embryo transfers, and subsequently underwent a total of 992 IUI cycles. When comparing demographics, women with ongoing pregnancies, clinical pregnancies and positive pregnancies were significantly younger (P = 0.037, P = 0.025 and P = 0.049, respectively) compared with women who did not conceive. The cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate for all IUI cycles was 7.44% per patient (41 pregnancies in 551 patients), and the ongoing pregnancy rate after the first IUI cycle was 4.72%. In single women who had previously failed six IUI cycles before undergoing IVF cycles with donor sperm, the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate was 15.8% in donor sperm IUI cycles compared with 5.1% in women who used their partner's sperm for both IVF and IUI cycles, with an adjusted odds ratio of 6.1. Patient age, number of previous pregnancies, daily gonadotrophin dose for IVF, number of mature follicles at trigger, and number of failed IVF cycles failed to predict pregnancy outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Ongoing pregnancy following IUI after failed IVF occurs at a rate of approximately 5% per cycle, and this rate is higher if donor sperm is used for both IVF and IUI cycles. This can be considered with proper counselling in women aged <40 years, and may be discouraged in women aged ≥43 years.

IVF versus IUI with ovarian stimulation for unexplained infertility: a collaborative individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

IVF and IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) are widely used in managing unexplained infertility. IUI-OS is generally considered first-line therapy, followed by IVF only if IUI-OS is unsuccessful after several attempts. However, there is a growing interest in using IVF for immediate treatment because it is believed to lead to higher live birth rates and shorter time to pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IVF versus IUI-OS had varied study designs and findings. Some RCTs used complex algorithms to combine IVF and IUI-OS, while others had unequal follow-up time between arms or compared treatments on a per-cycle basis, which introduced biases. Comparing cumulative live birth rates of IVF and IUI-OS within a consistent time frame is necessary for a fair head-to-head comparison. Previous meta-analyses of RCTs did not consider the time it takes to achieve pregnancy, which is not possible using aggregate data. Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) allows standardization of follow-up time in different trials and time-to-event analysis methods. We performed this IPD-MA to investigate if IVF increases cumulative live birth rate considering the time leading to pregnancy and reduces multiple pregnancy rate compared to IUI-OS in couples with unexplained infertility.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register to identify RCTs that completed data collection before June 2021. A search update was carried out in January 2023. RCTs that compared IVF/ICSI to IUI-OS in couples with unexplained infertility were eligible. We invited author groups of eligible studies to join the IPD-MA and share the deidentified IPD of their RCTs. IPD were checked and standardized before synthesis. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool.

OUTCOMES

Of eight potentially eligible RCTs, two were considered awaiting classification. In the other six trials, four shared IPD of 934 women, of which 550 were allocated to IVF and 383 to IUI-OS. Because the interventions were unable to blind, two RCTs had a high risk of bias, one had some concerns, and one had a low risk of bias. Considering the time to pregnancy leading to live birth, the cumulative live birth rate was not significantly higher in IVF compared to that in IUI-OS (4 RCTs, 908 women, 50.3% versus 43.2%, hazard ratio 1.19, 95% CI 0.81-1.74, I2 = 42.4%). For the safety primary outcome, the rate of multiple pregnancy was not significantly lower in IVF than IUI-OS (3 RCTs, 890 women, 3.8% versus 5.2% of all couples randomized, odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.41-1.50, I2 = 0.0%).

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

There is no robust evidence that in couples with unexplained infertility IVF achieves pregnancy leading to live birth faster than IUI-OS. IVF and IUI-OS are both viable options in terms of effectiveness and safety for managing unexplained infertility. The associated costs of interventions and the preference of couples need to be weighed in clinical decision-making.

Impact of current and previous sperm findings on outcomes of intrauterine insemination

Purpose

To examine the association between semen characteristics and outcomes of intrauterine insemination (IUI).

Methods

This retrospective analysis examined 1380 IUI procedures involving 421 couples. The association of clinical pregnancy with pre- and post-wash sperm characteristics was assessed.

Results

Pre- and post-wash sperm characteristics did not differ between IUI cycles that resulted in pregnancy and those that did not. When the motility of pre-wash sperm was below the normal range (<42%) established by the World Health Organization (WHO), the pregnancy rate was significantly lower. In the IUI cycles when post-wash sperm motility was below the WHO standard, pregnancy was not achieved. The frequency of improvement in post-wash sperm motility in repeated IUI cycles appeared to correlate with the success of future IUI cycles. At the fourth IUI cycle, pregnancy was not achieved unless the post-wash sperm motility was normal in at least two of three attempts. When post-wash sperm concentration was below the normal range, the woman's age did not affect the IUI outcomes.

Conclusions

Sperm motility above the lower limit of the WHO criteria in post-wash semen samples is an important factor in IUI outcomes.

Should IUI replace IVF as first-line treatment for unexplained infertility? A literature review

BACKGROUND

Unexplained infertility accounts for 25% of infertility causes in the UK. Active intervention methods, such as intrauterine insemination (IUI) or in vitro fertilisation (IVF), are often sought. Despite the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommending IVF for unexplained infertility, this recommendation has generated an ongoing debate, with few fertility clinics discontinuing the use of IUI as the first-line management of choice. In contrast to NICE, recent guidance released from the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) in August 2023 supports the use of IUI as first-line. High-quality evidence behind such interventions is lacking, with current literature providing conflicting results.

AIMS

This review aims to provide a literature overview exploring whether IUI or IVF should be used as first-line treatment for couples with unexplained infertility, in the context of current guidelines.

METHODS

The primary outcome used to assess efficacy of both treatment methods is live birth (LB) rates. Secondary outcomes used are clinical pregnancy (CP) and ongoing pregnancy (OP) rates. A comprehensive literature search of 4 databases: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Maternity & Infant Care and the Cochrane Library were searched in January 2022. Upon removal of duplications, abstract screening, and full-text screening, a total of 34 papers were selected.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

This review highlights a large discrepancy in the literature when examining pregnancy outcomes of IUI and IVF treatments. Evidence shows IUI increases LB and CP rates 3-fold compared to expectant management. Literature comparing IUI to IVF is less certain. The review finds the literature implies IVF should be used for first-line management but the paucity of high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs), coupled with heterogeneity of the identified studies and a lack of research amongst women > 40 years warrants the need for further large RCTs. The decision to offer IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) or IVF should be based upon patient prognostic factors. We suggest that IUI-OS could be offered as first-line treatment for unexplained infertility for women < 38 years, with good prognosis, and IVF could be offered first to those > 38 years. Patients should be appropriately counselled to enable informed decision making.

In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility

BACKGROUND

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a treatment for unexplained subfertility but is invasive, expensive, and associated with risks.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IVF versus expectant management, unstimulated intrauterine insemination (IUI), and IUI with ovarian stimulation using gonadotropins, clomiphene citrate (CC), or letrozole in improving pregnancy outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched following databases from inception to November 2021, with no language restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL. We searched reference lists of articles and conference abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness of IVF for unexplained subfertility with expectant management, unstimulated IUI, and stimulated IUI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods.

MAIN RESULTS

IVF versus expectant management (two RCTs) We are uncertain whether IVF improves live birth rate (LBR) and clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) compared to expectant management (odds ratio (OR) 22.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.56 to 189.37; 1 RCT; 51 women; very low-quality evidence; OR 3.24, 95% CI 1.07 to 9.8; 2 RCTs; 86 women; I2 = 80%; very low-quality evidence). Adverse effects were not reported. Assuming 4% LBR and 12% CPR with expectant management, these would be 8.8% to 9% and 13% to 58% with IVF. IVF versus unstimulated IUI (two RCTs) IVF may improve LBR compared to unstimulated IUI (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.19 to 5.12; 2 RCTs; 156 women; I2 = 60%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether there is a difference between IVF and IUI for multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.04 to 27.29; 1 RCT; 43 women; very low-quality evidence) and miscarriage rate (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.14 to 21.25; 1 RCT; 43 women; very low-quality evidence). No study reported ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Assuming 16% LBR, 3% MPR, and 6% miscarriage rate with unstimulated IUI, these outcomes would be 18.5% to 49%, 0.1% to 46%, and 0.9% to 58% with IVF. IVF versus IUI + ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins (6 RCTs), CC (1 RCT), or letrozole (no RCTs) Stratified analysis was based on pretreatment status. Treatment-naive women There may be little or no difference in LBR between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles: OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.61; 3 RCTs; 731 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence; 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle: OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.92; 2 RCTs; 221 women; I2 = 54%; low-quality evidence); or between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 2.51, 95% CI 0.96 to 6.55; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 42% LBR with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles) and 26% LBR with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle), LBR would be 39% to 54% and 24% to 51% with IVF. Assuming 15% LBR with IUI + CC, LBR would be 15% to 54% with IVF. There may be little or no difference in CPR between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles: OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.59; 3 RCTs; 731 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence; 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle: OR 4.59, 95% CI 1.86 to 11.35; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence); or between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 3.58, 95% CI 1.51 to 8.49; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 48% CPR with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles) and 17% with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle), CPR would be 44% to 60% and 28% to 70% with IVF. Assuming 21% CPR with IUI + CC, CPR would be 29% to 69% with IVF. There may be little or no difference in multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles: OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.77; 3 RCTs; 731 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence; 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle: OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.58; 2 RCTs; 221 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence); or between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.41; 1 RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if there is a difference in OHSS between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins with 1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles (OR 6.86, 95% CI 0.35 to 134.59; 1 RCT; 207 women; very low-quality evidence); and there may be little or no difference in OHSS with 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.36 to 4.16; 2 RCTs; 221 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.24 to 9.57; 1 RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if there is a difference in miscarriage rate between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins with 1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.04; 1 RCT; 207 women; very low-quality evidence); and there may be little or no difference with 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.02; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.54 to 4.05; 1 RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence). In women pretreated with IUI + CC IVF may improve LBR compared with IUI + gonadotropins (OR 3.90, 95% CI 2.32 to 6.57; 1 RCT; 280 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 22% LBR with IUI + gonadotropins, LBR would be 39% to 65% with IVF. IVF may improve CPR compared with IUI + gonadotropins (OR 14.13, 95% CI 7.57 to 26.38; 1 RCT; 280 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 30% CPR with IUI + gonadotropins, CPR would be 76% to 92% with IVF.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

IVF may improve LBR over unstimulated IUI. Data should be interpreted with caution as overall evidence quality was low.

Optimizing intrauterine insemination and spontaneous conception in women with unilateral hydrosalpinx or tubal pathology: A systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

Tubal surgery's role in infertile women with unilateral tubal pathology (e.g. hydrosalpinx, tubal occlusion) who desire spontaneous or intrauterine insemination (IUI) conception where in-vitro fertilisation is infeasible remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review on fertility outcomes in women with unilateral tubal pathology desiring to conceive spontaneously or via IUI and to find guidance to support therapeutic tubal procedures to help these women conceive.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Using a protocol registered on PROSPERO (ID CRD42021248720), we searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library from inception until June 2022. Bibliographies were reviewed to identify other relevant articles.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by a third author. Studies presenting fertility outcome data in infertile women with unilateral tubal pathologies desiring spontaneous or IUI conception were included. Methodologic quality was assessed using a modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale for observational studies and the Institute of Health Economics Quality Appraisal Checklist for case series. Primary outcomes collated included cumulative pregnancy rate (CPR) and pregnancy rate per cycle (PR/cycle). Secondary outcomes such as ectopic pregnancy, birth outcomes, and pelvic inflammatory disease were collated. These were stratified by the types of unilateral tubal occlusion (UTO) i.e. hydrosalpinx, proximal tubal occlusion (PTO), or distal tubal occlusion (DTO) MAIN RESULTS: Two studies reported spontaneous or IUI pregnancies after treatment of unilateral hydrosalpinx with one reporting a pregnancy rate of 88% within 5.6 months on average. Thirteen studies compared IUI outcomes between women with UTO vs unexplained infertility and bilateral tubal patency (controls). Almost all were retrospective cohort studies and identified UTO by hysterosalpingography. In general, PTOs had no difference in PR/cycle and CPR compared to controls and significantly higher PR/cycle to DTOs. Women with DTOs had minimal incremental CPR benefit with each additional IUI cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic salpingectomy or tubal occlusion improve IUI or spontaneous conception in women with hydrosalpinx, although more prospective studies are needed. While significant study heterogeneity hampered assessment of fertility outcomes, overall, infertile women with PTOs had similar IUI pregnancy outcomes to those with bilateral tubal patency while DTOs had inferior PR/cycle. This review highlights significant deficiencies in the evidence guiding management for this group of patients.

Live birth is not the only relevant outcome in research assessing assisted reproductive technology

In assisted reproductive technology (ART) research, live birth has been generally accepted as an important outcome, if not the most important one. However, it has been reported inconsistently in the literature and solely focusing on live birth can lead to misinterpretation of research findings. In this review, we provide an overview on the definitions of live birth, including various denominators and numerators use. We present a series of real clinical examples in ART research to demonstrate the impact of variations in live birth on research findings and the importance of other outcomes, including multiple pregnancy, pregnancy loss, time to pregnancy leading to live birth, other short and long term maternal and offspring health outcomes and cost effectiveness measures. We suggest that outcome choices in ART research should be tailored for the research questions. A holistic outcome assessment beyond live birth would provide a full picture to address research questions in ART in terms of effectiveness and safety, and thus facilitate evidence-based decision making.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes, Risks, and Costs for 20,910 Donor In Vitro Fertilization and 16,850 Donor Artificial Insemination Treatment Cycles: A Retrospective Analysis in China

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of donor in vitro fertilization (IVF-D) and donor artificial insemination (AI-D) in clinical outcomes, risks, and costs.

METHODS

This study analyzed the cycle changes and clinical outcomes in 20,910 IVF-D and 16,850 AI-D cycles between 2013 and 2021 in the Reproductive and Genetic Hospital of CITIC-Xiangya. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to evaluate the costs per couple and per live birth cycle in the two treatment groups.

RESULTS

IVF-D had higher pregnancy and live birth rates than AI-D (p < 0.001). The cumulative pregnancy and live birth rates for three AI-D cycles were 41.01% and 32.42%, respectively, higher than the rates for one or two AI-D cycles. The multiple birth and birth defect rate of AI-D was lower than that of IVF-D significantly. IVF-D mean cost per couple was higher than that of AI-D (CNY32,575 vs. CNY11,062, p < 0.001), with a mean cost difference of CNY21,513 (95% confidence interval, CNY20,517-22,508). The mean costs per live birth cycle for IVF-D and AI-D were CNY49,411 and CNY31,246, respectively.

CONCLUSION

AI-D is more cost-effective and poses a lower risk for infertility couples than IVF-D, and patients should undergo three AI-D cycles to obtain the highest success rate.

Expectant management versus IUI in unexplained subfertility and a poor pregnancy prognosis (EXIUI study): a randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION

For couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, is 6 months expectant management (EM) inferior to IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS), in terms of live births?

SUMMARY ANSWER

In couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, 6 months of EM is inferior compared to IUI-OS in terms of live births.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis are often treated with IUI-OS. In couples with unexplained subfertility and a relatively good prognosis for natural conception (>30% in 12 months), IUI-OS does not increase the live birth rate as compared to 6 months of EM. However, in couples with a poor prognosis for natural conception (<30% in 12 months), the effectiveness of IUI-OS is uncertain.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We performed a non-inferiority multicentre randomized controlled trial within the infrastructure of the Dutch Consortium for Healthcare Evaluation and Research in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. We intended to include 1091 couples within 3 years. The couples were allocated in a 1:1 ratio to 6 months EM or 6 months IUI-OS with either clomiphene citrate or gonadotrophins.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

We studied heterosexual couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception (<30% in 12 months). The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to a live birth. Non-inferiority would be shown if the lower limit of the one-sided 90% risk difference (RD) CI was less than minus 7% compared to an expected live birth rate of 30% following IUI-OS. We calculated RD, relative risks (RRs) with 90% CI and a corresponding hazard rate for live birth over time based on intention-to-treat and per-protocol (PP) analysis.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Between October 2016 and September 2020, we allocated 92 couples to EM and 86 to IUI-OS. The trial was halted pre-maturely owing to slow inclusion. Mean female age was 34 years, median duration of subfertility was 21 months. Couples allocated to EM had a lower live birth rate than couples allocated to IUI-OS (12/92 (13%) in the EM group versus 28/86 (33%) in the IUI-OS group; RR 0.40 90% CI 0.24 to 0.67). This corresponds to an absolute RD of minus 20%; 90% CI: -30% to -9%. The hazard ratio for live birth over time was 0.36 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.70). In the PP analysis, live births rates were 8 of 70 women (11%) in the EM group versus 26 of 73 women (36%) in the IUI-OS group (RR 0.32, 90% CI 0.18 to 0.59; RD -24%, 90% CI -36% to -13%) in line with inferiority of EM.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Our trial did not reach the planned sample size, therefore the results are limited by the number of participants.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This study confirms the results of a previous trial that in couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, EM is inferior to IUI-OS.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The trial was supported by a grant of the SEENEZ healthcare initiative. The subsidizing parties were The Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW 837004023, www.zonmw.nl) and the umbrella organization of 10 health insurers in The Netherlands. E.R.G. receives personal fees from Titus Health care outside the submitted work. M.G. declares unrestricted research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring not related to the presented work, paid to their institution VU medical centre. A.B.H. reports receiving travel and speakers fees from Nordic Pharma and Merck and he is member of the Nordic Pharma ANGEL group and of the Safety Monitoring Board of Womed. C.B.L. reports speakers fee from Inmed and Yingming, and his department receives research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet paid to VU medical centre. B.W.J.M. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437) and reports consultancy for ObsEva and Merck. M.v.W. received a grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development ZonMW (80-8520098-91072). F.M. received two grants from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development ZonMW (NTR 5599 and NTR 6590). The other authors report no competing interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Dutch Trial register NL5455 (NTR5599).

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

18 December 2015.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

26 January 2017.

Predicting success of intrauterine insemination using a clinically based scoring system

Purpose

To develop a predictive score for the success of intrauterine insemination (IUI) based on clinical parameters.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study evaluating the homologous IUI cycles performed at a single university-based reproductive medical center between 2009 and 2017. The primary outcome measure was pregnancy, defined as positive serum human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) 12–14 days after IUI. Predictive factors for pregnancy after IUI were identified, and a predictive score was developed using a multivariable continuation ratio model.

Results

Overall, 1437 IUI cycles in 758 couples were evaluated. We found a per cycle pregnancy rate of 10.9% and a cumulative pregnancy rate of 19.4%. In a multivariable analysis, the probability of pregnancy was negatively associated with female age ≥ 35 years (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41–0.97, p = 0.034), endometriosis, unilateral tubal factor, or anatomical alteration (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33–0.89, p = 0.016), anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) < 1 ng/ml (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29–0.87, p = 0.014), and total progressive motile sperm count (TPMSC) < 5 mil (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.19–0.72, p = 0.004). We developed a predictive clinical score ranging from 0 to 5. Following 3 cycles, couples in our cohort with a score of 5 had a cumulative probability of achieving pregnancy of nearly 45%. In contrast, couples with a score of 0 had a cumulative probability of only 5%.

Conclusion

IUI success rates vary widely depending on couples’ characteristics. A simple to use score could be used to estimate a couple’s chance of achieving pregnancy via IUI, facilitating individualized counseling and decision-making.

Effectiveness and safety of intrauterine insemination vs. assisted reproductive technology: emulating a target trial using an observational database of administrative claims

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of 1 cycle of assisted reproductive technology (ART) vs. 3 cycles of intrauterine insemination (IUI).

DESIGN

Target trial emulation using observational data.

SETTING

A healthcare claims database (2011-2015).

PATIENT(S)

The patients were 29,021 women aged 18-45 years with an infertility diagnosis and no history of IUI or ART within the past 12 months.

INTERVENTION(S)

One ART cycle immediately, with no more cycles of ART or IUI within the next 4 months; or 1 IUI cycle immediately, with 2 additional consecutive cycles of IUI within the next 4 months unless pregnancy occurred.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Live births, multiple births, congenital malformations, preterm births, small-for-gestational-age newborns, large-for-gestational-age newborns, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, and gestational hypertension.

RESULT(S)

The probability of live birth was 27.3% for ART and 26.3% for IUI. The observational analogue of per-protocol risk difference (95% confidence interval) for ART compared with IUI was 1.0% (-0.1%, 2.2%) for live births, 4.3% (3.7%, 4.9%) for multiple births, 3.4% (2.8%, 4.0%) for preterm births, 1.5% (0.9%, 2.1%) for NICU admissions, and 0.6% (0.2%, 1.0%) for gestational diabetes. The risk differences for the other outcomes were <0.5%. The results of the 2 strategies were similar in women ≤40 years, but in women >40 years the probability of live birth was greater for ART (14.4%) than for IUI (7.4%).

CONCLUSION(S)

Compared with 3 cycles of IUI, 1 cycle of ART was estimated to have a similar probability of live birth but slightly higher risks of multiple gestations, preterm births, and NICU admissions.

Should intrauterine inseminations still be proposed in cases of unexplained infertility? Retrospective study and literature review

OBJECTIVE

Unexplained infertility is defined by the absence of identifiable causes of infertility. The results of randomized studies and meta-analysis regarding the treatment of unexplained infertility are discordant due to methodological problems.

DESIGN

The aim of this study is to compare the clinical pregnancy rate per cycle (CPR/c) in IUI and IVF/ICSI in cases of unexplained infertility, according to the woman's age group and to identify the factors which predict success.

INTERVENTIONS

We performed a retrospective study in two ART centers, comparing overall clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates in IVF/ICSI and IUI. We also compared pregnancy and birth rates according to different female age groups.

RESULTS

855 IVF/ICSI and 804 IUI cycles were compared. We found a significant difference (p < 0.001) in the pregnancy and live birth rates per cycle between IUI and IVF/ICSI, overall and in the different female age groups, except in women aged 40 and over. The greatest chances of pregnancy with IUI are found in women with secondary unexplained infertility, during the first two cycles and with a bi-follicular response to stimulation. In IVF/ICSI, pregnancy rates are higher in women with secondary unexplained infertility, in the first two cycles, in IVF and in women receiving a transfer of two embryos regardless of the embryonic stage.

CONCLUSION

We recommend IVF/ICSI treatment rather than IUI for unexplained infertility (OR CPR/c 4.20 with 95% CI [3.72-4.68]). This is in accordance with NICE, which advises the use of IVF after 2 years.

Improving IUI success by performing modified slow-release insemination and a patient-centred approach in an insemination programme with partner semen: a prospective cohort study

Background

Pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment continue to improve, while intrauterine insemination (IUI) programmes show no such trend. There is a need to improve success rates with IUI to retain it as a viable option for couples who prefer avoiding IVF as a first line treatment.

Objective

To investigate if a modified slow-release insemination (SRI) increases the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) after intrauterine insemination (IUI) with partner semen.

Materials and Methods

This was a prospective cohort study in a Belgian tertiary fertility centre. Between July 2011 and December 2018, we studied data from an ongoing prospective cohort study including 989 women undergoing 2565 IUI procedures for unexplained or mild/moderate male infertility. These data were analysed in order to study the importance of different covariates influencing IUI success. Generalised estimating equations (GEEs) were used for statistical analysis. Results of two periods (2011-2015, period 1 and 2016-2018, period 2) were examined and compared. From January 2016 (period 2) onwards, a standardised SRI procedure instead of bolus injection of sperm was applied. The primary outcome parameter was the difference in clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) per cycle between period 1 (bolus IUI) and period 2 (modified SRI). Secondary outcome results included all other parameters significantly influencing CPR after IUI.

Results

Following the application of modified SRI the CPR increased significantly, from 9.03% (period 1) to 13.52% (period 2) (p = 0.0016). Other covariates significantly influencing CPR were partner’s age, smoking/ non-smoking partner, BMI patient, ovarian stimulation protocol and Inseminating Motile Count (after semen processing).

Conclusion

The intentional application of modified slow-release of processed semen appears to significantly increase CPRs after IUI with homologous semen. Future studies should investigate whether SRI, patient-centred measures, or a combination of both, are responsible for this improvement.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Choosing and changing the analysis scale in non-inferiority trials with a binary outcome

Background

The size of the margin strongly influences the required sample size in non-inferiority and equivalence trials. What is sometimes ignored, however, is that for trials with binary outcomes, the scale of the margin – risk difference, risk ratio or odds ratio – also has a large impact on power and thus on sample size requirement. When considering several scales at the design stage of a trial, these sample size consequences should be taken into account. Sometimes, changing the scale may be needed at a later stage of a trial, for example, when the event proportion in the control arm turns out different from expected. Also after completion of a trial, a switch to another scale is sometimes made, for example, when using a regression model in a secondary analysis or when combining study results in a meta-analysis that requires unifying scales. The exact consequences of such switches are currently unknown.

Methods and Results

This article first outlines sample size consequences for different choices of analysis scale at the design stage of a trial. We add a new result on sample size requirement comparing the risk difference scale with the risk ratio scale. Then, we study two different approaches to changing the analysis scale after the trial has commenced: (1) mapping the original non-inferiority margin using the event proportion in the control arm that was anticipated at the design stage or (2) mapping the original non-inferiority margin using the observed event proportion in the control arm. We use simulations to illustrate consequences on type I and type II error rates. Methods are illustrated on the INES trial, a non-inferiority trial that compared single birth rates in subfertile couples after different fertility treatments. Our results demonstrate large differences in required sample size when choosing between risk difference, risk ratio and odds ratio scales at the design stage of non-inferiority trials. In some cases, the sample size requirement is twice as large on one scale compared with another. Changing the scale after commencing the trial using anticipated proportions mainly impacts type II error rate, whereas switching using observed proportions is not advised due to not maintaining type I error rate. Differences were more pronounced with larger margins.

Conclusions

Trialists should be aware that the analysis scale can have large impact on type I and type II error rates in non-inferiority trials.

Intrauterine insemination + controlled ovarian hyperstimulation versus in vitro fertilisation in unexplained infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

IUI + COH is widely used in cases of unexplained infertility before resorting to IVF. Debate continues about what should be the first-line treatment for couples with unexplained infertility.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review assessed the relative efficacy of IUI + COH compared with IVF in couples with unexplained infertility.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Medline, Embase, CIHNL, Pscy Info, and Cochrane Library from 1980 to November 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only RCTs published articles in full text with female patients aged 18-43 years and diagnosed with unexplained infertility were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors reviewed citations from primary search independently and any disagreement was resolved by mutual discussion and consultation with a third author.

MAIN RESULT

In total, eight RCTs were included. The quality of evidence was moderate to low due to inconsistency across the trials and imprecision. The pooled result showed that IVF was associated with a statistically significant higher live birth rate (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.01-2.32, P < 0.00001 I² = 86%) with no significant difference in multiple pregnancy rate or OHSS rate. Sensitivity analysis based on women's age and a history of previous IUI or IVF treatment showed no significant difference in the live birth rates (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.88-1.15, I² = 0%, 3 RCTs) in treatment-naïve women younger than 38 years. In women over 38 years, the live birth rates were significantly higher in the IVF group (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.16-4.0, I² = 42%, 1 RCT).

CONCLUSION

Further research using a standardised treatment protocol and taking into account important prognostic variables and cumulative live birth rates from fresh IVF and all sibling frozen embryos is required to further guide clinical practice.

The Use of Pooled Consecutive Ejaculates in Moderate Male Factor Infertility to Increase Intrauterine Insemination Success

Background:

Male factor is a predominant cause of infertility. Success rates of intrauterine insemination(IUI) for male factor depend upon minimum semen parameters such as progressive motility > 30%, strict morphology > 4%, total motile count in the native sample (TMSC) >5 million and inseminating motile count (IMC) > 5 million. Couples with parameters lesser than these are usually advised IVF-ICSI. In developing countries, affordability for IVF is an important deterrent to its widespread utilisation.

Aims:

To evaluate pregnancy rates after the use of a pooled consecutive ejaculate in infertile men with semen parameters of < 5 million TMSC, and to compare with pregnancy rates achieved among couples with semen parameters > 5 million TMSC after processing of a single ejaculate.

Settings and Design:

Private infertility practice. Retrospective study from Oct 2012 to June 2019.

Methods and Materials:

All consecutive patients (n=1979) who underwent IUI in the given study period were included. Patients undergoing donor sperm insemination and low IMC (<1 mill) were excluded from the study. The study group (n=128) included patients in whom the total motile sperm count (TMSC) of the native sample was < 5 million. The control group (n=1851) included patients with normal semen parameters. All participants of the study group with TMSC < 5 million were asked to give a second ejaculate within an hour or two of producing the first. The pooled consecutive ejaculates were used for sample processing and insemination. The primary outcome measure was clinical pregnancy rate. The secondary outcome measures were semen quality of the second ejaculate, TMSC and IMC of both groups.

Statistical Analysis:

Quantitative parameters were compared using Independent sample t-test and Mann Whitney u test. Multivariate binary logistic regression analysis was performed to test the association between the explanatory variables and outcome variable. P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

6.47% (128/1979) of men were required to give a consecutive ejaculate. The initial ejaculate had significantly higher volume (2ml vs 1 ml; P < 0.001); but lower concentration (8 million/ml vs 19 million/ml; P <0.001) and lower progressive motility (25% vs 35%; P <0.001) in comparison with the second. The final IMC of the pooled ejaculate was 9.01 million vs 21.6 million in the control group (P<0.001). The clinical pregnancy rate was comparable between the control group and the consecutive ejaculate group (15.4% vs 15.63%; P =0.94).

Conclusion:

Consecutive semen samples produced immediately after the first have significantly lower volume but higher sperm count and progressive motility. In couples with moderate male factor infertility with semen parameters inadequate for IUI, pooled consecutive ejaculates yield higher inseminating motile counts which enhance IUI success rates.

Birthweight and other perinatal outcomes of singletons conceived after assisted reproduction compared to natural conceived singletons in couples with unexplained subfertility: follow-up of two randomized clinical trials

STUDY QUESTION

Does assisted reproduction, such as ovarian stimulation and/or laboratory procedures, have impact on perinatal outcomes of singleton live births compared to natural conception in couples with unexplained subfertility?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Compared to natural conception, singletons born after intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) had a lower birthweight, while singletons born after IVF had comparable birthweights, in couples with unexplained subfertility.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Singletons conceived by assisted reproduction have different perinatal outcomes such as low birthweight and a higher risk of premature birth than naturally conceived singletons. This might be due to the assisted reproduction, such as laboratory procedures or the ovarian stimulation, or to an intrinsic factor in couples with subfertility.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We performed a prospective cohort study using the follow-up data of two randomized clinical trials performed in couples with unexplained subfertility. We evaluated perinatal outcomes of 472 live birth singletons conceived after assisted reproduction or after natural conception within the time horizon of the studies.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

To assess the possible impact of ovarian stimulation we compared the singletons conceived after IUI with FSH or clomiphene citrate (CC) and IVF in a modified natural cycle (IVF-MNC) or standard IVF with single embryo transfer (IVF-SET) to naturally conceived singletons in the same cohorts. To further look into the possible effect of the laboratory procedures, we put both IUI and IVF groups together into IUI-OS and IVF and compared both to singletons born after natural conception. We only included singletons conceived after fresh embryo transfers. The main outcome was birthweight presented as absolute weight in grams and gestational age- and gender-adjusted percentiles. We calculated differences in birthweight using regression analyses adjusted for maternal age, BMI, smoking, parity, duration of subfertility and child gender.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In total, there were 472 live birth singletons. Of the 472 singleton pregnancies, 209 were conceived after IUI-OS (136 with FSH and 73 with CC as ovarian stimulation), 138 after IVF (50 after IVF-MNC and 88 after IVF-SET) and 125 were conceived naturally.Singletons conceived following IUI-FSH and IUI-CC both had lower birthweights compared to naturally conceived singletons (adjusted difference IUI-FSH -156.3 g, 95% CI -287.9 to -24.7; IUI-CC -160.3 g, 95% CI -316.7 to -3.8). When we compared IVF-MNC and IVF-SET to naturally conceived singletons, no significant difference was found (adjusted difference IVF-MNC 75.8 g, 95% CI -102.0 to 253.7; IVF-SET -10.6 g, 95% CI -159.2 to 138.1). The mean birthweight percentile was only significantly lower in the IUI-FSH group (-7.0 percentile, 95% CI -13.9 to -0.2). The IUI-CC and IVF-SET group had a lower mean percentile and the IVF-MNC group a higher mean percentile, but these groups were not significant different compared to the naturally conceived group (IUI-CC -5.1 percentile, 95% CI -13.3 to 3.0; IVF-MNC 4.4 percentile, 95% CI -4.9 to 13.6; IVF-SET -1.3 percentile, 95% CI -9.1 to 6.4).Looking at the laboratory process that took place, singletons conceived following IUI-OS had lower birthweights than naturally conceived singletons (adjusted difference -157.7 g, 95% CI -277.4 to -38.0). The IVF group had comparable birthweights with the naturally conceived group (adjusted difference 20.9 g, 95% CI -110.8 to 152.6). The mean birthweight percentile was significantly lower in the IUI-OS group compared to the natural group (-6.4 percentile, 95% CI -12.6 to -0.1). The IVF group was comparable (0.7 percentile, 95% CI -6.1 to 7.6).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The results are limited by the number of cases. The data were collected prospectively alongside the randomized controlled trials, but analyzed as treated.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Our data suggest IUI in a stimulated cycle may have a negative impact on the birthweight of the child and possibly on pre-eclampsia. Further research should look into the effect of different methods of ovarian stimulation on placenta pathology and pre-eclampsia in couples with unexplained subfertility using naturally conceived singletons in the unexplained population as a reference.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Both initial trials were supported by a grant from ZonMW, the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (INeS 120620027, SUPER 80-83600-98-10192). The INeS study also had a grant from Zorgverzekeraars Nederland, the Dutch association of healthcare insurers (09-003). B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC investigator Grant (GNT1176437) and reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck Merck KGaA, Guerbet and iGenomix, outside the submitted work. A.H. reports grants from Ferring Pharmaceutical company (the Netherlands), outside the submitted work. F.J.M.B. receives monetary compensation as a member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono (the Netherlands), Ferring Pharmaceutics BV (the Netherlands) and Gedeon Richter (Belgium), he receives personal fees from educational activities for Ferring BV (the Netherlands) and for advisory and consultancy work for Roche and he receives research support grants from Merck Serono and Ferring Pharmaceutics BV, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

INeS study Trial NL915 (NTR939); SUPER Trial NL3895 (NTR4057).

Coordination and planning of clinical research on a national and global level

In reproductive medicine, the needs and desires of infertility patients drive future research, with the most important outcome being live birth of a baby. Large, multicenter, randomized clinical trials are considered the best research tool to evaluate the effectiveness of medical interventions, but they can often take a long time to find definitive answers. Advances in individual participant data (IPD) and network meta-analysis have enabled research questions to be answered more quickly, but better planning could streamline this process further. To harmonize research findings that are taking place globally in this way, it is crucial that the same outcomes are collected in clinical trials conducted in reproductive medicine. Furthermore, the conduct of clinical trials often requires collaboration on an international scale; however, individual countries have their own processes for research prioritization and delivery. We describe the perspective of high- and low-resourced settings and industry as well as the mechanisms of prioritization and coordination that are in place in different settings. In addition, we discuss the importance of the patient perspective, which can help shape the research question, clinical trial design, and the logistical operations of trial delivery. The need for increased global collaboration and coalitions within and between stakeholders is evident for the research community to accelerate advances and maximize benefits in reproductive medicine.

IUI needs fairer appraisal to improve patient and stakeholder choices

Information supporting IVF at the expense of intrauterine insemination (IUI) has become commonplace, but it lacks critical analyses. Data from poorly practiced IUI, without an equivalent comparison to IVF, has been generalised to recommend a total abandonment of IUI in favour of IVF treatment. Our intention with this paper is to reappraise and balance arguments so that patients and stakeholders can have an unbiased informed choice. We provide information that reveals IUI to predominate over IVF in terms of integrated success, risks and cost to deliver one live birth whilst obviating the maternal and neonatal costs. Exceptional cost savings are demonstrated for IUI over IVF for fee-paying agencies and patients with lowered risks of maternal and neonatal care along with other risks including OHSS, fetal reduction and termination of pregnancies. This analysis supports the view that patients and stakeholders can choose IUI instead of IVF in most instances, except with bilateral tubal blockage and severe male factor infertility. It is apparent that fertility clinics need to re-evaluate and reconsider this field, and IUI can be of benefit to both subfertile patients and the stakeholders.

Long-term outcome of patients undergoing in-vitro fertilisation in France: The outcome study

The Outcome study examines the fate of 4083 patients beginning IVF in 41 IVF centres, between January 2010 and December 2013. Cumulative live birth rate per patient (CLBR), the best reflection of IVF efficacy, is rarely presented in publications as it requires long-term follow-up, including all successive cycles, and pregnancies outcome. Analysis of international publications shows an average CLBR of 41.6 % and a drop-out rate of 49.5 %, both greatly varying by country and IVF centres. Because of the frequency with which patients change centre (8%), the Outcome study distinguishes patients with a past history of IVF in another centre (CLBR=47.2 %) and patients undergoing their first true cycle (CLBR=56.4 %). Survival techniques by Competing Risk, intended to take account of drop-out and lost to follow-up, assessed the overall CLBR as being 65.4 %. Differences in performance between centres are considerable for both CLBR (32-64%) and Performance Index, taking account of the number of cycles required to achieve a pregnancy (2-5). Multiple variance logistic regression analysis shows that the indicators influencing performance are age, parity, number of oocytes, smoking habit and overweight. These indicators are independent each other and are influencing performance in a high significant way. After adjusting for these indicators, the differences between centres are reduced but remain large and very significant. No centre appears to have specific expertise in the management of patients with adverse indicators. The Outcome study therefore confirms that the large differences in performance between centres are not explained by a difference in the treated population.

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.

IVF and IUI in couples with unexplained infertility (FIIX study): study protocol of a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTIONS

In couples with unexplained infertility and a poor prognosis of natural conception, are four cycles of IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) non-inferior to one completed cycle of IVF for the outcome of cumulative live birth? Are four cycles of IUI-OS associated with a lower cost per live birth compared to one completed cycle of IVF? Will four cycles of IUI-OS followed by one complete cycle of IVF result in as many live births at lower cost per live birth, than two complete cycles of IVF? Will four cycles of IUI-OS followed by two complete cycles of IVF result in more live births at lower cost per live birth, than two complete cycles of IVF alone?

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

IUI is widely used in the USA, the UK and Europe as a low cost, less invasive alternative to IVF for couples with unexplained infertility. Although three to six cycles of IUI were comparable to IVF in the three major studies carried out to date, gonadotrophin ovarian stimulation was used in the majority of cases, and this also resulted in a high multiple pregnancy rate in some studies. Ovarian stimulation with clomiphene citrate is known to have lower multiple pregnancy rates.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The FIIX study is a multicentre, open label, parallel, pragmatic non-inferiority randomized controlled trial of 580 couples with unexplained infertility comparing four cycles of IUI-OS with clomiphene citrate and one completed cycle of IVF. Variable block randomization stratified by age and clinic with electronic allocation will be used.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Couples with poor prognosis for natural conception and who are eligible for publicly funded fertility treatment in six fertility clinics in New Zealand.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Auckland Medical Research Fund (3718892/1119003), A+ Trust, Auckland District Health Board (A + 8479), Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust (3718514). No competing interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12619001003167.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

15 July 2019

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

02/08/2019

Endometrial thickness after ovarian stimulation with gonadotropin, clomiphene, or letrozole for unexplained infertility, and association with treatment outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To study the association of endometrial thickness (EMT) with live birth rates (LBR) in ovarian stimulation with intrauterine insemination (OS-IUI) treatments for unexplained infertility.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort analysis of the Reproductive Medicine Network's Assessment of Multiple Intrauterine Gestations from Ovarian Stimulation (AMIGOS) randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Multicenter randomized controlled trial.

PATIENTS

A total of 868 couples with unexplained infertility (n=2,459 cycles).

INTERVENTIONS

OS-IUI treatment cycles (n = 2,459) as part of the AMIGOS clinical trial.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Live birth rates; unadjusted and adjusted risk ratios (RR) for live birth by EMT category, calculated using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

The overall mean EMT on day of human chorionic gonadotropin administration in cycles with a live birth was significantly greater than in those without. Compared to the referent EMT group of 9 to 12 mm, the unadjusted RR for live birth for the EMT groups of ≤5 and 6-8 were 0.48 and 0.92, respectively. The test for trend indicated evidence of decreasing LBR with decreasing EMT. After adjustment for ovarian stimulation medication, a linear trend was no longer supported. Stratified analyses revealed no differences in associations by treatment group.

CONCLUSIONS

In OS-IUI for unexplained infertility, higher LBR are observed with increasing EMT; however, EMT is not significantly associated with LBR when adjusted for OS treatment type. Appreciable LBR are seen at all EMT, even those of ≤5 mm, suggesting that OS-IUI cycles should not be canceled for thin endometrium.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01044862.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

CLINICALTRIALS

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

Number of embryos for transfer following in vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection

BACKGROUND

Transfer of more than one embryo during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) increases multiple pregnancy rates resulting in an increased risk of maternal and perinatal morbidity. Elective single embryo transfer offers a means of minimising this risk, but this potential gain needs to be balanced against the possibility of jeopardising the overall live birth rate (LBR).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different policies for the number of embryos transferred in infertile couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology cycles.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group specialised register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to March 2020. We handsearched reference lists of articles and relevant conference proceedings. We also communicated with experts in the field regarding any additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different policies for the number of embryos transferred following IVF or ICSI in infertile women. Studies of fresh or frozen and thawed transfer of one to four embryos at cleavage or blastocyst stage were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias. The primary outcomes were LBR and multiple pregnancy rate. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy and miscarriage rates. We analysed data using risk ratios (RR), Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) and a fixed effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 RCTs in the review (2505 women). The main limitation was inadequate reporting of study methods and moderate to high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding. A majority of the studies had low numbers of participants. None of the trials compared repeated single embryo transfer (SET) with multiple embryo transfer. Reported results of multiple embryo transfer below refer to double embryo transfer. Repeated single embryo transfer versus multiple embryo transfer in a single cycle Repeated SET was compared with double embryo transfer (DET) in four studies of cleavage-stage transfer. In these studies the SET group received either two cycles of fresh SET (one study) or one cycle of fresh SET followed by one frozen SET (three studies). The cumulative live birth rate after repeated SET may be little or no different from the rate after one cycle of DET (RR 0.95, 95% CI (confidence interval) 0.82 to 1.10; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 985 participants; low-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 42% chance of live birth following a single cycle of DET, the repeated SET would yield pregnancy rates between 34% and 46%. The multiple pregnancy rate associated with repeated SET is probably reduced compared to a single cycle of DET (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.21; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 985 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 13% risk of multiple pregnancy following a single cycle of DET, the risk following repeated SET would be between 0% and 3%. The clinical pregnancy rate (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; I² = 47%; 3 studies, 943 participants; low-quality evidence) after repeated SET may be little or no different from the rate after one cycle of DET. There may be little or no difference in the miscarriage rate between the two groups. Single versus multiple embryo transfer in a single cycle A single cycle of SET was compared with a single cycle of DET in 13 studies, 11 comparing cleavage-stage transfers and three comparing blastocyst-stage transfers.One study reported both cleavage and blastocyst stage transfers. Low-quality evidence suggests that the live birth rate per woman may be reduced in women who have SET in comparison with those who have DET (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.75; I² = 0%; 12 studies, 1904 participants; low-quality evidence). Thus, for a woman with a 46% chance of live birth following a single cycle of DET, the chance following a single cycle of SET would be between 27% and 35%. The multiple pregnancy rate per woman is probably lower in those who have SET than those who have DET (Peto OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.22; I² = 0%; 13 studies, 1952 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 15% risk of multiple pregnancy following a single cycle of DET, the risk following a single cycle of SET would be between 2% and 4%. Low-quality evidence suggests that the clinical pregnancy rate may be lower in women who have SET than in those who have DET (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.77; I² = 0%; 10 studies, 1860 participants; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in the miscarriage rate between the two groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although DET achieves higher live birth and clinical pregnancy rates per fresh cycle, the evidence suggests that the difference in effectiveness may be substantially offset when elective SET is followed by a further transfer of a single embryo in fresh or frozen cycle, while simultaneously reducing multiple pregnancies, at least among women with a good prognosis. The quality of evidence was low to moderate primarily due to inadequate reporting of study methods and absence of masking those delivering, as well as receiving the interventions.

Correlation between total sperm count and sperm motility and pregnancy rate in couples undergoing intrauterine insemination

The frequency and significance of sterility is increasing due to different socio-demographic factors in the industrialized countries. At the same time, the patients' demand for more natural and less invasive fertility treatments is increasing. The most common method used in subfertility is intrauterine insemination (IUI). Retrospectively, the data from the patients were analyzed, in which at least one insemination and a maximum of eight inseminations were performed in the last five years (observation period 01.01.2014-31.12.2018) at the Women's University Hospital Homburg. The primary endpoint was the onset of a clinical pregnancy. Clinical pregnancy was correlated with the partner's total sperm count (sperm density in millions), sperm concentration and motility during insemination. These three parameters were evaluated according the World Health Organization (WHO) 2010 guidelines. The results of the spermiograms were correlated with clinical pregnancy outcome. The data were examined for 138 women with sterility, in which a total of 345 inseminations were performed (median 2.5 per woman, range 8 inseminations). There was no correlation found between spermiogram parameters and pregnancy probability in any of the inseminations. After 5 inseminations no further pregnancy occurred. The present study showed no correlation between the conception probability of intrauterine insemination (IUI) and the total sperm count/concentration/motility. After the sixth IUI, we no longer found conceptions in our patient collective. Therefore, data from this study indicate that intrauterine inseminations can be performed at all severity levels of oligoasthenozoospermia. However, the treatment should be limited to five attempts.

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.

Observational retrospective study of UK national success, risks and costs for 319,105 IVF/ICSI and 30,669 IUI treatment cycles

OBJECTIVE

To compare success rates, associated risks and cost-effectiveness between intrauterine insemination (IUI) and in vitro fertilisation (IVF).

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

SETTING

The UK from 2012 to 2016.

PARTICIPANTS

Data from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's freedom of information request for 2012-2016 for IVF/ICSI (intracytoplasmic sperm injection)and IUI as practiced in 319 105 IVF/ICSI and 30 669 IUI cycles. Direct-cost calculations for maternal and neonatal expenditure per live birth (LB) was constructed using the cost of multiple birth model, with inflation-adjusted Bank of England index-linked data. A second direct-cost analysis evaluating the incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) was modelled using the 2016 national mean (baseline) IVF and IUI success rates.

OUTCOME MEASURES

LB, risks from IVF and IUI, and costs to gain 1 LB.

RESULTS

This largest comprehensive analysis integrating success, risks and costs at a national level shows IUI is safer and more cost-effective than IVF treatment.IVF LB/cycle success was significantly better than IUI at 26.96% versus 11.49% (p<0.001) but the IUI success is much closer to IVF at 2.35:1, than previously considered. IVF remains a significant source of multiple gestation pregnancy (MGP) compared with IUI (RR (Relative Risk): 1.45 (1.31 to 1.60), p<0.001) as was the rate of twins (RR: 1.58, p<0.001).In 2016, IVF maternal and neonatal cost was £115 082 017 compared with £2 940 196 for IUI and this MGP-related perinatal cost is absorbed by the National Health Services. At baseline tariffs and success rates IUI was £42 558 cheaper than IVF to deliver 1LB with enhanced benefits with small improvements in IUI. Reliable levels of IVF-related MGP, OHSS (ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome), fetal reductions and terminations are revealed.

CONCLUSION

IUI success rates are much closer to IVF than previously reported, more cost-effective in delivering 1 LB, and associated with lower risk of complications for maternal and neonatal complications. It is prudent to offer IUI before IVF nationally.

Associated factors to pregnancy in intrauterine insemination

Objective

To define the factors associated with clinical pregnancy after intrauterine insemination.

Methods

Retrospective study involving 633 infertility couples, which made up to 1053 cycles of intrauterine insemination. We analyzed the clinical pregnancy rate associated with different factors through the Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test.

Results

The clinical pregnancy rate was 8.2% per insemination cycle and 13.6% per treated couple. The factors with greater association to clinical pregnancy were to have more than two follicles, to perform the procedure without difficulty, to have 3 years or less of infertility, cervical factor as indication, use of gonadotropins and age less than 38 years.

Conclusion

Intrauterine insemination requires to be accompanied by proper selection and couples' preparation.

The effects of intrauterine insemination and single embryo transfer or modified natural cycle in vitro fertilization on offspring's health-Follow-up of a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Does ovarian hyperstimulation and/or the in vitro procedure of assisted reproduction affect neurodevelopmental and physical health of the offspring?

STUDY DESIGN

Infertile couples were randomly allocated to intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (IUI-COH), modified natural cycle in vitro fertilization (IVF-MNC) or single embryo transfer IVF (IVF-SET). We compared neurodevelopmental and physical health in childhood (4-7 years). We used age-appropriate questionnaires to assess behavioral problems (Child Behavior Check List (CBCL)) and executive functioning (Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF)). We measured body mass index Z-score, waist- and hip-circumference, body fat percentage, blood pressure Z-scores, pulse wave velocity, glucose, insulin, insulin resistance, total cholesterol, high- and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and high sensitivity c-reactive protein. We compared groups by analysis of variance.

RESULTS

We examined 191 (57%) of the 333 children born in the study at a mean age of 5.5 years (range 4.0-7.6 years). We found no statistically significant differences between randomization groups in children's neurodevelopmental or physical health indices (all p-values > 0.05). Comparing the outcomes between actual method of conception, including a naturally conceived group, also did not show statistically significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Although this follow-up study was not powered on childhood outcomes and limited power due to attrition may have hampered detection of subtle effects, we found no indications of differences in neurodevelopmental and physical health between ovarian hyperstimulation and/or the in vitro procedure of assisted reproduction. Future trials should be powered on child outcomes, and aim to optimize follow-up rates to provide answers that are more definitive.

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.

Number of motile spermatozoa inseminated and pregnancy outcomes in intrauterine insemination

Purpose

To determine whether age modifies the effect of the number of motile spermatozoa inseminated (NMSI) as a predictor of success in Intrauterine Insemination (IUI).

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included all patients who underwent IUI at an academic infertility center between October 2004 and June 2018. The primary outcome was clinical pregnancy (CP; a gestational sac and fetal heartbeat on ultrasound). Results were analyzed by patient factors including age, NMSI, duration of infertility, and cause of infertility, along with treatment factors such as number of follicles and ovulation induction protocol. Factors associated with the odds of achieving a clinical pregnancy were analyzed using binary logistic generalized estimating equations to control for clustering effects by couple. Female age was categorized as <35 years vs. ≥35 years.

Results

Seven hundred thirty-seven couples that underwent 2062 IUI cycles for heterogeneous indications were included. The overall CP rate was 15.1% per cycle, and the cumulative CP rate per couple was 35.9%. For females < 35 years, the odds of CP per cycle were reduced for NMSI categories (× 10⁶) of < 5.0 vs. ≥10.0 (OR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.29–0.83); the odds of CP per cycle did not differ for NMSI 5.0–9.9 vs. ≥10.0 (OR = 0.66; 0.37–1.18). For those ≥35 years, no difference was seen in the odds of CP per cycle for NMSI categories < 5.0 vs. ≥10.0 (OR = 1.55; 95% CI 0.72–3.31) or 5.0–9.9 vs. ≥10.0 (OR = 1.04; 95% CI 0.48–2.27).

Conclusions

These results suggest that the NMSI can be used as a predictor of success in IUI in couples with women who are < 35 years of age; these patients should be counselled about their lower pregnancy rates when the NMSI is < 5.0 × 10⁶. In patients ≥35 years, the NMSI does not appear to be a useful predictor of success. Further studies with larger sample size should be conducted.

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.

[Medical service use for infertility in French private sector]

OBJECTIVES

This study presents nationally representative estimates and trends for infertility service use among women aged 25-43 and men aged 25-49 in France in 2013-2016.

METHODS

Two retrospective repeated cross-sectional analyses for years 2013 to 2016 were performed on the statutory French health care insurance reimbursement database for independent workers. Use rate was calculated on the number of individuals who underwent at least one infertility service within the studied year per women and men who utilized health services the same year.

RESULTS

1.69% [IC 95%: 1.65; 1.72] of women aged 25-43 who utilized health services had used infertility services during the year 2016: 1.5% used ovulation induction, 0.7% ultrasound monitoring of follicles, 0.3% embryo transfer, 0.3% in vitro fertilization.The use increased significantly from 2013 to 2016 for the following services: ultrasound monitoring of follicles (+ 10%), intracytoplasmic sperm injection (+ 12%), freezing of embryos (+ 32%), thawing of embryos (+ 29%), embryo cryopreservation (+ 88%).In a multivariate analysis, the use was higher among women aged 30-39 years, with a liberal profession, living in the North-east or the south-east, in Corsica or over-seas, receiving health care outside the French territory.0.19% [IC 95%: 0.18; 0.20] of men aged 25-49 years had used infertility services during the year.There was a significant increase from 2013 to 2016 of the proportion of users for sperm freezing (+ 19.18%) and sperm cryopreservation for fertility preservation when cytotoxic therapy is required (+ 84.92%).

CONCLUSION

Some increases resulted from expanded indications. Follow-up will be required in case of legislative enlargement for access to certain techniques.

Follicle stimulating hormone versus clomiphene citrate in intrauterine insemination for unexplained subfertility: a randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION

Is FSH or clomiphene citrate (CC) the most effective stimulation regimen in terms of ongoing pregnancies in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with adherence to strict cancellation criteria as a measure to reduce the number of multiple pregnancies?

SUMMARY ANSWER

In IUI with adherence to strict cancellation criteria, ovarian stimulation with FSH is not superior to CC in terms of the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate, and yields a similar, low multiple pregnancy rate.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN

FSH has been shown to result in higher pregnancy rates compared to CC, but at the cost of high multiple pregnancy rates. To reduce the risk of multiple pregnancy, new ovarian stimulation regimens have been suggested, these include strict cancellation criteria to limit the number of dominant follicles per cycle i.e. withholding insemination when more than three dominant follicles develop. With such a strategy, it is unclear whether the ovarian stimulation should be done with FSH or with CC.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We performed an open-label multicenter randomized superiority controlled trial in the Netherlands (NTR 4057).

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

We randomized couples diagnosed with unexplained subfertility and scheduled for a maximum of four cycles of IUI with ovarian stimulation with 75 IU FSH or 100 mg CC. Cycles were cancelled when more then three dominant follicles developed. The primary outcome was cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate. Multiple pregnancy was a secondary outcome. We analysed the data on intention to treat basis. We calculated relative risks and absolute risk difference with 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Between July 2013 and March 2016, we allocated 369 women to ovarian stimulation with FSH and 369 women to ovarian stimulation with CC. A total of 113 women (31%) had an ongoing pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with FSH and 97 women (26%) had an ongoing pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with CC (RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.93-1.47, ARD = 0.04, 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.11). Five women (1.4%) had a multiple pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with FSH and eight women (2.2%) had a multiple pregnancy following ovarian stimulation with CC (RR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.21-1.89, ARD = -0.01, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.01).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We were not able to blind this study due to the nature of the interventions. We consider it unlikely that this has introduced performance bias, since pregnancy outcomes are objective outcome measures.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

We revealed that adherence to strict cancellation criteria is a successful solution to reduce the number of multiple pregnancies in IUI. To decide whether ovarian stimulation with FSH or with CC should be the regimen of choice, costs and patients' preferences should be taken into account.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This trial received funding from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw). Prof. Dr B.W.J. Mol is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for Merck, ObsEva and Guerbet. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Nederlands Trial Register NTR4057.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

1 July 2013.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

The first patient was randomized at 27 August 2013.

The pregnancy outcomes of intrauterine insemination with husband's sperm in natural cycles versus ovulation stimulated cycles: A retrospective study

To compare the clinical outcomes of intrauterine insemination (IUI) with or without ovulation induction (OI), IUI cycles from January 2008 to December 2017 in Zhoushan Maternity and Child Healthcare Hospital were included, consisting of 455 natural cycles and 536 OI cycles. The overall clinical pregnancy rate did not differ between the two groups (P > 0.05). Stratified by OI medications such as clomiphene (CC), human menopausal gonadotropin (HMG) and follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), the pregnancy rates in HMG, CC, CC+HMG, and FSH/FSH+HMG groups were 11.70%, 13.58%, 15.95%, and 13.46%, respectively, but the difference was not significant compared with natural cycles (P > 0.05). Stratified by infertility etiology, the pregnancy rate was significantly higher in stimulated cycles than natural cycles with ovulation disorders (P < 0.01) and unexplained factors (P < 0.01) while it was significantly lower regarding cervical factors (P < 0.01), endometriosis (P < 0.05), male factor (P < 0.01) and other female factors. There was no strong difference of pregnancy rate for biparental causes (P > 0.05). Stratified by age category, women over 35 had higher pregnancy rate in stimulated cycles compared with natural cycles (18.75 vs. 12.24%; P < 0.05), while women under 35 had no significant difference of pregnancy rate between the two groups (13.65 vs 13.05%; P > 0.05). However, there was no significant difference between each ovarian stimulation group and natural cycle group regardless of the infertility causes or age categories. To conclude, IUI-OI could achieve a higher overall pregnancy rate for women over 35 and infertile patients with ovulation disorders and unexplained factors.

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.

Natural conception rates in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility scheduled for fertility treatment: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION

What is the natural conception rate over the course of 12 months in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility who are scheduled for fertility treatment and have a predicted unfavourable prognosis for natural conception?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The natural conception rate over the course of 12 months in couples who were allocated to treatment was estimated to be 24.5% (95% CI: 20-29%).

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

After starting treatment, couples often perceive unsuccessful cycles as evidence of definitive failure even though they are still able to conceive naturally in between and after treatment. The magnitude of the natural conception rate for couples who chose to commence treatment is unknown, as is whether the calculated prognosis before commencing treatment is still applicable.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial including couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis for natural conception. Couples were allocated to either three cycles IVF with single embryo transfer (SET), six cycles of IVF in a modified natural cycle (MNC) or six cycles of IUI with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (IUI-COH). The detailed data collection in this trial allowed us to study the conception rates in periods that couples were not receiving treatment.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS

We split the dataset into periods during which couples were treated and periods during which they were not treated. Couples could conceive naturally in the periods before, in between and after treatment cycles. The outcome was ongoing pregnancy, thus natural conception rate refers to natural conception leading to ongoing pregnancy. We performed a Cox proportional hazards analysis with female age, duration of subfertility and a time-varying covariate with four categories: IVF-SET, IVF-MNC, IUI-COH and no treatment. We used this Cox model to estimate the natural conception rate over 12 months of no treatment.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Out of 602 included couples, there were 342 ongoing pregnancies, of which 77 (23%) resulted from natural conception. The estimated natural conception rate over 12 months was 24.5% (95% CI: 20-29%) on cohort level. Estimated rates for female age varying between 18 and 38 years and duration of subfertility between 1 and 3 years ranged from 22 to 35%.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We considered couples at risk for natural conception when not receiving treatment, whereas they might not have had periovulatory sexual intercourse. As couples were scheduled for treatment, it is possible that these couples were less inclined to try to conceive naturally, potentially leading to an underestimation of their natural conception rate if they kept trying to conceive.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Couples with unexplained subfertility who are about to start fertility treatment, still have about a one in four chance of ongoing pregnancy due to natural conception over 12 months. This information can add to the counselling of couples who commenced fertility treatment after failed cycles and to emphasize not to cease their natural attempts.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The INeS trial was supported by a grant from ZonMW, the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (120620027), and a grant from Zorgverzekeraars Nederland, the Dutch association of health care insurers (09-003). The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data. B.W.M. is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck and Guerbet. No other potential conflicts of interest reported.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The INeS trial was registered at the Dutch trial registry (NTR 939).

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.

Cost-effectiveness modelling of IVF in couples with unexplained infertility

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does delaying IVF for 6 months in couples with unexplained infertility, compared with immediate IVF treatment, decrease the cost of IVF without compromising success rates?

DESIGN

Decision modelling was used to evaluate the cost and outcomes of immediate IVF versus delayed IVF for a cohort of women aged <40 years suffering unexplained infertility. Australian data and costs were used in the analysis. For different age groups, three scenarios were tested where 10%, 50% and 90% of couples with unexplained infertility delayed IVF for 6 months if they had a good prognosis for natural conception. The study included a total of 8781 couples aged <40 years, diagnosed with unexplained infertility and who had IVF in 2013.

RESULTS

The studied couples underwent 27,648 fresh and frozen embryo transfers, for an estimated total cost of $141 million. Potential out-of-pocket cost savings if 90% of couples delayed IVF ranged from $4.7 to $12.2 million, with Medicare cost savings of up to $15.1 million. The impact on the total pregnancy and live birth rates after 18 months was minimal.

CONCLUSIONS

In couples with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis for natural conception, delaying IVF for 6 months could substantially decrease out-of-pocket costs without compromising pregnancy and live birth rates over an 18-month period.