A multicentre double-blinded randomized controlled trial on the efficacy of laser-assisted hatching in patients with repeated implantation failure undergoing IVF or ICSI

STUDY QUESTION

Does assisted hatching increase the cumulative live birth rate in subfertile couples with repeated implantation failure?

SUMMARY ANSWER

This study showed no evidence of effect for assisted hatching as an add-on in subfertile couples with repeated implantation failure.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The efficacy of assisted hatching, with regard to the live birth rate has not been convincingly demonstrated in randomized trials nor meta-analyses. It is suggested though that especially poor prognosis women, e.g. women with repeated implantation failure, might benefit most from assisted hatching.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The study was designed as a double-blinded, multicentre randomized controlled superiority trial. In order to demonstrate a statistically significant absolute increase in live birth rate of 10% after assisted hatching, 294 participants needed to be included per treatment arm, being a total of 588 subfertile couples. Participants were included and randomized from November 2012 until November 2017, 297 were allocated to the assisted hatching arm of the study and 295 to the control arm. Block randomization in blocks of 20 participants was applied and randomization was concealed from participants, treating physicians, and laboratory staff involved in the embryo transfer procedure. Ovarian hyperstimulation, oocyte retrieval, laboratory procedures, embryo selection for transfer and cryopreservation, the transfer itself, and luteal support were performed according to local protocols and were identical in both the intervention and control arm of the study with the exception of the assisted hatching procedure which was only performed in the intervention group. The laboratory staff performing the assisted hatching procedure was not involved in the embryo transfer itself.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Participants were eligible for inclusion in the study after having had either at least two consecutive fresh IVF or ICSI embryo transfers, including the transfer of frozen and thawed embryos originating from those fresh cycles, and which did not result in a pregnancy or as having had at least one fresh IVF or ICSI transfer and at least two frozen embryo transfers with embryos originating from that fresh cycle which did not result in a pregnancy. The study was performed at the laboratory sites of three tertiary referral hospitals and two university medical centres in the Netherlands.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The cumulative live birth rate per started cycle, including the transfer of fresh and subsequent frozen/thawed embryos if applicable, resulted in 77 live births in the assisted hatching group (n = 297, 25.9%) and 68 live births in the control group (n = 295, 23.1%). This proved to be statistically not significantly different (relative risk: 1.125, 95% CI: 0.847 to 1.494, P = 0.416).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

There was a small cohort of subfertile couples that after not achieving an ongoing pregnancy, still had cryopreserved embryos in storage at the endpoint of the trial, i.e. 1 year after the last randomization. It cannot be excluded that the future transfer of these frozen/thawed embryos increases the cumulative live birth rate in either or both study arms. Next, at the start of this study, there was no international consensus on the definition of repeated implantation failure. Therefore, it cannot be excluded that assisted hatching might be effective in higher order repeated implantation failures.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This study demonstrated no evidence of a statistically significant effect for assisted hatching by increasing live birth rates in subfertile couples with repeated implantation failure, i.e. the couples which, based on meta-analyses, are suggested to benefit most from assisted hatching. It is therefore suggested that assisted hatching should only be offered if information on the absence of evidence of effect is provided, at no extra costs and preferably only in the setting of a clinical trial taking cost-effectiveness into account.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

None.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Netherlands Trial Register (NTR 3387, NL 3235, https://www.clinicaltrialregister.nl/nl/trial/26138).

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

6 April 2012.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

28 November 2012.

Value-based healthcare in fertility care using relevant outcome measures for the full cycle of care leading towards shared decision-making: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To determine if the introduction of value-based healthcare (VBHC) in fertility care can help to create realistic expectations in patients resulting in increased patient value, by demonstrating the relevance of defining outcome measures that truly matter to subfertile patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary fertility centre.

RESULTS

Time to pregnancy (TTP) and ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR), as a proxy for the live birth rate, for the full cycle of fertility care, regardless of which and how many treatment cycles performed, were identified as the most relevant medical outcome measures. Outcome measures were incorporated into a digital dashboard by using anonymised and validated patient data from the electronic patient file. We were able to present the TTP and OPR for the population as a whole as well as stratified for age, diagnosis, gravidity and type of gamete source used thereby resulting in a virtual 'patient like me' resembling the individual patient in the consultation room.

CONCLUSION

We have shown that, by applying VBHC principles, relevant outcome measures can be generated and stratified for different patient characteristics, in order to develop a virtual 'patient like me'. This virtual 'patient like me' can be used in the consulting room in the form of a digital dashboard, attributing to create realistic patient expectations. This facilitates healthcare providers and patients in shared decision-making.

Clinical outcomes of uninterrupted embryo culture with or without time-lapse-based embryo selection versus interrupted standard culture (SelecTIMO): a three-armed, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Time-lapse monitoring is increasingly used in fertility laboratories to culture and select embryos for transfer. This method is offered to couples with the promise of improving pregnancy chances, even though there is currently insufficient evidence for superior clinical results. We aimed to evaluate whether a potential improvement by time-lapse monitoring is caused by the time-lapse-based embryo selection method itself or the uninterrupted culture environment that is part of the system.

METHODS

In this three-armed, multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, couples undergoing in-vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection were recruited from 15 fertility clinics in the Netherlands and randomly assigned using a web-based, computerised randomisation service to one of three groups. Couples and physicians were masked to treatment group, but embryologists and laboratory technicians could not be. The time-lapse early embryo viability assessment (EEVA; TLE) group received embryo selection based on the EEVA time-lapse selection method and uninterrupted culture. The time-lapse routine (TLR) group received routine embryo selection and uninterrupted culture. The control group received routine embryo selection and interrupted culture. The co-primary endpoints were the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate within 12 months in all women and the ongoing pregnancy rate after fresh single embryo transfer in a good prognosis population. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered on the ICTRP Search Portal, NTR5423, and is closed to new participants.

FINDINGS

1731 couples were randomly assigned between June 15, 2017, and March 31, 2020 (577 to the TLE group, 579 to the TLR group, and 575 to the control group). The 12-month cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate did not differ significantly between the three groups: 50·8% (293 of 577) in the TLE group, 50·9% (295 of 579) in the TLR group, and 49·4% (284 of 575) in the control group (p=0·85). The ongoing pregnancy rates after fresh single embryo transfer in a good prognosis population were 38·2% (125 of 327) in the TLE group, 36·8% (119 of 323) in the TLR group, and 37·8% (123 of 325) in the control group (p=0·90). Ten serious adverse events were reported (five TLE, four TLR, and one in the control group), which were not related to study procedures.

INTERPRETATION

Neither time-lapse-based embryo selection using the EEVA test nor uninterrupted culture conditions in a time-lapse incubator improved clinical outcomes compared with routine methods. Widespread application of time-lapse monitoring for fertility treatments with the promise of improved results should be questioned.

FUNDING

Health Care Efficiency Research programme from Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development and Merck.

O-003 The SelecTIMO study - clinical outcomes of uninterrupted embryo culture with or without time-lapse based embryo selection versus interrupted standard culture: a randomized controlled trial

Study question

Does uninterrupted embryo culture with or without the application of a time-lapse monitoring (TLM) selection algorithm lead to higher (cumulative) ongoing pregnancy rates?

Summary answer

Uninterrupted embryo culture with or without a TLM selection algorithm and interrupted culture with morphological embryo selection all resulted in comparable (cumulative) ongoing pregnancy rates.

What is known already

The application of TLM for embryo development has been claimed to improve success rates of IVF and ICSI treatments. Systematic reviews, however, show that evidence supporting the routine clinical use of TLM in IVF laboratories is limited and well-designed RCTs are needed to assess its clinical value. The uninterrupted and stable culture conditions in a TLM incubator may cause an increase of the clinical success rate independent from a possible improvement mediated by TLM based embryo selection procedures. Therefore, three study groups were needed to distinguish these two mechanisms.

Study design, size, duration

In this multicenter, double-blind, superiority RCT, women were prospectively randomized in three groups between 2017-2020: 1) TLE (Time-Lapse Eeva): embryo selection based on the Eeva® Test (a day three TLM algorithm, used adjunctively with morphology) and uninterrupted culture. 2) TLR (Time-Lapse Routine): routine morphological embryo selection and uninterrupted culture. 3) CON (Control): routine morphological embryo selection and interrupted culture. Embryos were cultured in Geri+ incubators. Randomization was stratified for laboratory-site and ovum pickup number.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

Women scheduled for day three single embryo transfer (SET) during their first, second or third ovum pickup were included. Primary endpoints were: 1) cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate (cOPR) including fresh SET and associated cryo transfers within 12 months of all women; 2) ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) after fresh SET in a good-prognosis population: women <41.0 years, ≥5 oocytes, ≥4 fertilized oocytes. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI were adjusted for laboratory-site and ovum pickup number.

Main results and the role of chance

A total of 1731 women were randomly assigned to TLE (577), TLR (579) or CON (575). The 12 month cOPR did not differ significantly between the groups (p = 0.85) with a cOPR of 50.8% (293/577) in TLE, 50.9% (295/579) in TLR and 49.4% (284/575) in CON (TLE vs TLR: OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79 – 1.25; TLE vs CON: OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.84 – 1.33; CON vs TLR: OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.75 – 1.19). In the good-prognosis population, the OPR after fresh SET was 38.2% (125/327) in TLE, 36.5% (118/323) in TLR and 37.8% (123/325) in CON (p = 0.90). Consistent results were found for pregnancy and live birth rates after fresh embryo transfer and cumulatively within one year. A planned subgroup analysis of three female age groups revealed interaction between age group and treatment on cOPR (p = 0.02). In women of 39 years and older (n = 245), the cOPR was higher in TLE compared to TLR (40.0% vs 23.7%: OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.05-4.21) with no difference between TLE vs CON (40.0% vs 31.5%: OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.76-2.71).

Limitations, reasons for caution

This study investigated embryo culture in the Geri+ incubator and the Eeva® Test algorithm, which predicts blastocyst formation on day three and was used in combination with morphology for embryo selection, while more TLM systems and algorithms are currently available.

Wider implications of the findings

Neither embryo selection based on a TLM selection algorithm in combination with morphology (TLE) nor the uninterrupted culture conditions in the Geri+ incubator (TLR) improved (cumulative) ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates after IVF or ICSI. Widespread application for fertility treatments with the promise of improved outcomes should be questioned.

Trial registration number

NL5314

OUP accepted manuscript

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

OUTCOMES

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

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

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

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.

Double versus single intrauterine insemination (IUI) in stimulated cycles for subfertile couples

BACKGROUND

In subfertile couples, couples who have tried to conceive for at least one year, intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) is one of the treatment modalities that can be offered. When IUI is performed a second IUI in the same cycle might add to the chances of conceiving. In a previous update of this review in 2010 it was shown that double IUI increases pregnancy rates when compared to single IUI. Since 2010, different clinical trials have been published with differing conclusions about whether double IUI increases pregnancy rates compared to single IUI.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of double intrauterine insemination (IUI) compared to single IUI in stimulated cycles for subfertile couples.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL in July 2020 and LILACS, Google scholar and Epistemonikos in February 2021, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled, parallel trials of double versus single IUIs in stimulated cycles in subfertile couples.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified in nine studies involving subfertile women. The evidence was of low quality; the main limitations were unclear risk of bias, inconsistent results for some outcomes and imprecision, due to small trials with imprecise results. We are uncertain whether double IUI improves live birth rate compared to single IUI (odds ratio (OR) 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.88; I² = 29%; studies = 3, participants = 468; low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth following single IUI is 16%, the chance of live birth following double IUI would be between 12% and 27%. Performing a sensitivity analysis restricted to only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with low risk of selection bias showed similar results. We are uncertain whether double IUI reduces miscarriage rate compared to single IUI (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.24; I² = 0%; studies = 6, participants = 2363; low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that chance of miscarriage following single IUI is 1.5% and the chance following double IUI would be between 1.5% and 5%. The reported clinical pregnancy rate per woman randomised may increase with double IUI group (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.86; I² = 34%; studies = 9, participants = 2716; low quality evidence). This result should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality of the evidence and the moderate inconsistency. The evidence suggests that the chance of a pregnancy following single IUI is 14% and the chance following double IUI would be between 16% and 23%. We are uncertain whether double IUI affects multiple pregnancy rate compared to single IUI (OR 2.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 4.56; I² = 8%; studies = 5; participants = 2203; low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that chance of multiple pregnancy following single IUI is 0.7% and the chance following double IUI would be between 0.85% and 3.7%. We are uncertain whether double IUI has an effect on ectopic pregnancy rate compared to single IUI (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.28; I² = 0%; studies = 4, participants = 1048; low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that the chance of an ectopic pregnancy following single IUI is 0.8% and the chance following double IUI would be between 0.3% and 3.2%.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our main analysis, of which the evidence is low quality, shows that we are uncertain if double IUI improves live birth and reduces miscarriage compared to single IUI. Our sensitivity analysis restricted to studies of low risk of selection bias for both outcomes is consistent with the main analysis. Clinical pregnancy rate may increase in the double IUI group, but this should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality evidence. We are uncertain whether double IUI has an effect on multiple pregnancy rate and ectopic pregnancy rate compared to single IUI.

Gonadotrophins or clomiphene citrate in women with normogonadotropic anovulation and CC failure: does the endometrium matter?

STUDY QUESTION

Is endometrial thickness (EMT) a biomarker to select between women who should switch to gonadotropins and those who could continue clomiphene citrate (CC) after six failed ovulatory cycles?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Using a cut-off of 7 mm for EMT, we can distinguish between women who are better off switching to gonadotropins and those who could continue CC after six earlier failed ovulatory CC cycles.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN

For women with normogonadotropic anovulation, CC has been a long-standing first-line treatment in conjunction with intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI). We recently showed that a switch to gonadotropins increases the chance of live birth by 11% in these women over continued treatment with CC after six failed ovulatory cycles, at a cost of €15 258 per additional live birth. It is unclear whether EMT can be used to identify women who can continue on CC with similar live birth rates without the extra costs of gonadotropins.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Between 8 December 2008 and 16 December 2015, 666 women with CC failure were randomly assigned to receive an additional six cycles with a change to gonadotropins (n = 331) or an additional six cycles continuing with CC (n = 335), both in conjunction with intercourse or IUI. The primary outcome was conception leading to live birth within 8 months after randomisation. EMT was measured mid-cycle before randomisation during their sixth ovulatory CC cycle. The EMT was available in 380 women, of whom 190 were allocated to gonadotropins and 190 were allocated to CC.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

EMT was determined in the sixth CC cycle prior to randomisation. We tested for interaction of EMT with the treatment effect using logistic regression. We performed a spline analysis to evaluate the association of EMT with chance to pregnancy leading to a live birth in the next cycles and to determine the best cut-off point. On the basis of the resulting cut-off point, we calculated the relative risk and 95% CI of live birth for gonadotropins versus CC at EMT values below and above this cut-off point. Finally, we calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Mid-cycle EMT in the sixth cycle interacted with treatment effect (P < 0.01). Spline analyses showed a cut-off point of 7 mm. There were 162 women (45%) who had an EMT ≤ 7 mm in the sixth ovulatory cycle and 218 women (55%) who had an EMT > 7 mm. Among the women with EMT ≤ 7 mm, gonadotropins resulted in a live birth in 44 of 79 women (56%), while CC resulted in a live birth in 28 of 83 women (34%) (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.13–2.19). Per additional live birth with gonadotropins, the ICER was €9709 (95% CI: €5117 to €25 302). Among the women with EMT > 7 mm, gonadotropins resulted in a live birth in 53 of 111 women (48%) while CC resulted in a live birth in 52 of 107 women (49%) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75–1.29).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

This was a post hoc analysis of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and therefore mid-cycle EMT measurements before randomisation during their sixth ovulatory CC cycle were not available for all included women.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

In women with six failed ovulatory cycles on CC and an EMT ≤ 7 mm in the sixth cycle, we advise switching to gonadotropins, since it improves live birth rate over continuing treatment with CC at an extra cost of €9709 to achieve one additional live birth. If the EMT > 7 mm, we advise to continue treatment with CC, since live birth rates are similar to those with gonadotropins, without the extra costs.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The original MOVIN trial received funding from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw number: 80-82310-97-12067). C.B.L.A. reports unrestricted grant support from Merck and Ferring. B.W.M. is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for Merck, ObsEva, IGENOMIX and Guerbet. All other authors have nothing to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR1449

Long-Term Risk of Ovarian Cancer and Borderline Tumors After Assisted Reproductive Technology

BACKGROUND

Long-term effects of assisted reproductive technology (ART) on ovarian tumor risk are unknown.

METHODS

This nationwide cohort study comprises 30 625 women who received ovarian stimulation for ART in 1983-2000 and 9988 subfertile women not treated with ART. Incident invasive and borderline ovarian tumors were ascertained through linkage with the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Pathology Registry until July 2018. Ovarian tumor risk in ART-treated women was compared with risks in the general population and the subfertile non-ART group. Statistical tests were 2-sided.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 24 years, 158 invasive and 100 borderline ovarian tumors were observed. Ovarian cancer risk in the ART group was increased compared with the general population (standardized incidence ratio [SIR] = 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.18 to 1.71) but not when compared with the non-ART group (age- and parity-adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.70 to 1.50). Risk decreased with higher parity and with a larger number of successful ART cycles (resulting in childbirth, Ptrend = .001) but was not associated with the number of unsuccessful ART cycles. Borderline ovarian tumor risk was increased in ART-treated women compared with the general population (SIR = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.66 to 2.86) and with non-ART women (HR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.08 to 3.14). Risk did not increase with more ART cycles or longer follow-up time.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased ovarian cancer risk in ART-treated women compared with the general population is likely explained by nulliparity rather than ART treatment. The increased risk of borderline ovarian tumors after ART must be interpreted with caution because no dose-response relationship was observed.

The vaginal microbiome as a predictor for outcome of in vitro fertilization with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a prospective study

STUDY QUESTION

Is the presence or absence of certain vaginal bacteria associated with failure or success to become pregnant after an in vitro fertilization (IVF) or IVF with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF-ICSI) treatment?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Microbiome profiling with the use of interspace profiling (IS-pro) technique enables stratification of the chance of becoming pregnant prior to the start of an IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Live-birth rates for an IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment vary between 25 and 35% per cycle and it is difficult to predict who will or will not get pregnant after embryo transfer (ET). Recently, it was suggested that the composition of the vaginal microbiota prior to treatment might predict pregnancy outcome. Analysis of the vaginal microbiome prior to treatment might, therefore, offer an opportunity to improve the success rate of IVF or IVF-ICSI.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

In a prospective cohort study, 303 women (age, 20-42 years) undergoing IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment in the Netherlands were included between June 2015 and March 2016.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Study subjects provided a vaginal sample before the start of the IVF or IVF-ICSI procedure. The vaginal microbiota composition was determined using the IS-pro technique. IS-pro is a eubacterial technique based on the detection and categorization of the length of the 16S-23S rRNA gene interspace region. Microbiome profiles were assigned to community state types based on the dominant bacterial species. The predictive accuracy of the microbiome profiles for IVF and IVF-ICSI outcome of fresh ET was evaluated by a combined prediction model based on a small number of bacterial species. From this cohort, a model was built to predict outcome of fertility treatment. This model was externally validated in a cohort of 50 women who were undergoing IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment between March 2018 and May 2018 in the Dutch division of the MVZ VivaNeo Kinderwunschzentrum Düsseldorf, Germany.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In total, the vaginal microbiota of 192 women who underwent a fresh ET could be analysed. Women with a low percentage of Lactobacillus in their vaginal sample were less likely to have a successful embryo implantation. The prediction model identified a subgroup of women (17.7%, n = 34) who had a low chance to become pregnant following fresh ET. This failure was correctly predicted in 32 out of 34 women based on the vaginal microbiota composition, resulting in a predictive accuracy of 94% (sensitivity, 26%; specificity, 97%). Additionally, the degree of dominance of Lactobacillus crispatus was an important factor in predicting pregnancy. Women who had a favourable profile as well as <60% L. crispatus had a high chance of pregnancy: more than half of these women (50 out of 95) became pregnant. In the external validation cohort, none of the women who had a negative prediction (low chance of pregnancy) became pregnant.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Because our study uses a well-defined study population, the results will be limited to the IVF or IVF-ICSI population. Whether these results can be extrapolated to the general population trying to achieve pregnancy without ART cannot be determined from these data.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Our results indicate that vaginal microbiome profiling using the IS-pro technique enables stratification of the chance of becoming pregnant prior to the start of an IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment. Knowledge of their vaginal microbiota may enable couples to make a more balanced decision regarding timing and continuation of their IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment cycles.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This study was financed by NGI Pre-Seed 2014-2016, RedMedTech Discovery Fund 2014-2017, STW Valorisation grant 1 2014-2015, STW Take-off early phase trajectory 2015-2016 and Eurostars VALBIOME grant (reference number: 8884). The employer of W.J.S.S.C. has in collaboration with ARTPred acquired a MIND subsidy to cover part of the costs of this collaboration project. The following grants are received but not used to finance this study: grants from Innovatie Prestatie Contract, MIT Haalbaarheid, other from Dutch R&D tax credit WBSO, RedMedTech Discovery Fund, (J.D.d.J.). Grants from Ferring (J.S.E.L., K.F., C.B.L. and J.M.J.S.S.), Merck Serono (K.F. and C.B.L.), Dutch Heart Foundation (J.S.E.L.), Metagenics Inc. (J.S.E.L.), GoodLife (K.F.), Guerbet (C.B.L.). R.K. is employed by ARTPred B.V. during her PhD at Erasmus Medical Centre (MC). S.A.M. has a 100% University appointment. I.S.P.H.M.S., S.A.M. and A.E.B. are co-owners of IS-Diagnostics Ltd. J.D.d.J. is co-owner of ARTPred B.V., from which he reports personal fees. P.H.M.S. reports non-financial support from ARTPred B.V. P.H.M.S., J.D.d.J. and A.E.B. have obtained patents `Microbial population analysis' (9506109) and `Microbial population analysis' (20170159108), both licenced to ARTPred B.V. J.D.d.J. and A.E.B. report patent applications `Method and kit for predicting the outcome of an assisted reproductive technology procedure' (392EPP0) and patent `Method and kit for altering the outcome of an assisted reproductive technology procedure' by ARTPred. W.J.S.S.C. received personal consultancy and educational fees from Goodlife Fertility B.V. J.S.E.L. reports personal consultancy fees from ARTPred B.V., Titus Health B.V., Danone, Euroscreen and Roche during the conduct of the study. J.S.E.L. and N.G.M.B. are co-applicants on an Erasmus MC patent (New method and kit for prediction success of in vitro fertilization) licenced to ARTPred B.V. F.J.M.B. reports personal fees from Advisory Board Ferring, Advisory Board Merck Serono, Advisory Board Gedeon Richter and personal fees from Educational activities for Ferring, outside the submitted work. K.F. reports personal fees from Ferring (commercial sponsor) and personal fees from GoodLife (commercial sponsor). C.B.L. received speakers' fee from Ferring. J.M.J.S.S. reports personal fees and other from Merck Serono and personal fees from Ferring, unrelated to the submitted paper. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN83157250. Registered 17 August 2018. Retrospectively registered.

Intra-uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Semen preparation techniques for intrauterine insemination

BACKGROUND

Semen preparation techniques for assisted reproduction, including intrauterine insemination (IUI), were developed to select the motile morphologically normal spermatozoa. The yield of many motile, morphologically normal spermatozoa might influence treatment choices and therefore outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of three different semen preparation techniques (gradient; swim-up; wash and centrifugation) on clinical outcomes (live birth rate; clinical pregnancy rate) in subfertile couples undergoing IUI.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Direct Database, National Research Register, Biological Abstracts and clinical trial registries in March 2019, and checked references and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy in terms of clinical outcomes of semen preparation techniques used for subfertile couples undergoing IUI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes are live birth rate and clinical pregnancy rate per couple.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven RCTS in the review; we included six of these, totalling 485 couples, in the meta-analysis. No trials reported the primary outcome of live birth. The evidence was of very low-quality. The main limitations were (unclear) risk of bias, signs of imprecision and inconsistency in results among studies and the small number of studies/participants included.Swim-up versus gradient technique Considering the quality of evidence, we are uncertain whether there was a difference between clinical pregnancy rates (CPR) for swim-up versus a gradient technique (odds ratio (OR) 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.35; I² = 71%; 4 RCTs, 370 participants; very low-quality evidence). The results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy after the use of a gradient technique is assumed to be 24%, the chance of pregnancy after using the swim-up technique is between 14% and 30%. We are uncertain whether there was a real difference between ongoing pregnancy rates per couple (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.82; heterogeneity not applicable; 1 RCT, 223 participants; very low-quality evidence). Considering the quality of evidence, we are uncertain whether there was a difference between multiple pregnancy rates (MPR) per couple comparing a swim-up versus gradient technique (MPR per couple 0% versus 0%; 1 RCT, 25 participants; very low-quality of evidence). Considering the quality of evidence, we are also uncertain whether there was a difference between miscarriage rates (MR) per couple comparing a swim-up versus gradient technique (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.59; I² = 44%; 3 RCTs, 330 participants; very low-quality evidence). No studies reported on ectopic pregnancy rate, fetal abnormalities or infection rate.Swim-up versus wash techniqueConsidering the quality of evidence, we are uncertain whether there is a difference in clinical pregnancy rates after a swim-up technique versus wash and centrifugation (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.13; I² = 55%; 2 RCTs, 78 participants; very low-quality evidence). The results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy after the use of a wash technique is assumed to be 38%, the chance of pregnancy after using the swim-up technique is between 9% and 41%. Considering the quality of evidence, we are uncertain whether there was a difference between multiple pregnancy rates between swim-up technique versus wash technique (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.02 to 13.28; heterogeneity not applicable; 1 RCT, 26 participants; very low-quality evidence). Miscarriage rate was only reported by one study: no miscarriages were reported in either treatment arm. No studies reported on ongoing pregnancy rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, fetal abnormalities or infection rate.Gradient versus wash techniqueConsidering the quality of evidence, we are uncertain whether there is a difference in clinical pregnancy rates after a gradient versus wash and centrifugation technique (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.58 to 5.46; I² = 52%; 2 RCTs, 94 participants; very low-quality evidence). The results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy after the use of a wash technique is assumed to be 13%, the chance of pregnancy after using the gradient technique is between 8% and 46%. Considering the quality of evidence, we are uncertain whether there was a difference between multiple pregnancy rates per couple between the treatment groups (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.83; very low-quality evidence). Considering the quality of evidence, we are also uncertain whether there was a difference between miscarriage rates per couple between the treatment groups (OR 6.11, 95% CI 0.27 to 138.45; very low-quality evidence). No studies reported on ongoing pregnancy rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, fetal abnormalities or infection rate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to recommend any specific semen preparation technique: swim-up versus gradient versus wash and centrifugation technique. No studies reported on live birth rates. Considering the quality of evidence (very low), we are uncertain whether there is a difference in clinical pregnancy rates, ongoing pregnancy rates, multiple pregnancy rates or miscarriage rates per couple) between the three sperm preparation techniques. Further randomised trials are warranted that report live birth data.

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.

In Vitro Maturation of Oocytes in Women at Risk of Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome-A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

In vitro maturation (IVM) is an artificial reproductive technology in which immature oocytes are harvested from the ovaries and subsequently will be matured in vitro. IVM does not require ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) and thus the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is avoided. In this study, we assessed the live birth rate per initiated IVM cycle in women eligible for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ ICSI) and at risk for OHSS. Furthermore, we followed women who were not pregnant after IVM and committed to a conventional IVF/ICSI procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this multicenter prospective cohort study, we started 76 IVM cycles using recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) priming in 68 patients. There were 66 oocyte retrievals, in which a total of 628 oocytes were collected. We incubated the immature oocytes for 24-48 hours and fertilized those that reached metaphase II by ICSI.

RESULTS

Three hundred eighty six (61% oocytes) achieved metaphase II. The fertilization rate was 55%. We performed 59 embryo transfers (1.9 embryos per transfer) in 56 women, including 3 frozen embryo transfers. There were four ongoing pregnancies (5.3% per initiated cycle) leading to the birth of a healthy child at term. None of the patients developed OHSS. The ongoing pregnancy rate of the first conventional IVF/ICSI cycle after an unsuccessful IVM cycle was 44%, which was unexpectedly high.

CONCLUSION

We concluded that IVM led to live births but with low effectiveness in our study. Earlier reported IVM success rates are higher which can be caused by a more extended experience in these centers with the intricate laboratory process. However, a possible selection bias in these studies cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, IVM might have a beneficial effect on further IVF/ICSI treatments due to its "ovarian drilling" effect.

Antigen-specific active immunotherapy for ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

This is the second update of the review first published in the Cochrane Library (2010, Issue 2) and later updated (2014, Issue 9).Despite advances in chemotherapy, the prognosis of ovarian cancer remains poor. Antigen-specific active immunotherapy aims to induce tumour antigen-specific anti-tumour immune responses as an alternative treatment for ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective• To assess the clinical efficacy of antigen-specific active immunotherapy for the treatment of ovarian cancer as evaluated by tumour response measured by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) and/or cancer antigen (CA)-125 levels, response to post-immunotherapy treatment, and survival differences◦ In addition, we recorded the numbers of observed antigen-specific humoral and cellular responsesSecondary objective• To establish which combinations of immunotherapeutic strategies with tumour antigens provide the best immunological and clinical results SEARCH METHODS: For the previous version of this review, we performed a systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2009, Issue 3), in the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE and Embase databases, and clinicaltrials.gov (1966 to July 2009). We also conducted handsearches of the proceedings of relevant annual meetings (1996 to July 2009).For the first update of this review, we extended the searches to October 2013, and for this update, we extended the searches to July 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), as well as non-randomised studies (NRSs), that included participants with epithelial ovarian cancer, irrespective of disease stage, who were treated with antigen-specific active immunotherapy, irrespective of type of vaccine, antigen used, adjuvant used, route of vaccination, treatment schedule, and reported clinical or immunological outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviews authors independently extracted the data. We evaluated the risk of bias for RCTs according to standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane, and for NRSs by using a selection of quality domains deemed best applicable to the NRS.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 67 studies (representing 3632 women with epithelial ovarian cancer). The most striking observations of this review address the lack of uniformity in conduct and reporting of early-phase immunotherapy studies. Response definitions show substantial variation between trials, which makes comparison of trial results unreliable. Information on adverse events is frequently limited. Furthermore, reports of both RCTs and NRSs frequently lack the relevant information necessary for risk of bias assessment. Therefore, we cannot rule out serious biases in most of the included trials. However, selection, attrition, and selective reporting biases are likely to have affected the studies included in this review. GRADE ratings were high only for survival; for other primary outcomes, GRADE ratings were very low.The largest body of evidence is currently available for CA-125-targeted antibody therapy (17 studies, 2347 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Non-randomised studies of CA-125-targeted antibody therapy suggest improved survival among humoral and/or cellular responders, with only moderate adverse events. However, four large randomised placebo-controlled trials did not show any clinical benefit, despite induction of immune responses in approximately 60% of participants. Time to relapse with CA-125 monoclonal antibody versus placebo, respectively, ranged from 10.3 to 18.9 months versus 10.3 to 13 months (six RCTs, 1882 participants; high-certainty evidence). Only one RCT provided data on overall survival, reporting rates of 80% in both treatment and placebo groups (three RCTs, 1062 participants; high-certainty evidence). Other small studies targeting many different tumour antigens have presented promising immunological results. As these strategies have not yet been tested in RCTs, no reliable inferences about clinical efficacy can be made. Given the promising immunological results and the limited side effects and toxicity reported, exploration of clinical efficacy in large well-designed RCTs may be worthwhile.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that despite promising immunological responses, no clinically effective antigen-specific active immunotherapy is yet available for ovarian cancer. Results should be interpreted cautiously, as review authors found a significant dearth of relevant information for assessment of risk of bias in both RCTs and NRSs.

The SUPER study: protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing follicle-stimulating hormone and clomiphene citrate for ovarian stimulation in intrauterine insemination

OBJECTIVE

To study the effectiveness of four cycles of intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian stimulation (OS) by follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) or by clomiphene citrate (CC), and adherence to strict cancellation criteria.

SETTING

Randomised controlled trial among 22 secondary and tertiary fertility clinics in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

732 women from couples diagnosed with unexplained or mild male subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis according to the model of Hunault of natural conception.

INTERVENTIONS

Four cycles of IUI-OS within a time horizon of 6 months comparing FSH 75 IU with CC 100 mg. The primary outcome is ongoing pregnancy conceived within 6 months after randomisation, defined as a positive heartbeat at 12 weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes are cancellation rates, number of cycles with a monofollicular or with multifollicular growth, number of follicles >14 mm at the time of ovulation triggering, time to ongoing pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, live birth and multiple pregnancy. We will also assess if biomarkers such as female age, body mass index, smoking status, antral follicle count and endometrial aspect and thickness can be used as treatment selection markers.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of the Academic Medical Centre and from the Dutch Central Committee on Research involving Human Subjects (CCMO NL 43131-018-13). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at international scientific meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR4057.

Ovarian Stimulation for In Vitro Fertilization and Long-term Risk of Breast Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Previous studies of breast cancer risk after in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment were inconclusive due to limited follow-up.

OBJECTIVE

To assess long-term risk of breast cancer after ovarian stimulation for IVF.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Historical cohort (OMEGA study) with complete follow-up through December 2013 for 96% of the cohort. The cohort included 19,158 women who started IVF treatment between 1983 and 1995 (IVF group) and 5950 women starting other fertility treatments between 1980 and 1995 (non-IVF group) from all 12 IVF clinics in the Netherlands. The median age at end of follow-up was 53.8 years for the IVF group and 55.3 years for the non-IVF group.

EXPOSURES

Information on ovarian stimulation for IVF, other fertility treatments, and potential confounders was collected from medical records and through mailed questionnaires.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Incidence of invasive and in situ breast cancers in women who underwent fertility treatments was obtained through linkage with the Netherlands Cancer Registry (1989-2013). Breast cancer risk in the IVF group was compared with risks in the general population (standardized incidence ratios [SIRs]) and the non-IVF group (hazard ratios [HRs]).

RESULTS

Among 25,108 women (mean age at baseline, 32.8 years; mean number of IVF cycles, 3.6), 839 cases of invasive breast cancer and 109 cases of in situ breast cancer occurred after a median follow-up of 21.1 years. Breast cancer risk in IVF-treated women was not significantly different from that in the general population (SIR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.93-1.09]) and from the risk in the non-IVF group (HR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.86-1.19]). The cumulative incidences of breast cancer at age 55 were 3.0% for the IVF group and 2.9% for the non-IVF group (P = .85). The SIR did not increase with longer time since treatment (≥20 years) in the IVF group (0.92 [95% CI, 0.73-1.15]) or in the non-IVF group (1.03 [95% CI, 0.82-1.29]). Risk was significantly lower for those who underwent 7 or more IVF cycles (HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.39-0.77]) vs 1 to 2 IVF cycles and after poor response to the first IVF cycle (HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.61-0.96] for <4 vs ≥4 collected oocytes).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among women undergoing fertility treatment in the Netherlands between 1980 and 1995, IVF treatment compared with non-IVF treatment was not associated with increased risk of breast cancer after a median follow-up of 21 years. Breast cancer risk among IVF-treated women was also not significantly different from that in the general population. These findings are consistent with absence of a significant increase in long-term risk of breast cancer among IVF-treated women.

A randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial of modified natural versus artificial cycle for cryo-thawed embryo transfer

STUDY QUESTION

Are live birth rates (LBRs) after artificial cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer (AC-FET) non-inferior to LBRs after modified natural cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer (mNC-FET)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

AC-FET is non-inferior to mNC-FET with regard to LBRs, clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates (OPRs) but AC-FET does result in higher cancellation rates.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN

Pooling prior retrospective studies of AC-FET and mNC-FET results in comparable pregnancy and LBRs. However, these results have not yet been confirmed by a prospective randomized trial.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION

In this non-inferiority prospective randomized controlled trial (acronym 'ANTARCTICA' trial), conducted from February 2009 to April 2014, 1032 patients were included of which 959 were available for analysis. The primary outcome of the study was live birth. Secondary outcomes were clinical and ongoing pregnancy, cycle cancellation and endometrium thickness. A cost-efficiency analysis was performed.

PARTICIPANT/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

This study was conducted in both secondary and tertiary fertility centres in the Netherlands. Patients included in this study had to be 18-40 years old, had to have a regular menstruation cycle between 26 and 35 days and frozen-thawed embryos to be transferred had to derive from one of the first three IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment cycles. Patients with a uterine anomaly, a contraindication for one of the prescribed medications in this study or patients undergoing a donor gamete procedure were excluded from participation. Patients were randomized based on a 1:1 allocation to either one cycle of mNC-FET or AC-FET. All embryos were cryopreserved using a slow-freeze technique.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

LBR after mNC-FET was 11.5% (57/495) versus 8.8% in AC-FET (41/464) resulting in an absolute difference in LBR of -0.027 in favour of mNC-FET (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.065-0.012; P = 0.171). Clinical pregnancy occurred in 94/495 (19.0%) patients in mNC-FET versus 75/464 (16.0%) patients in AC-FET (odds ratio (OR) 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.1, P = 0.25). 57/495 (11.5%) mNC-FET resulted in ongoing pregnancy versus 45/464 (9.6%) AC-FET (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-1.1, P = 0.15). χ(2) test confirmed the lack of superiority. Significantly more cycles were cancelled in AC-FET (124/464 versus 101/495, OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.9, P = 0.02). The costs of each of the endometrial preparation methods were comparable (€617.50 per cycle in NC-FET versus €625.73 per cycle in AC-FET, P = 0.54).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The minimum of 1150 patients required for adequate statistical power was not achieved. Moreover, LBRs were lower than anticipated in the sample size calculation.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

LBRs after AC-FET were not inferior to those achieved by mNC-FET. No significant differences in clinical and OPR were observed. The costs of both treatment approaches were comparable.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

An educational grant was received during the conduct of this study. Merck Sharpe Dohme had no influence on the design, execution and analyses of this study. E.R.G. received an education grant by Merck Sharpe Dohme (MSD) during the conduct of the present study. B.J.C. reports grants from MSD during the conduct of the study. A.H. reports grants from MSD and Ferring BV the Netherlands and personal fees from MSD. Grants from ZonMW, the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development. J.S.E.L. reports grants from Ferring, MSD, Organon, Merck Serono and Schering-Plough during the conduct of the study. F.J.M.B. receives monetary compensation as member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, consultancy work for Gedeon Richter, educational activities for Ferring BV, research cooperation with Ansh Labs and a strategic cooperation with Roche on automated anti Mullerian hormone assay development. N.S.M. reports receiving monetary compensations for external advisory and speaking work for Ferring BV, MSD, Anecova and Merck Serono during the conduct of the study. All reported competing interests are outside the submitted work. No other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Netherlands trial register, number NTR 1586.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

13 January 2009.

FIRST PATIENT INCLUDED

20 April 2009.

Communication at an online infertility expert forum: provider responses to patients' emotional and informational cues

Online patient-provider communication has become increasingly popular in fertility care. However, it is not known to what extent patients express cues or concerns and how providers respond. In this study, we investigated cues and responses that occur in online patient-provider communication at an infertility-specific expert forum. We extracted 106 threads from the multidisciplinary expert forum of two Dutch IVF clinics. We performed the following analyses: (1) thematic analysis of patients' questions; and (2) rating patients' emotional and informational cues and subsequent professionals' responses using an adaptation of the validated Medical Interview Aural Rating Scale. Frequencies of themes, frequencies of cues and responses, and sequences (what cue is followed by what response) were extracted. Sixty-five infertile patients and 19 providers participated. The most common themes included medication and lifestyle. Patients gave more informational than emotional cues (106 versus 64). Responses to informational cues were mostly adequate (61%). The most common response to emotional cues was empathic acknowledgment (72%). Results indicate that an online expert forum could have a positive effect on patient outcomes, which should guide future research. Offering infertile patients an expert forum to communicate with providers can be a promising supplement to usual care in both providing information and addressing patients' concerns.

Assisted reproductive technologies for male subfertility

BACKGROUND

Intra-uterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) are frequently used fertility treatments for couples with male subfertility. The use of these treatments has been subject of discussion. Knowledge on the effectiveness of fertility treatments for male subfertility with different grades of severity is limited. Possibly, couples are exposed to unnecessary or ineffective treatments on a large scale.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different fertility treatments (expectant management, timed intercourse (TI), IUI, IVF and ICSI) for couples whose subfertility appears to be due to abnormal sperm parameters.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for all publications that described randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the treatment for male subfertility. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the National Research Register from inception to 14 April 2015, and web-based trial registers from January 1985 to April 2015. We applied no language restrictions. We checked all references in the identified trials and background papers and contacted authors to identify relevant published and unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing different treatment options for male subfertility. These were expectant management, TI (with or without ovarian hyperstimulation (OH)), IUI (with or without OH), IVF and ICSI. We included only couples with abnormal sperm parameters.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. They resolved disagreements by discussion with the rest of the review authors. We performed statistical analyses in accordance with the guidelines for statistical analysis developed by The Cochrane Collaboration. The quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE methods. Primary outcomes were live birth and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) per couple randomised.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 10 RCTs (757 couples). The quality of the evidence was low or very low for all comparisons. The main limitations in the evidence were failure to describe study methods, serious imprecision and inconsistency. IUI versus TI (five RCTs)Two RCTs compared IUI with TI in natural cycles. There were no data on live birth or OHSS. We found no evidence of a difference in pregnancy rates (2 RCTs, 62 couples: odds ratio (OR) 4.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 102, very low quality evidence; there were no events in one of the studies).Three RCTs compared IUI with TI both in cycles with OH. We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates (1 RCT, 81 couples: OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.59; low quality evidence) or pregnancy rates (3 RCTs, 202 couples: OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.07; I(2) = 11%, very low quality evidence). One RCT reported data on OHSS. None of the 62 women had OHSS.One RCT compared IUI in cycles with OH with TI in natural cycles. We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates (1 RCT, 44 couples: OR 3.14, 95% CI 0.12 to 81.35; very low quality evidence). Data on OHSS were not available. IUI in cycles with OH versus IUI in natural cycles (five RCTs)We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates (3 RCTs, 346 couples: OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.33; I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence) and pregnancy rates (4 RCTs, 399 couples: OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.82; I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence). There were no data on OHSS. IVF versus IUI in natural cycles or cycles with OH (two RCTs)We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates between IVF versus IUI in natural cycles (1 RCT, 53 couples: OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.35; low quality evidence) or IVF versus IUI in cycles with OH (2 RCTs, 86 couples: OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.45; I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence). One RCT reported data on OHSS. None of the women had OHSS.Overall, we found no evidence of a difference between any of the groups in rates of live birth, pregnancy or adverse events (multiple pregnancy, miscarriage). However, most of the evidence was very low quality.There were no studies on IUI in natural cycles versus TI in stimulated cycles, IVF versus TI, ICSI versus TI, ICSI versus IUI (with OH) or ICSI versus IVF.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any difference in safety and effectiveness between different treatments for male subfertility. More research is needed.

Intra-uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility

BACKGROUND

Intra-uterine insemination (IUI) is a widely used fertility treatment for couples with unexplained subfertility. Although IUI is less invasive and less expensive thAppendixan in vitro fertilisation (IVF), the safety of IUI in combination with ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) is debated. The main concern about IUI treatment with OH is the increase in multiple pregnancy rate. This is an update of a Cochrane review (Veltman-Verhulst 2012) originally published in 2006 and updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether, for couples with unexplained subfertility, IUI improves the live birth rate compared with timed intercourse (TI), or expectant management, both with and without ovarian hyperstimulation (OH).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (formerly Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group) Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, inception to Issue 11, 2015), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, PsycINFO and trial registers, all from inception to December 2015 and reference lists of articles. Authors of identified studies were contacted for missing or unpublished data. The evidence is current to December 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Truly randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparisons of IUI versus TI, in natural or stimulated cycles. Only couples with unexplained subfertility were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, quality assessment and data extraction. We extracted outcomes, and pooled data and, where possible, we carried out subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 trials including 1867 women. IUI versus TI or expectant management both in natural cycleLive birth rate (all cycles)There was no evidence of a difference in cumulative live births between the two groups (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 2.78; 1 RCT; n = 334; moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of a live birth in TI was assumed to be 16%, that of IUI would be between 15% and 34%.Multiple pregnancy rateThere was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rate between the two treatment groups (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.53; 1 RCT; n = 334; moderate quality evidence). IUI versus TI or expectant management both in stimulated cycleLive birth rate (all cycles)There was no evidence of a difference between the two treatment groups (OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.88; 2 RCTs; n = 208; I(2) = 72%; moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of achieving a live birth in TI was assumed to be 26%, the chance of a live birth with IUI would be between 23% and 50%.Multiple pregnancy rateThere was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rates between the two treatment groups (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.87; 4 RCTs, n = 316; I(2) = 0%; low quality evidence). IUI in a natural cycle versus IUI in a stimulated cycle Live birth rate (all cycles)An increase in live birth rate was found for women who were treated with IUI in a stimulated cycle compared with those who underwent IUI in natural cycle (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.82; 4 RCTs, n = 396; I(2) = 0%; moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of a live birth in IUI in a stimulated cycle was assumed to be 25%, the chance of a live birth in IUI in a natural cycle would be between 9% and 21%.Multiple pregnancy rateThere was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rate between the two treatment groups (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.70; 2 RCTs; n = 65; low quality evidence). IUI in a stimulated cycle versus TI or expectant management in a natural cycleLive birth rate (all cycles)There was no evidence of a difference in live birth rate between the two treatment groups (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.49; 1 RCT; n = 253; moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of a live birth in TI or expectant management in a natural cycle was assumed to be 24%, the chance of a live birth in IUI in a stimulated cycle would be between 12% and 32%.Multiple pregnancy rateThere was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rate between the two treatment groups (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.18 to 22.34; 2 RCTs; n = 304; moderate quality evidence). IUI in natural cycle versus TI or expectant management in stimulated cycle Live birth rate (all cycles)There was evidence of an increase in live births for IUI (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.44; 1 RCT, n = 342; moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of a live birth in TI in a stimulated cycle was assumed to be 13%, the chance of a live birth in IUI in a natural cycle would be between 14% and 34%.Multiple pregnancy rateThere was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rate between the groups (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.90; 1 RCT; n = 342; moderate quality evidence).The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods. Quality ranged from low to moderate, the main limitation being imprecision in the findings for both live birth and multiple pregnancy..

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review did not find conclusive evidence of a difference in live birth or multiple pregnancy in most of the comparisons for couples with unexplained subfertility treated with intra-uterine insemination (IUI) when compared with timed intercourse (TI), both with and without ovarian hyperstimulation (OH). There were insufficient studies to allow for pooling of data on the important outcome measures for each of the comparisons.

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

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer or in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle with that of intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in terms of a healthy child.

DESIGN

Multicentre, open label, three arm, parallel group, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

SETTING

17 centres in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

Couples seeking fertility treatment after at least 12 months of unprotected intercourse, with the female partner aged between 18 and 38 years, an unfavourable prognosis for natural conception, and a diagnosis of unexplained or mild male subfertility.

INTERVENTIONS

Three cycles of in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer (plus subsequent cryocycles), six cycles of in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, or six cycles of intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation within 12 months after randomisation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was birth of a healthy child resulting from a singleton pregnancy conceived within 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were live birth, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, time to pregnancy, complications of pregnancy, and neonatal morbidity and mortality

RESULTS

602 couples were randomly assigned between January 2009 and February 2012; 201 were allocated to in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer, 194 to in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, and 207 to intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Birth of a healthy child occurred in 104 (52%) couples in the in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer group, 83 (43%) in the in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle group, and 97 (47%) in the intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation group. This corresponds to a risk, relative to intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation, of 1.10 (95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.34) for in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer and 0.91 (0.73 to 1.14) for in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle. These 95% confidence intervals do not extend below the predefined threshold of 0.69 for inferiority. Multiple pregnancy rates per ongoing pregnancy were 6% (7/121) after in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer, 5% (5/102) after in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle, and 7% (8/119) after intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation (one sided P=0.52 for in vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer compared with intrauterine insemination with ovarian hyperstimulation; one sided P=0.33 for in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation).

CONCLUSIONS

In vitro fertilisation with single embryo transfer and in vitro fertilisation in a modified natural cycle were non-inferior to intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in terms of the birth of a healthy child and showed comparable, low multiple pregnancy rates.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52843371; Nederlands Trial Register NTR939.

Synchronised approach for intrauterine insemination in subfertile couples

BACKGROUND

In many countries intrauterine insemination (IUI) is the treatment of first choice for a subfertile couple when the infertility work up reveals an ovulatory cycle, at least one open Fallopian tube and sufficient spermatozoa. The final goal of this treatment is to achieve a pregnancy and deliver a healthy (singleton) live birth. The probability of conceiving with IUI depends on various factors including age of the couple, type of subfertility, ovarian stimulation and the timing of insemination. IUI should logically be performed around the moment of ovulation. Since spermatozoa and oocytes have only limited survival time correct timing of the insemination is essential. As it is not known which technique of timing for IUI results in the best treatment outcome, we compared different techniques for timing IUI and different time intervals.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of different synchronisation methods in natural and stimulated cycles for IUI in subfertile couples.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for all publications which described randomised controlled trials of the timing of IUI. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (1966 to October 2014), EMBASE (1974 to October 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2014) and PsycINFO (inception to October 2014) electronic databases and prospective trial registers. Furthermore, we checked the reference lists of all obtained studies and performed a handsearch of conference abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different timing methods for IUI were included. The following interventions were evaluated: detection of luteinising hormone (LH) in urine or blood, single test; human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration; combination of LH detection and hCG administration; basal body temperature chart; ultrasound detection of ovulation; gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist administration; or other timing methods.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the trials, extracted the data and assessed study risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses in accordance with the guidelines for statistical analysis developed by The Cochrane Collaboration. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen RCTs were included in the review, of which 14 were included in the meta-analyses (in total 2279 couples). The evidence was current to October 2013. The quality of the evidence was low or very low for most comparisons . The main limitations in the evidence were failure to describe study methods, serious imprecision and attrition bias.Ten RCTs compared different methods of timing for IUI. We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates between hCG injection versus LH surge (odds ratio (OR) 1.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 18, 1 RCT, 24 women, very low quality evidence), urinary hCG versus recombinant hCG (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.03, 1 RCT, 284 women, low quality evidence) or hCG versus GnRH agonist (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.6, 3 RCTS, 104 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence).Two RCTs compared the optimum time interval from hCG injection to IUI, comparing different time frames that ranged from 24 hours to 48 hours. Only one of these studies reported live birth rates, and found no difference between the groups (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.00, 1 RCT, 204 couples). One study compared early versus late hCG administration and one study compared different dosages of hCG, but neither reported the primary outcome of live birth.We found no evidence of a difference between any of the groups in rates of pregnancy or adverse events (multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS)). However, most of these data were very low quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is any difference in safety and effectiveness between different methods of synchronization of ovulation and insemination. More research is needed.

Antigen-specific active immunotherapy for ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in chemotherapy, prognosis of ovarian cancer remains poor. Antigen-specific active immunotherapy aims to induce tumour-antigen-specific anti-tumour immune responses as an alternative treatment for ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the feasibility of antigen-specific active immunotherapy for ovarian cancer. Primary outcomes are clinical efficacy and antigen-specific immunogenicity with carrier-specific immunogenicity and side effects as secondary outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

For the previous version of this review, a systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2009, Issue 3, Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and clinicaltrials.gov was performed (1966 to July 2009). We conducted handsearches of the proceedings of relevant annual meetings (1996 to July 2009).For this update of the review the searches were extended to October 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), as well as non-randomised non-controlled studies that included participants with epithelial ovarian cancer, irrespective of stage of disease, and treated with antigen-specific active immunotherapy, irrespective of type of vaccine, antigen used, adjuvant used, route of vaccination, schedule, and reported clinical or immunological outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviews authors independently performed the data extraction. Risk of bias was evaluated for RCTs according to standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collabororation or for non-RCTs using a selection of quality domains deemed best applicable to the non-randomised non-controlled studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-five studies were included (representing 3051 women with epithelial ovarian cancer). Response definitions showed substantial variation between trials, which makes comparison of trial results unreliable. Information on adverse events was frequently limited. Furthermore, reports of both RCTs and non-RCTs frequently lacked the relevant information necessary to assess risk of bias. Serious biases in most of the included trials can therefore not be ruled out.The largest body of evidence is currently available for CA-125 targeted antibody therapy (16 studies: 2339 participants). Non-RCTs of CA-125 targeted antibody therapy suggests increased survival in humoral and/or cellular responders. However, four large randomised placebo-controlled trials did not show any clinical benefit despite induction of immune responses in approximately 60% of participants.Other small studies targeting many different tumour antigens showed promising immunological results. As these strategies have not yet been tested in RCTs, no reliable inferences about clinical efficacy can be made. Given the promising immunological results, limited side effects and toxicity exploration of clinical efficacy in large well-designed RCTs may be worthwhile.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that despite promising immunological responses, no clinically effective antigen-specific active immunotherapy is yet available for ovarian cancer. Results should be interpreted cautiously as there was a significant lack of relevant information for the assessment of risk of bias in both RCTs and non-RCTs.

Intrauterine insemination versus fallopian tube sperm perfusion for non-tubal infertility

BACKGROUND

Intrauterine insemination (IUI) is a common treatment for couples with subfertility that does not involve the fallopian tubes. It is used to bring the sperm close to the released oocyte. Another method of introducing sperm is fallopian tube sperm perfusion (FSP). Fallopian tube sperm perfusion ensures the presence of higher sperm densities in the fallopian tubes at the time of ovulation than does standard IUI. These treatments are often used in combination with ovarian hyperstimulation.

OBJECTIVES

To compare intrauterine insemination versus fallopian tube sperm perfusion in the treatment of non-tubal subfertility, for live birth and pregnancy outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register, MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE from inception to September 2013. We also searched study reference lists and trial registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IUI with FSP in couples with non-tubal subfertility were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed study quality and extracted the data. If studies were sufficiently similar, data were combined using a fixed-effect model to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A random-effects model was used if substantial statistical heterogeneity was detected. Studies that included participants with unexplained or mixed (non-tubal) subfertility were analysed separately from studies restricted to participants with mild or moderate male factor subfertility. The overall quality of evidence for the main outcomes was summarised using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 16 RCTs. Fourteen RCTs (1745 women) were included in the meta-analysis. Only three studies reported live birth per couple. No evidence of a statistically significant difference was noted between IUI and FSP in live birth (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.49, three RCTs, 633 women, I(2) = 0%, low-quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.12, 14 RCTs, 1745 women, I(2) = 52%, low-quality evidence). These findings suggest that for a couple with a 13% chance of live birth using FSP, the chance when using IUI will be between 8% and 19%; and that for a couple with a 19% chance of pregnancy using FSP, the chance of pregnancy when using IUI will be between 10% and 20%. Nor was evidence found of a statistically significant difference between IUI and FSP in per-pregnancy of multiple pregnancy (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.07, eight RCTs, 197 women, I(2) = 0%, low-quality evidence), miscarriage (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.53, seven RCTs, 199 women, I(2) = 0%, low-quality evidence) or ectopic pregnancy (OR 1.71, 95% CI 0.42 to 6.88, four RCTs, 111 women, I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence). Substantial heterogeneity was noted for the outcome of clinical pregnancy (I(2) = 54%), for which no clear explanation was provided.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently no clear evidence suggests any difference between IUI and FSP with respect to their effectiveness and safety for treating couples with non-tubal subfertility. However, a high level of uncertainty is evident in the findings, and additional research may be useful.

The M-OVIN study: does switching treatment to FSH and / or IUI lead to higher pregnancy rates in a subset of women with world health organization type II anovulation not conceiving after six ovulatory cycles with clomiphene citrate - a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Clomiphene citrate (CC) is first line treatment in women with World Health Organization (WHO) type II anovulation and polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Whereas 60% to 85% of these women will ovulate on CC, only about one half will have conceived after six cycles. If women do not conceive, treatment can be continued with gonadotropins or intra-uterine insemination (IUI). At present, it is unclear for how many cycles ovulation induction with CC should be repeated, and when to switch to ovulation induction with gonadotropins and/or IUI.

METHODS/DESIGN

We started a multicenter randomised controlled trial in the Netherlands comparing six cycles of CC plus intercourse or six cycles of gonadotrophins plus intercourse or six cycles of CC plus IUI or six cycles of gonadotrophins plus IUI.Women with WHO type II anovulation who ovulate but did not conceive after six ovulatory cycles of CC with a maximum of 150 mg daily for five days will be included.Our primary outcome is birth of a healthy child resulting from a pregnancy that was established in the first eight months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, multiple pregnancy and treatment costs. The analysis will be performed according to the intention to treat principle. Two comparisons will be made, one in which CC is compared to gonadotrophins and one in which the addition of IUI is compared to ovulation induction only. Assuming a live birth rate of 40% after CC, 55% after addition of IUI and 55% after ovulation induction with gonadotrophins, with an alpha of 5% and a power of 80%, we need to recruit 200 women per arm (800 women in total).An independent Data and Safety Monitoring Committee has criticized the data of the first 150 women and concluded that a sample size re-estimation should be performed after including 320 patients (i.e. 80 per arm).

DISCUSSION

The trial will provide evidence on the most effective, safest and most cost effective treatment in women with WHO type II anovulation who do not conceive after six ovulatory cycles with CC with a maximum of 150 mg daily for five days. This evidence could imply the need for changing our guidelines, which may cause a shift in large practice variation to evidence based primary treatment for these women.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Netherlands Trial register NTR1449.

Barriers and facilitators for the implementation of an online clinical health community in addition to usual fertility care: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Online health communities are becoming more popular in health care. Patients and professionals can communicate with one another online, patients can find peer support, and professionals can use it as an additional information channel to their patients. However, the implementation of online health communities into daily practice is challenging. These challenges relate to the fact that patients need to be activated to (1) become a member (ie, subscription) and (2) participate actively within the community before any effect can be expected. Therefore, we aimed at answering 2 research questions: (1) what factors are associated with subscription to an online health community, and (2) which are associated with becoming an active participant within an online health community.

OBJECTIVE

To identify barriers and facilitators as perceived by patients for the implementation of an online health community.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study. Three Dutch fertility clinics (2 IVF-licensed) offered their patients a secure online clinical health community through which clinicians can provide online information and patients can ask questions to the medical team or share experiences and find support from peers. We randomly selected and invited 278 men and women suffering from infertility and attending 1 of the participating clinics. Participants filled out a questionnaire about their background characteristics and current use of the online community. Possible barriers and facilitators were divided into 2 parts: (1) those for subscription to the community, and (2) those for active participation in the community. We performed 2 multivariate logistic regression analyses to calculate determinants for both subscription and active participation.

RESULTS

Subscription appeared to be associated with patients' background characteristics (eg, gender, treatment phase), intervention-related facilitators (odds ratio [OR] 2.45, 95% CI 1.14-5.27), and patient-related barriers (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.08-0.54), such as not feeling the need for such an online health community. After subscription, determinants for participation consisted of aspects related to participant's age (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76-0.97), length of infertility (OR 1.48, 05% CI 1.09-2.02), and to intervention-related facilitators (OR 5.79, 95% CI 2.40-13.98), such as its reliable character and possibility to interact with the medical team and peers.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing an online health community in addition to usual fertility care should be performed stepwise. At least 2 strategies are needed to increase the proportion of patient subscribers and consequently make them active participants. First, the marketing strategy should contain information tailored to different subgroups of the patient population. Second, for a living online health community, incorporation of interactive elements, as well as frequent news and updates are needed. These results imply that involving patients and their needs into the promotion strategy, community's design, and implementation are crucial.

Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic electrocautery of the ovaries versus ovulation induction with recombinant FSH in clomiphene citrate-resistant women with polycystic ovary syndrome: an economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic electrocautery of the ovaries and ovulation induction with gonadotrophins are both second line treatments for women with clomiphene citrate-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Long-term follow-up after electrocautery versus ovulation induction with gonadotrophins has demonstrated at least comparable chances for a first live born child with a reduced need for ovulation induction or assisted reproduction treatment and increased chances for a second live born child. In this study, we report on the long-term economic consequences of both treatment modalities.

METHODS

Between February 1998 and October 2001, we performed a multi-centre randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing a strategy of laparoscopic electrocautery of the ovaries, followed by clomiphene citrate and gonadotrophins when anovulation persisted, and a strategy of ovulation induction with gonadotrophins in women with clomiphene citrate-resistant PCOS. Eight to twelve years after randomization we performed a follow-up study on reproductive outcome in these women and the fertility treatments they had needed including data on direct medical costs of pregnancy and delivery. Clinical data included number of treatment cycles, live births, miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies and multiple pregnancies. We calculated mean costs per woman after randomization until the first live birth. Confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by bootstrapping.

RESULTS

We obtained data for an economic analysis on 159 of the 168 randomized women (95%). In total, 71 of 83 women (86%) allocated to the electrocautery strategy and 69 of 85 women (81%) allocated to the gonadotrophin strategy had at least one live birth. Given the equivalence between the two treatment strategies in terms of a first live birth-the primary outcome measure-our analysis focused on the cost difference between the two strategies within a mean follow-up time of 8-12 years. The mean costs per first live birth after randomization were €11 176 (95% CI: €9689-€12 549) for the electrocautery group and €14 423 (95% CI: €12 239-€16 606) for the recombinant FSH group, resulting in significantly lower costs (P < 0.05) per first live birth for women allocated to the electrocautery group (mean difference €3247; 95% CI: €650-€5814).

CONCLUSION

In women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS, laparoscopic electrocautery of the ovaries results in significantly lower costs per live birth than ovulation induction with gonadotrophins for an at least equal effectiveness.

Intra-uterine insemination for unexplained subfertility

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether, for couples with unexplained subfertility, IUI improves the live birth rate compared with timed intercourse (TI), both with and without ovarian hyperstimulation (OH).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (searched July 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2011), EMBASE (1980 to July 2011), PsycINFO (1806 to July 2011), SCIsearch and reference lists of articles. Authors of identified studies were contacted for missing or unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Truly randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least one of the following comparisons were included: IUI versus TI, both in a natural cycle; IUI versus TI, both in a stimulated cycle; IUI in a natural cycle versus IUI in a stimulated cycle; IUI with OH versus TI in a natural cycle; IUI in a natural cycle versus TI with OH. Only couples with unexplained subfertility were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two review authors. Outcomes were extracted and the data were pooled. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were done where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

One trial compared IUI in a natural cycle with expectant management and showed no evidence of increased live births (334 women: odds ratio (OR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 2.8). In the six trials where IUI was compared with TI, both in stimulated cycles, there was evidence of an increased chance of pregnancy after IUI (six RCTs, 517 women: OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.50). A significant increase in live birth rate was found for women where IUI with OH was compared with IUI in a natural cycle (four RCTs, 396 women: OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.50). However the trials provided insufficient data to investigate the impact of IUI with or without OH on several important outcomes including live births, multiple pregnancies, miscarriage and risk of ovarian hyperstimulation. There was no evidence of a difference in pregnancy rate for IUI with OH compared with TI in a natural cycle (two RCTs, total 304 women: data not pooled). The final comparison of IUI in natural cycle to TI with OH showed a marginal, significant increase in live births for IUI (one RCT, 342 women: OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.44).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that IUI with OH increases the live birth rate compared to IUI alone. The likelihood of pregnancy was also increased for treatment with IUI compared to TI in stimulated cycles. One adequately powered multicentre trial showed no evidence of effect of IUI in natural cycles compared with expectant management. There is insufficient data on multiple pregnancies and other adverse events for treatment with OH. Therefore couples should be fully informed about the risks of IUI and OH as well as alternative treatment options.

Cryo-thawed embryo transfer: natural versus artificial cycle. A non-inferiority trial. (ANTARCTICA trial)

BACKGROUND

Frozen thawed embryo transfer (FET) is a cost-effective adjunct to IVF or IVF-ICSI treatment. In order to optimize treatment outcome, FET should be carried out during a period of optimal endometrial receptivity. To optimize implantation several methods for endometrium preparation have been proposed. In natural cycle FET (NC-FET), the endometrium develops under endogenous hormonal stimulation. The development of the dominant follicle and endometrium is monitored by ultrasound and FET is timed after triggering ovulation induction or determination of the spontaneous LH surge. In an artificial cycle FET (AC-FET) estrogens and progesterone are administered to prepare the endometrium for implantation. While the currently available data show no significant difference in pregnancy rates between these methods, well designed randomized controlled trials are lacking. Moreover there is little literature on difference in cancellation rates, cost-efficiency and adverse events.

METHODS AND DESIGN

In this randomized, multi-centre, non-inferiority trial we aim to test the hypothesis that there is no significant difference in live birth rates between patients undergoing NC-FET versus AC-FET. The primary outcome will be live birth rate per embryo transfer procedure. Secondary outcomes will be ongoing and clinical pregnancy rate, cancellation rate, (serious) adverse events and cost-efficiency. Based on a live birth rate of 20% and a minimal clinical important difference of 7.5% (one-sided alpha 2.5%, beta 20%) a total of 1150 patients will be needed. Analyzes will be performed using both per protocol as well as intention to treat analyses.

DISCUSSION

This prospective, randomized, non-inferiority trial aims to address the hypothesis that there is no significant difference in live birth rates between patients undergoing NC-FET versus patients undergoing AC-FET. Moreover it addresses cost-efficiency as well as the perceived burden of both treatments.

TRIAL REGISTER

Netherlands trial register (NTR): 1586.

Risk of borderline and invasive ovarian tumours after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization in a large Dutch cohort

BACKGROUND

Long-term effects of ovarian stimulation for IVF on the risk of ovarian malignancies are unknown.

METHODS

We identified a nationwide historic cohort of 19,146 women who received IVF treatment in the Netherlands between 1983 and 1995, and a comparison group of 6006 subfertile women not treated with IVF. In 1997-1999, data on reproductive risk factors were obtained from 65% of women and data on subfertility (treatment) were obtained from the medical records. The incidence of ovarian malignancies (including borderline ovarian tumours) through 2007 was assessed through linkage with disease registries. The risk of ovarian malignancies in the IVF group was compared with risks in the general population and the subfertile comparison group.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 14.7 years, the risk of borderline ovarian tumours was increased in the IVF group compared with the general population [standardized incidence ratio (SIR) = 1.76; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.16-2.56]. The overall SIR for invasive ovarian cancer was not significantly elevated, but increased with longer follow-up after first IVF (P = 0.02); the SIR was 3.54 (95% CI = 1.62-6.72) after 15 years. The risks of borderline ovarian tumours and of all ovarian malignancies combined in the IVF group were significantly increased compared with risks in the subfertile comparison group (hazard ratios = 4.23; 95% CI = 1.25-14.33 and 2.14; 95% CI = 1.07-4.25, respectively, adjusted for age, parity and subfertility cause).

CONCLUSIONS

Ovarian stimulation for IVF may increase the risk of ovarian malignancies, especially borderline ovarian tumours. More large cohort studies are needed to confirm these findings and to examine the effect of IVF treatment characteristics.

Synchronised approach for intrauterine insemination in subfertile couples

BACKGROUND

Intrauterine insemination (IUI) should logically be performed around the moment of ovulation. Since spermatozoa and oocytes have only limited survival times correct timing is essential. As it is not known which technique of timing for IUI results in the best treatment outcome, we compared different techniques for timing IUI and different time intervals.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of different synchronisation methods in natural and stimulated cycles for IUI in subfertile couples.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched for all publications which described randomised controlled trials of the timing of IUI. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), (1966 to March 2009), EMBASE (1974 to March 2009) and Science Direct (1966 to March 2009) electronic databases. Furthermore, we checked the reference lists of all obtained studies and performed a handsearch of conference abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only truly randomised controlled trials comparing different timing methods for IUI were included. The following interventions were evaluated: detection of luteinising hormone (LH) in urine or blood, single test; human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration; combination of LH detection and hCG administration; basal body temperature chart; ultrasound detection of ovulation; gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist administration; or other timing methods.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the trials to be included according to the above mentioned criteria. We performed statistical analyses in accordance with the guidelines for statistical analysis developed by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies were included comparing urinary LH surge versus hCG injection; recombinant hCG versus urinary hCG; and hCG versus a GnRH agonist. One study compared the optimum time interval from hCG injection to IUI. The results of these studies showed no significant differences between different timing methods for IUI expressed as live birth rates: hCG versus LH surge (odds ratio (OR) 1.0, 95% CI 0.06 to 18); urinary hCG versus recombinant hCG (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.0); and hCG versus GnRH agonist (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.1). All the secondary outcomes analysed showed no significant differences between treatment groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to advise one particular treatment option over another. The choice should be based on hospital facilities, convenience for the patient, medical staff, costs and drop-out levels. Since different time intervals between hCG and IUI did not result in different pregnancy rates, a more flexible approach might be allowed.

Antigen-specific active immunotherapy for ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in chemotherapy, prognosis of ovarian cancer remains poor. Antigen-specific active immunotherapy aims to induce a tumour-antigen-specific anti-tumour immune responses as an alternative treatment for ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To assess feasibility of antigen-specific active immunotherapy for ovarian cancer. Primary outcomes are clinical efficacy and antigen-specific immunogenicity with carrier-specific immunogenicity and side-effects as secondary outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 3, 2009, Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and clinicaltrials.gov was performed (1966 to July 2009). Hand searches were conducted of the proceedings of relevant annual meetings (1996 to July 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), as well as non-randomised non-controlled studies that included patients with epithelial ovarian cancer, irrespective of stage of disease, and treated with antigen-specific active immunotherapy, irrespective of type of vaccine, antigen used, adjuvant used, route of vaccination, schedule, and reported clinical or immunological outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction was performed independently by two review authors. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Delphi-list for RCTs or a selection of quality domains pivotal to the assessment of non-RCTs and deemed best applicable to the non-randomised non-controlled studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-six studies were included. Response definitions showed substantial variation between trials, which makes comparison of trial results unreliable. Information on adverse events was frequently limited. Furthermore, reports of both RCTs and non-RCTs frequently lacked information necessary to assess risk of bias. Serious biases in these trials can thus not be ruled out.The largest body of evidence is currently available for CA-125 targeted antibody therapy (15 studies: 1505 patients). Non-RCTs of this CA-125 targeted antibody therapy suggest increased survival in humoral and/or cellular responders. However, three large randomised placebo-controlled trials did not show any clinical benefit despite induction of immune responses in approximately 60% of patients.Other small studies targeting many different tumour antigens showed promising immunological results. As these strategies have not yet been tested in RCTs, no reliable inferences about clinical efficacy can be made. Given the promising immunological results, limited side effects and toxicity exploration of clinical efficacy in large well-designed RCTs may be worthwhile.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that despite promising immunological responses no clinically effective antigen-specific active immunotherapy is yet available for ovarian cancer. Furthermore, the adoption of guidelines to ensure uniformity in trial conduct, response definitions and trial reporting is recommended to improve quality and comparability of immunotherapy trials.

Intra-uterine insemination versus fallopian tube sperm perfusion for non-tubal infertility

BACKGROUND

Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) combined with intrauterine insemination (IUI) is commonly offered to couples with subfertility that does not involve the fallopian tubes. Another method is fallopian tube sperm perfusion (FSP). This technique ensures the presence of higher sperm densities in the fallopian tubes at the time of ovulation than does standard IUI. The aim of this review was to determine whether FSP and IUI differ in improving the probability of conception.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether pregnancy and live birth outcomes differ between fallopian tube sperm perfusion and intrauterine insemination in the treatment of non-tubal subfertility.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (October 2008), MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2008), and EMBASE (January 1988 to October 2008). Abstracts of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (1987 to 2008) and European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (1987 to 2008) meetings were searched using the same key or text words.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only truly randomised controlled studies comparing FSP with IUI were included in this review. Couples with non-tubal subfertility who have been trying to conceive for at least one year were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the trials for inclusion based on the quality of the studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies involving 595 couples were included in the meta-analysis. Only one study reported the live birth rate and there was no evidence of a difference between FSP and IUI (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.5). There was no evidence of a difference between FSP and IUI for clinical pregnancy per couple (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.7). A subgroup analysis which included couples with unexplained subfertility only (n = 239) did not report any difference between FSP and IUI (OR 1.6, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.8).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For non-tubal subfertility, the results indicate no clear benefit for FSP over IUI. Therefore the advice offered to subfertile couples regarding the comparative use of FSP versus IUI in the treatment of non-tubal subfertility should reflect this.

Should luteal phase support be introduced in ovarian stimulation/IUI programmes? An evidence-based review

World-wide, intrauterine insemination (IUI) is still one of the most applied techniques to enhance the probability of conception in couples with longstanding subfertility. The outcome of this treatment option depends on many confounding factors. One of the confounding factors receiving little attention is the quality of the luteal phase. From IVF studies, it is known that ovarian stimulation causes luteal phase deficiency. Based on the best available evidence, this short review summarizes the indications for mild ovarian stimulation combined with IUI and the optimal stimulation programme. While it has been established that stimulated IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles have deficient luteal phases, the question remains whether the quality of the luteal phase when only two or three corpora lutea are present (as is the case in stimulated IUI cycles) is impaired as well. There are too few large non-IVF trials studying luteal phase quality to answer this question. Recently a randomized trial has been published that investigated luteal phase support in an IUI programme. This study is discussed in detail. It is recommended to apply luteal phase support in stimulated IUI cycles only when proven costeffective. Further trials are mandatory to investigate both endometrial and hormonal profile changes in the luteal phase after mild ovarian stimulation, and the cost-effectiveness of luteal support in IUI programmes.

Intra-uterine insemination for male subfertility

BACKGROUND

Intra-uterine insemination (IUI) is one of the most frequently used fertility treatments for couples with male subfertility. Its use, especially when combined with ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) has been subject of discussion. Although the treatment itself is less invasive and expensive than others, its efficacy has not been proven. Furthermore, the adverse effects of OH such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS ) and multiple pregnancy are a concern.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to determine whether for couples with male subfertility, IUI improves the live birth rates or ongoing pregnancy rates compared with timed intercourse (TI), with or without OH.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual and Disorders Subfertility Group Trials Special Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library, 2006, issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2006), EMBASE (1980 to May 2006), SCIsearch and the reference lists of articles. We hand searched abstracts of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology. Authors of identified articles were contacted for unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCT's) with at least one of the following comparisons were included: 1) IUI versus TI or expectant management both in natural cycles 2) IUI versus TI both in cycles with OH 3) IUI in natural cycles versus TI + OH 4) IUI + OH versus TI in natural cycles 5) IUI in natural cycles versus IUI + OH. Couples with abnormal sperm parameters only were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two co-reviewers independently performed quality assessment and data extraction. Where possible data were pooled, and a meta-analysis was performed. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were carried out where possible and appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials of parallel design, and five trials of cross-over design with pre-cross-over data were included in the meta-analysis. Three compared IUI with TI both in stimulated cycles. The remaining four of these studies compared IUI versus IUI + OH . Three studies reported on our main outcome of interest live birth rate per couple. For the comparison IUI versus TI both in natural cycles no evidence of difference between the probabilities of pregnancy rates per woman after IUI compared with TI was found (Peto OR 5.3, 95% CI 0.42 to 67). No statistically significant of difference between pregnancy rates (PR) per couple for IUI + OH versus IUI could be found (Peto OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.37). For the comparison IUI versus TI both in stimulated cycles there was no evidence of statistically significant difference in pregnancy rates per couple either (Peto OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.83 to 3.37). There were insufficient data available for adverse outcomes such as OHSS, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage rate and ectopic pregnancy to perform a statistical analysis. For the other two comparisons no RCT's were found which reported pregnancy rates per couple. A further 10 studies which included one of the comparisons of interests were found. Since these studies reported pregnancy rates per cycle only these data could not be included in the meta-analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence of effectiveness to recommend or advise against IUI with or without OH above TI, or vice versa. Large, high quality randomised controlled trials, comparing IUI with or without OH with pregnancy rate per couple as the main outcome of interest are lacking. There is a need for such trials since firm conclusions cannot be drawn yet.

Semen preparation techniques for intrauterine insemination

BACKGROUND

Semen preparation techniques for assisted reproduction, including intrauterine insemination (IUI), were developed to separate the motile morphological normal spermatozoa. Leucocytes, bacteria and dead spermatozoa produce oxygen radicals that negatively influence the ability to fertilize the egg. The yield of as many motile, morphologically normal spermatozoa as possible might influence treatment choices and therefore outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of gradient, swim-up, or wash and centrifugation semen preparation techniques on clinical outcome in subfertile couples undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (13 January 2007), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2007 ), EMBASE (1980 to January 2007), Science Direct Database (1966 to January 2007), National Research Register (2000 to 2007), Biological Abstracts (2000 to January 2007), CINAHL (1982 to October 2006) and reference lists of relevant articles. We also contacted experts and authors in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of semen preparation techniques used for subfertile couples undergoing IUI in terms of clinical outcome were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewer authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Five RCTs, including 262 couples in total, were included in the meta-analysis (Dodson 1998; Grigoriou 2005; Posada 2005; Soliman 2005; Xu 2000). Xu compared the three techniques; Soliman compared a gradient technique versus a wash technique; Dodson and Posada compared a gradient technique versus a swim-up technique; whereas Grigoriou compared swim-up versus a wash technique. No trials reported the primary outcome of live birth. There was no evidence of a difference between pregnancy rates (PR) for swim-up versus a gradient or wash and centrifugation technique (Peto OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.32; Peto OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.10, respectively); nor in the two studies comparing a gradient technique versus wash and centrifugation (Peto OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 5.44). There was no evidence of a difference in the miscarriage rate (MR) in two studies comparing swim-up versus a gradient technique (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.33).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to recommend any specific preparation technique. Large high quality randomised controlled trials, comparing the effectiveness of a gradient and/ or a swim-up and/ or wash and centrifugation technique on clinical outcome are lacking. Further randomised trials are warranted.

Intra-uterine insemination for male subfertility

BACKGROUND

Intra-uterine insemination (IUI) is one of the most frequently used fertility treatments for couples with male subfertility. Its use, especially when combined with ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) has been subject of discussion. Although the treatment itself is less invasive and expensive than others, its efficacy has not been proven. Furthermore, the adverse effects of OH such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS ) and multiple pregnancy are a concern.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to determine whether for couples with male subfertility, IUI improves the live birth rates or ongoing pregnancy rates compared with timed intercourse (TI), with or without OH.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual and Disorders Subfertility Group Trials Special Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library, 2006, issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2006), EMBASE (1980 to May 2006), SCIsearch and the reference lists of articles. We hand searched abstracts of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology. Authors of identified articles were contacted for unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCT's) with at least one of the following comparisons were included: 1) IUI versus TI or expectant management both in natural cycles 2) IUI versus TI both in cycles with OH 3) IUI in natural cycles versus TI + OH 4) IUI + OH versus TI in natural cycles 5) IUI in natural cycles versus IUI + OH Couples with abnormal sperm parameters only were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two co-reviewers independently performed quality assessment and data extraction. Where possible data were pooled, and a meta-analysis was performed. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were carried out where possible and appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials of parallel design, and five trials of cross-over design with pre-cross-over data were included in the meta-analysis. Three compared IUI with TI both in stimulated cycles. The remaining four of these studies compared IUI versus IUI + OH . Three studies reported on our main outcome of interest live birth rate per couple. For the comparison IUI versus TI both in natural cycles no evidence of difference between the probabilities of pregnancy rates per woman after IUI compared with TI was found (Peto OR 5.3, 95% CI 0.42 to 67). No statistically significant of difference between pregnancy rates (PR) per couple for IUI + OH versus IUI could be found (Peto OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.37). For the comparison IUI versus TI both in stimulated cycles there was no evidence of statistically significant difference in pregnancy rates per couple either (Peto OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.83 to 3.37). There were insufficient data available for adverse outcomes such as OHSS, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage rate and ectopic pregnancy to perform a statistical analysis. For the other two comparisons no RCT's were found which reported pregnancy rates per couple. A further 10 studies which included one of the comparisons of interests were found. Since these studies reported pregnancy rates per cycle only these data could not be included in the meta-analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence of effectiveness to recommend or advise against IUI with or without OH above TI, or vice versa. Large, high quality randomised controlled trials, comparing IUI with or without OH with pregnancy rate per couple as the main outcome of interest are lacking. There is a need for such trials since firm conclusions cannot be drawn yet.

Ovarian stimulation protocols (anti-oestrogens, gonadotrophins with and without GnRH agonists/antagonists) for intrauterine insemination (IUI) in women with subfertility

BACKGROUND

Intrauterine insemination (IUI) combined with ovarian hyperstimulation (OH) has been demonstrated to be an effective form of treatment for subfertile couples. Several ovarian stimulation protocols combined with IUI have been proposed, but it is still not clear which stimulation protocol and which dose is the most cost-effective.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate ovarian stimulation protocols for intrauterine insemination for all indications.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched for all publications which described randomised controlled trials comparing different ovarian stimulation protocols followed by IUI. We searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's Central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). We searched the electronic databases of MEDLINE (January 1966 to present) and EMBASE (1980 to present).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials only were considered for inclusion in this review. Trials comparing different ovarian stimulation protocols combined with IUI were selected and reviewed in detail.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors independently assess trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty three trials involving 3957 women were included. There were 11 comparisons in this review. Pregnancy rates are reported here since results of live birth rates were lacking. Seven studies (n = 556) were pooled comparing gonadotrophins with anti-oestrogens showing significant higher pregnancy rates with gonadotrophins (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.7). Five studies (n = 313) compared anti-oestrogens with aromatase inhibitors reporting no significant difference (OR 1.2 95% CI 0.64 to 2.1). The same could be concluded comparing different types of gonadotrophins (9 studies included, n = 576). Four studies (n = 391) reported the effect of adding a GnRH agonist which did not improve pregnancy rates (OR 0.98 95% CI 0.6 to 1.6), although it resulted in significant higher multiple pregnancy rates (OR 2.9 95% CI 1.0 to 8). Data of three studies (n = 299) showed no convincing evidence of adding a GnRH antagonist to gonadotrophins (OR 1.5 95% CI 0.83 to 2.8). The results of two studies (n = 297) reported no evidence of benefit in doubling the dose of gonadotrophins (OR 1.2 95% 0.67 to 1.9) although the multiple pregnancy rates and OHSS rates were increased. For the remaining five comparisons only one or none studies were included.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Robust evidence is lacking but based on the available results gonadotrophins might be the most effective drugs when IUI is combined with ovarian hyperstimulation. When gonadotrophins are applied it might be done on a daily basis. When gonadotrophins are used for ovarian stimulation low dose protocols are advised since pregnancy rates do not differ from pregnancy rates which result from high dose regimen, whereas the chances to encounter negative effects from ovarian stimulation such as multiples and OHSS are limited with low dose gonadotrophins. Further research is needed for each comparison made.

A randomized clinical trial of clomiphene citrate versus low dose recombinant FSH for ovarian hyperstimulation in intrauterine insemination cycles for unexplained and male subfertility

BACKGROUND

Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with intrauterine insemination (IUI) is a widely accepted treatment for unexplained and male subfertility. No consensus exists about the drug of first choice to be used as hyperstimulation. This randomized multicentre trial using a parallel design compares the efficacy of clomiphene citrate (CC) with that of recombinant FSH (rFSH).

METHODS

Couples with primary unexplained or male subfertility were randomized to receive CC or rFSH for ovarian hyperstimulation. The treatment was continued for up to four cycles unless pregnancy occurred. Cycles with more than three follicles were cancelled. Cumulative pregnancy rates and live birth rates were primary outcomes. Cancellation during treatment and multiple birth rates are secondary outcomes. Results were analysed following the intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

Seventy couples with male subfertility and 68 couples with unexplained subfertility were included. Seventy-one women received CC, and 67 received rFSH. Twenty-seven pregnancies were observed in the CC group (38%) and 23 in the rFSH group (34.3%) relative risk (RR) 1.11 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.71-1.73]. The live birth rate was 28.2% (20/71) and 26.9% (18/67) for CC and rFSH, respectively, RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.61-1.80). Overall, the live birth rates per cycle were 10% for CC-stimulated and 8.7% for rFSH stimulated cycles. The total multiple pregnancy rate was 6.0%. Thirty-five cycles (8.6%) were cancelled because of four or more follicles (CC, n = 17; rFSH, n = 18).

CONCLUSIONS

In couples with primary unexplained or male subfertility participating in an IUI program, ovarian hyperstimulation can be achieved by CC or rFSH. No significant difference in live birth rates between CC and rFSH was observed. Being less expensive, CC seems the more cost-effective drug and therefore, can be offered as drug of first choice.